And you expect a border guard to be the one to make that determination on the spot at the border? Mitigating circumstances are why the waiver system exists.
If you've been in prison for any reason you shouldn't expect to be let in without a hassle regardless of the crime. Someone is going to have to look at the situation carefully and make a decision.
The conviction for a serious federal offence I think probably flagged him in the DB ... would be a reasonable reason for this. I don't think there's any scandal here.
The scandal to me (unrelated to Chelsea directly) is that Canada CBP has higher level access in the US NCIC than most domestic law enforcement agencies.
How do you get that from the letter posted? The letter claims she admitted she was incarcerated. That said its no surprise Canada and the USA share their criminal record databases. At least on the Canadian side its been a point of controversy around granted pardons which the US does not recognize.
Could you possibly expand a bit more on what sort of data in excess of normal law enforcement agencies is shared? I certainly don't want to pry on the situation you are thinking of specifically, but I am curious about the subject on a macro level.
On the Canadian side this debate is normally painted as the Americans wanting yet more data. So of course I am curious to hear the debate from the opposite side.
These dismissive comments are unhelpful. The nice thing about HN is substantive discussion can happen, whereas I rarely expect it elsewhere. But preemptive comments like yours can prevent this from happening.
I'm definitely not a journalist. I think it's reasonable to refer to someone as their actual gender during an actual event , it would seem rather more accurate, no? Also, as long as people are being reasonable I don't think we remotely need that level of language policing.
The biological one. I'm fine with using a social construct and even embedding it into law. But let's not pretend biology doesn't exist. There is an 'actual' gender.
There is a multi-dimensional spectrum of biological characteristics commonly used to define "gender", true enough. If 'actual' gender means a binary choice, that's a social construct that disagrees with physical, biological reality.
What about people with both testes and ovaries? If those were working flawlessly, they would produce eggs and sperm. Your definition labels them female. If you're happy with that, good for you, but it seems misleading to simply label such a person "female" based on egg production.
If you'd like to exclude such people from your definition, and restrict it to people who are (for want of a better term) "stereotypical" male or female, that seems like a circular definition.
My definition in wrong in the same sense that Newtonian physics are wrong. How many people have lived with working ovaries and testes? These extreme conditions do not create a different sex. My definition is good enough.
It certainly is good enough for you, if you say it is. It's not good enough for me (and not good enough for people who don't neatly fall into it; luckily for them your simple personal definition isn't the legal definition in many societies), but fortunately I (and you, I assume) are happy existing in a world in which other people have different ideas (many of course are not, and would happily burn people who don't fit neatly into this definition).
Given the problems we see in society, this definition is clearly not good enough for everyone and not good enough to satisfactorily deal with the problems arising; I might wonder what use a definition is if it doesn't actually guide us in solving problems. Perhaps this definition must be compromised when encountering reality in these situations.
I am ready to accept a better definition, but I have not seen one. I understand that many people will not be happy with my definition, but I don't have to respect their wishes; some will be reasonable, some will be madness.
In the case in point my definition works well. Manning is a great hero of mankind and I thank him for is sacrifice. However, when he says he is a woman now no one has to accept that because a) he is obviouly a man and b) he is obviously mentally unwell (just read his tweets). For me it would be cruel reinforce the delusions of a troubled mind.
I don't see any problems in our society that require pretending that man are women. What are you talking about?
I am ready to accept a better definition, but I have not seen one.
Why do you need one? Why not just accept reality as it is - that reality simply doesn't match the simple, "everyone is a man or a woman" model? Sure, sometimes reality is just too complex to work with and we need to create a simplified model of it to work with, but this really isn't a complicated concept.
What are you talking about?
I'm talking about the wider problems caused by refusing to accept reality; gender segregated facilities, for example, that cater only to those who fit neatly into a binary definition. Problems caused by legislating, for example, that the only acceptable genders of record are "male" and "female", and in doing so excluding people who don't fit. Those kinds of problems.
In which some people fall. This definition seems to exclude many people from the definition completely. If you're happy with that, good for you; many people aren't happy with it and find this binary label system just doesn't work when applied to the world of actual people.
Uhh, people who transition don't really enjoy being referred to as their previous gender they struggled with. So that's an empathy/common decency thing not to do that.
But this is HN and we like not to consider empathy here (no offence, I exhibit this exact thought pattern too), we need a "logical" explanation. So what about: a person with a third arm does not have that defect anymore after it is surgically removed. You won't refer to someone like that as a person with 3 arms, for a couple of reasons.
Gender expression is how people show their gender to others.
Gender identity is how people identify.
(gender disphoria is a mismatch between gender expression and gender identity)
It's possible that at the time of disclosures, Manning would already identify herself as woman, even if her gender expression was entirely masculine. Using the feminine gender is a matter of respect.
If he identified as 'he' then, then he get's a 'he' when I'm discussing facts about the story when they did that action, objectively.
We don't alter history because of how someone possibly may have felt at the time. We don't know how 'he or she' may have internally identified back then.
Esp. because we're talking actual, objective facts, and not 'to them' or whatever, I think it's reasonably to use the gender that they used to identify to the world at that point.
I also think it's a little absurd the level of linguistic policing we have to get in. I think that we're only scratching the surface of how far you could take it.
Point - your language is fairly 'gender binary normative' - and a bunch of people are now even offended by that. There's so many ways to 'identify'.
