Let's hope the media doesn't tear her apart.
Lets cut through all the noise and look at the President's uncut opinion on net neutrality.
>Donald J. Trump Verified account
>Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media
So there, that's what about one third of the country are led to believe about net neutrality. Just like with all the fake news recently, facts and rebuttals don't help one bit, and make the believers believe even more in their own "facts".
Good luck getting Breitbart and conservative radio on board with NN, they are fundamentally opposed to anything Obama did, plus are skeptical of govt regulations and there is a lot of money to be made from the cable industry fight on NN.
But if anything net neutrality protects the voices of smaller media which, other than fox, many conservative media e.g. breitbart fall into that category. CNN wouldn't like it but they could pay for a network fast lane, Alex Jones or TheBlaze wouldn't nearly be able to compete!
That whole argument makes no sense, but given where it comes from one of Trump's advisers probably whispered it into his ear.
The worst thing that can happen to a cause is some crazy jackass being held up by the media as the spokesperson.
I was on board for the tea party until the media grabbed a few nut bags and made them the de facto spokespeople for the cause. It was purely about limited government until it got co-opted.
They get to pick the person who they hand the microphone to and they will pick the craziest bat-shit insane person for that role if they don't like what your selling.
I'm just speaking from experience.
For what its worth, I have family that believe like grandparent's family. Your anecdotes cannot convince them or me what their beliefs really are. This line of opinion does exist.
You can dress it up with whatever fancy logic you want, HN commenters are as bias and unthinking as any others.
Empirically, this is true.
If those many people are wrong on net neutrality because they do not understand the issues, why is it that HN commenters are the biased and unthinking ones?
If you put the fingers in your ears and sing lalala i cant hear you- you end what might have been a discussion. I found most conservatives i met not to reactionary dictator supporters. They are just people with reasonable concerns, finding and in constant fear of some radical social discussion dominance bombers showing up shutting any chance on discussion with a warcrime down.
For one thing she is certainly more credible not being in prison.
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvRQDsH0Yho )
For anyone else wondering where this is coming from.
He was never going to do it in the first place. Do you really think that a president would reverse a pardon if Julian Assange did not stand by his words?
>He was never going to do it in the first place.
That is what I was implying. Julian didn't think Obama would actually commute the sentence so said he'd turn himself in for free PR points.
Maybe not. But I don't think he decided to spend 3-4 years in the Ecuadorian UK embassy because he's having fun there.
To my knowledge, that ist what he is wanted for in Sweden. If there is a better way to express that, I would like to hear it.
I have now listened to the whole thing and there seems to be no mention of that offer as far as I can tell. So either I missed it, you mistakenly linked the wrong interview, this is anti-Assange Propaganda you hope nobody is going to check too closely, or it is guerilla marketing for the intercept.
It seems to me to be too little (clemency instead of a pardon) too late (she already spent a horrific amount of time under torturous conditions in prison).
> After the 2013 sentencing, the ex-intelligence agent changed her name to Chelsea Manning and identified as transgender.
Enlisted MI are hardly 'intelligence agents'.
Edit: NBC reports it as voluntary excess leave. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/chelsea-manning-set-be-r...
Thank you Chelsea, welcome home
3am?! A parting kick to the head, or a ploy to avoid publicity?
I would like to go as early as possible. 3 am is not as good as immediately at midnight, but I wouldn't consider it a kick to the head.
I guess there are more trans people than informants so maybe there's some statistical point to be made there, but frankly I'm not sure why you picked this nit to begin with. I think it's important to recognize, rather than downplay the risks faced by marginalized groups in the US and elsewhere.
Similarly, if you go on social media to make posts about how being trans is not as dangerous as people seem to be implying, even if it contains a grain of statistical truth, you are making a certain point. Again, I think it's important to "photograph" the oppression faced by marginalized groups than to highlight ways this oppression is supposedly exaggerated.
Your point about my poisoning the well suggests you think I was trying to "call you out" or attack you, but that's not the case. I think we have a reasonable meta-disagreement about whether there is a political knock-on effect of highlighting different statistics or narratives. It's a disagreement two people of good faith can have.
As a Dutch person I was very confused for a minute, but then I remembered there are indeed lawfully killed people in other countries.
(And while writing this, I remembered euthanesia is legal here, but that's not killing in my mind because the person chose it for themselves and the given reason cannot be an external, solvable condition.)
I worried about all these things and all I was doing was coming out as gay. And I live in the UK, which has strong legal protection against discrimination on the basis of sexuality and gender, and a relatively accepting culture.
I can only imagine it was a thousand times worse to come out as trans. Or even to understand it in yourself - again, this took me years and I was "merely" discovering that I was gay.
(This study also omits the large proportion of transgendered folks who never get reassignation surgery and instead opt for HRT, or even no treatment whatsoever.)
But you don't care about that, of course. This post is for the people you would otherwise offend and hurt out of some peculiarity.
Here's some more reading: https://www.hrc.org/resources/violence-against-the-transgend... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unlawfully_killed_tran...
Then when you get wounded you call a airstrike and eliminate the village.
One has to give it to the drone warriors- at least they send the commando duke of hazards to the unemployment office.
