Compare this story about how the traitorous Bradley Chelsea Pvt. Manning is in line for expedited medical services for his sex change -- at what is certain to be enormous taxpayer expense -- with this story about how, supposedly for lack of funds, veterans who fought for their country get wait-listed to die.
Then tell me the world is not upside-down.
And so continues C&C's string of trans-phobic posts. You can criticize taxpayer-funded sexual reassignment surgery without belittling transgendered people with sarcastic strike-throughs and continued use of masculine pronouns for someone who you know identifies as female.
Pvt. Manning -- whether Bradley or Chelsea or Joe or Jane -- is but a sub-set of the much bigger set of We're-Not-Really-Criminals-We're-Victims. Only I'm not buying it, no matter what the subset du jour is.
Manning wants the taxpayers to foot the bill for something he was unwilling to pay for himself before his conviction. Sorry, no dice. The criminal owes a debt to society, not the other way around, and Manning is as much of a criminal as you'll find. Although you carefully omit mentioning it, he committed espionage against his country while a member of the Army.
He used his transgender claim at trial just the way you're using it now -- to go on offense, excuse himself, and blame society for his rancid and treacherous behavior.
Lastly, I don't feel bound in writing my posts by how Pvt. Manning "identifies." I don't base my analysis of what is and is not a prudent use of taxpayer resources on the sexual identity of the defendant, either his version of it on anyone else's.
Brave men in the armed services fought for their country at the very moment Manning was betraying it. That he should get to muscle ahead of them in the line for taxpayer-funded medical services is, to my way of thinking, appalling. You are free to disagree. But if you think I'm going to be bullied by The Great Lord of Sensitivity, you're going to be disappointed.
I am all about tolerance, but there's nothing intolerant about noting the true sex of someone. I frankly don't care about guys wearing dresses or what have you. I have my own life to live, and it's a free country.
In any event, the thrust of the post is about the appalling treatment of veterans by the VA and the solicitousness of the Pentagon towards Bradley/Chelsea Manning. I note that you had nothing to say about that.
Unemployedjd,
If I "self-identify" as an orange, am I an orange and is your refusal to call me an orange bigotry/belittling?
Bradley Manning is 100% male. It is science and no amount of "preference" on your part or his can change basic scientific fact. Hormones cannot change it. Surgical mutilation cannot change it. It is in his DNA.
Just as I've suspected all these years: You're an orange.
Or, even worse, you root for the Orange.
The basic point is well taken - the treatment of Veterans by the VA compared to Manning's desire for gender reassignment surgery. There shouldn't be any debate about where the priority should be.
As to what is the appropriate pronoun to use to me is really irrelevant in this context. Whether Manning is really male or female is probably a combination of a medical / grammar question. I guess I don't care either way.
And yes I do root for the Orange (SSyracuse is wife's alma mater)