The Uni of Oxford student union is now recommending that you haver use 'gendered pronouns' i.e. 'he/she' until the person you are talking about has specifically expressed to you their gender preference.
Meaning - that person with a big beard, beer belly, deep voice name 'Joe' - you can't say 'he' - until he has specifically told you 'he prefers' 'he'. Or you're 'not being respectful'.
It's getting absurd.
Manning seems to identify as a 'she', I'll have no problem referring to her as 'she' if I see her or talk about her presently - but I'm really not interested in being policed or moralized beyond that.
The purpose of pronouns is to serve as a shorthand for the actual name (the "noun" in "pronoun"). Instead of saying "Chelsey Manning said this, then Chelsey Manning did that" you just say "She said this, then she did that".
If the etiquette rules for pronouns are confusing, just use the same rule you would use for any other name. For example, you would say "Pope Francis used to work as a nightclub bouncer" even though he was called Jorge Bergoglio at the time.
43 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 42.3 ms ] threadTreason is more like blasphemy or copyright infringement.
If you've been in prison for any reason you shouldn't expect to be let in without a hassle regardless of the crime. Someone is going to have to look at the situation carefully and make a decision.
I think you skipped over the above or maybe I wasn’t clear, I didn’t mean to imply the letter said that, I have first hand knowledge to my statement.
On the Canadian side this debate is normally painted as the Americans wanting yet more data. So of course I am curious to hear the debate from the opposite side.
I'm definitely not a journalist. I think it's reasonable to refer to someone as their actual gender during an actual event , it would seem rather more accurate, no? Also, as long as people are being reasonable I don't think we remotely need that level of language policing.
What actual gender? You mean legal sex/gender (which is a form of externally-ascribed gender)?
Or do you mean gender identity and, if so, on what basis do you assess it?
The biological one. I'm fine with using a social construct and even embedding it into law. But let's not pretend biology doesn't exist. There is an 'actual' gender.
Where does this disagree with physical, biological reality?
There is a binary category in which you fall into that defines if you can procreate with the other or not.
If you'd like to exclude such people from your definition, and restrict it to people who are (for want of a better term) "stereotypical" male or female, that seems like a circular definition.
Given the problems we see in society, this definition is clearly not good enough for everyone and not good enough to satisfactorily deal with the problems arising; I might wonder what use a definition is if it doesn't actually guide us in solving problems. Perhaps this definition must be compromised when encountering reality in these situations.
In the case in point my definition works well. Manning is a great hero of mankind and I thank him for is sacrifice. However, when he says he is a woman now no one has to accept that because a) he is obviouly a man and b) he is obviously mentally unwell (just read his tweets). For me it would be cruel reinforce the delusions of a troubled mind.
I don't see any problems in our society that require pretending that man are women. What are you talking about?
Why do you need one? Why not just accept reality as it is - that reality simply doesn't match the simple, "everyone is a man or a woman" model? Sure, sometimes reality is just too complex to work with and we need to create a simplified model of it to work with, but this really isn't a complicated concept.
What are you talking about?
I'm talking about the wider problems caused by refusing to accept reality; gender segregated facilities, for example, that cater only to those who fit neatly into a binary definition. Problems caused by legislating, for example, that the only acceptable genders of record are "male" and "female", and in doing so excluding people who don't fit. Those kinds of problems.
In which some people fall. This definition seems to exclude many people from the definition completely. If you're happy with that, good for you; many people aren't happy with it and find this binary label system just doesn't work when applied to the world of actual people.
'Sex' is their biology.
I usually do 'gender' - which is an identity thing, I mean, that's the polite thing to do.
But Manning was a 'he' when the disclosures happened, so when talking about that, I usually use 'he'. It seems fair to me.
But this is HN and we like not to consider empathy here (no offence, I exhibit this exact thought pattern too), we need a "logical" explanation. So what about: a person with a third arm does not have that defect anymore after it is surgically removed. You won't refer to someone like that as a person with 3 arms, for a couple of reasons.
Gender identity is how people identify.
(gender disphoria is a mismatch between gender expression and gender identity)
It's possible that at the time of disclosures, Manning would already identify herself as woman, even if her gender expression was entirely masculine. Using the feminine gender is a matter of respect.
We don't alter history because of how someone possibly may have felt at the time. We don't know how 'he or she' may have internally identified back then.
Esp. because we're talking actual, objective facts, and not 'to them' or whatever, I think it's reasonably to use the gender that they used to identify to the world at that point.
I also think it's a little absurd the level of linguistic policing we have to get in. I think that we're only scratching the surface of how far you could take it.
Point - your language is fairly 'gender binary normative' - and a bunch of people are now even offended by that. There's so many ways to 'identify'.
The Uni of Oxford student union is now recommending that you haver use 'gendered pronouns' i.e. 'he/she' until the person you are talking about has specifically expressed to you their gender preference.
Meaning - that person with a big beard, beer belly, deep voice name 'Joe' - you can't say 'he' - until he has specifically told you 'he prefers' 'he'. Or you're 'not being respectful'.
It's getting absurd.
Manning seems to identify as a 'she', I'll have no problem referring to her as 'she' if I see her or talk about her presently - but I'm really not interested in being policed or moralized beyond that.
If the etiquette rules for pronouns are confusing, just use the same rule you would use for any other name. For example, you would say "Pope Francis used to work as a nightclub bouncer" even though he was called Jorge Bergoglio at the time.