I hate this whole walking on eggshells around gender/identity politics. It detracts from the discussion for no valid reason.
I don't go out of my way to be insensitive, but I'm not going to flush my DVD of The Matrix down the Memory Hole because it has "Wachowski Brothers" stamped on it. If the Wachowskis put out a new movie today, I'll reference them appropriately as the Wachowski sisters who produced it, but they simply weren't sisters when they created The Matrix, and I'll continue to reference the creators of that movie as brothers.
I saw a similar rewriting of history upstream in this thread, and I just can't let that slide. In fact, this is an edge case where nobody is right or wrong, so there can really be no "correction" to call out. Someone (Manning) changed the rules mid-game, so it must be expected and tolerated that not everyone will parse the output of the remainder of the game to their liking.
For instance, when Muhammad Ali won a gold medal in the 1960 Olympics and the heavyweight title in 1964, he was still going by his "slave name" of Cassius Clay; do you think it is reasonable - either for anyone or for someone who watched the matches at the time - to refer to the 1964 heavyweight champion as Cassius Clay, or should they just call him Muhammad Ali?
Women also frequently change their name, sometimes more than once, throughout their lives; if a woman marries and takes the name of her husband, or divorces and resumes use of her maiden name, would you continue to refer to her by her former name, even in reference to events that took place during her use of it, or would you simply update your nomenclature without complaint?
Until then, I'm afraid that there's not really a whole heck of a lot that's respectful about your disagreement. Trans folks as a whole overwhelmingly evince preference for not having their prior name or gender identity thrown around and trans folks very regularly remain in the closet publicly even when they are out to friends and family, making your assumptions based on...well, not a whole heck of a lot. Unless you've read something I haven't (totally possible, but you'll forgive me if I doubt it), you have no idea of timing or the propriety here and so the presumption of her gender identity at that point is kinda actually really mean. You may have good intentions, but you're pissing in the pool and you should stop.
>this is an edge case where nobody is right or wrong
It's not some sort of edge case, the "right," (polite) way to refer to someone is the way they prefer to be refereed as. If someone named James introduces themselves as "Jimmy" and you refer to him as "James" and he says "it's Jimmy" and you say "Nuh uh your name on your birth certificate is James, you're wrong I'm right!!" you are just being a dick.
People change what they like to be called during their life all the time, that's not new nor is it an edge case. Kid nicknames go to the wayside of adult names/nicknames. I've known a "Peggie" who changed to "Margaret," an "Anthony" who changed to "Tony," and a "Robbie" who is now "Bob." In fact, many/most women change their name at some point in the future. It's normal/accepted/polite to call someone by their current name/pronoun even when referring to past actions.
If I recall a childhood story about my friend Tony I'm going to call him Tony in the story even if he went by Anthony at the time. It's weird/confusing/stupid to do otherwise and certainly not "rewriting history" or "changing the rules."
This only follows if the value of "not saying something that would be offensive to someone who isn't even party to the conversation" (a value which we violate without a second thought, sometimes even gleefully, when it doesn't involve an anointed "social justice" issue) outweighs the value of "communicating clearly and accurately". Chelsea Manning was named Bradley Manning. She was male, at least as far as anyone else was concerned.
It's one thing to request that people call you by a certain name and pronoun now - it's quite another to insist that everyone pretend it has always been thus.
Nobody is disagreeing with that. But using 'he' as a pronoun, even for things in the past, is weird and confusing. Do you call Marilyn Monroe 'Norma Jeane Mortenson' when talking about her childhood? No, of course not, because that confuse people.
Manning has been Chelsea and used 'she' for 4 years now, people now know her as a woman, and it makes sense to use that pronoun. Back in 2013, when Manning first came out as trans, maybe it would be alright to say 'Bradley' for a day or two when talking about her transition. But not now.
> it's quite another to insist that everyone pretend it has always been thus.
Quite frankly, it feel like you're just doing this to be transphobic and invalidate her identity.
Who is gunning trans (just because they are trans)?
> Though a federal hate crimes law requires the collection of some statistics related to violence against transgender people, experts are dubious about the numbers they're getting. “A lot of jurisdictions report zeroes, even in places where we know there are hate crimes," Keisling says. Most state laws don't require the collection of such statistics, according to Minter.
Given the high incidence of sexual violence against transgender persons (https://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html) it certainly seems likely the murder rate is similarly high. There's a "one-in-twelve" stat that appears to have gone around, but it's not true: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/may/13/garne...
Because of the media, power balances, legalities etc of US life, they obviously wouldn't be doing them in an open Third World/Banana Republic style (where, depending on the country/political climate, the state doesn't hesitate much to semi-openly get rid of enemies and more or less everybody knows they did it).
Because people who would be targets of political murders don't die at a statistically unusual rate. Unless you think they are also being secretly replaced with more pliant clones/cyborgs or we are all just copied over to a less unruly simulation. Then it would be harder to know.
They don't have to be well known people that you would identify as targets. In fact those would be the worst to target. They could be potential whistleblowers you never learned of, for example.
That said, sticking to well known people that could be targets, there's a large variety of those to e.g. MLK Jr, Malcom X, JFK, Robert Kennedy -- to name but a few in a single decade's span.
Some of them, we don't know who did them at all (e.g. MLK).
But even if that was the case, it's not difficult to manipulate a "crazy" to do something, especially if you have both crazies and guns in abundance in a country.
It would be a nice way to avoid blame for the whole thing, and you can even have some mafia figure/ex-cop collaborator kill them afterwards, before said crazies ever get to go to trial for the first murder.
>you have to come up with some evidence otherwise it's just conspiracy theorizing
You think there's much evidence in e.g. banana republic political murders too, even those where still everybody knows the government or some mogul with special interests ordered them?
It's not difficult to say it's not difficult. Again, it's a completely evidence-free claim.
You think there's much evidence
There isn't any evidence the government is taking out hits on politically inconvenient figures in the US. "There can't possibly be any evidence, look at some other (vaguely described, non-specific place/event) where there is also no evidence, QED" is pretty much classic conspiracy-theorist logic (if you can call it that).
(edit removed the yet in "proved yet")
If he's being paid by someone closely affiliated with the Democratic Party - and I don't know that he is, I'm building an air castle here - then distancing the Rich family from WikiLeaks would be in his best interest.
This seems likely to me, as per the CNN article you linked:
> Wheeler was put in touch with the Rich family through Dallas businessman Ed Butowsky, who told CNN he had offered to pay any bills associated with the investigation.
> "You have a family who can't afford a PI. Their son was killed. So I offered to help out," Butowsky said.
If they truly couldn't afford a PI, then I doubt they could afford a top-tier PR professional to speak on their behalf.
When you don't want to accept the obvious, it's easy to just keep scratching away until you think you find something (look up pareidolia).
Quite possibly. After all, they're against leaks when they're aimed at Trump: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817322050297745408
> And we're supposed to trust that the family actually knows what really happened?
The supposed bombshell yesterday fell apart, as conspiracy theories tend to do.
Assange has no more self-awareness than he did in the 90s, when we were on a mailing list together.
Or than a turnip, for that matter.
Nothing good or interesting came from those leaks. And they were legitimate threat to US security. And Snowden ones were responsible, curated and only in the areas where rights of US citizens were infringed.
And yet he is stranded in Russia (1/6 of the world, so not bad).
What is the lesson - if you leak, leak more severe?
Manning was not pardoned, her sentence was commuted. She is still considered guilty on all grounds on which she was convicted.
> And Snowden ones were responsible, curated and only in the areas where rights of US citizens were infringed.
> And yet he is stranded in Russia (1/6 of the world, so not bad).
> What is the lesson - if you leak, leak more severe?
Snowden has not been sitting a in a US prison for years (in pretty difficult conditions) after a sentencing which many found excessive and unfair.
So the lesson is rather more "get sentenced to rank reduction to E-1, forfeiting of pay and allowances, dishonorably discharged and 35 years in prison and you may see the last part reduced to only ~6 years afterwards".
Oh don't forget the 6 years include a significant duration as POI at Quantico:
* checks by guards every five minutes
* not allowed to sleep between 5 am (7 am on weekends) and 8 pm
* required to remain visible at all times, no sheets, pillow built into mattress, and blanket designed for unshreddability
* sleeping attire limited to boxer shorts
* 6 × 12 ft (1.8 x 3.6 m) with no window, containing a bed, toilet and sink
* allowed to walk for up to one hour a day, meals in the cell, shackled during lawyer visits
Not to disparage Snowden, and his reasons for not coming back seem sound, but political asylum in Russia isn't exactly Manning's last 6 years.
Snowden thinks (and I personally agree) that the second step (of him going through a trial) would not work, because he wouldn't get a fair trial, and I agree with him.
And, as was pointed out to you, Manning hasn't been cleared of claims that she made. She still made a crime according the court and was still convicted of that crime. It's just that her punishment got reduced and she is now free.
It's nowhere even near the similar situation. Snowden's case is basically in the same stage where Manning's case was when she leaked the documents, so somewhere around 2011. Manning pleaded guilty to the charges in court in early 2013. Snowden still didn't go through that process.
1. Manning thought she was doing the right thing and didn't realize what she would cause. Snowden knew exactly what he was doing.
2. Manning leaked the docs to something that is probably a Russian front but something she didn't realize was a Russian front. Snowden, if he didn't turn over the leaks to the Russian and Chinese governments, certainly put them in great risk of being turned over.
The other has and is playing out partly in public, with the man at the center of the controversy going out of his way to confirm some of the suspicions.
I'm certainly not going to claim that HN doesn't have collective biases. But thankfully, one of those is a bias towards looking at reality. Certainly not a perfect one, but in general facts work a lot better here than hot air does.
> Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them.
I cannot help but notice, though, that apparently all subthreads critical of Manning and/or commenting on the gender thing have been not only heavily downvoted but marked as 'flagged', while some fairly vitriolic ones in Manning's favor have not.
Not trying to be polemical, and not out to kindle further unproductive discussion, but I would be interested to see the unofficial political guidelines of HN moderation spelled out a bit more explicitly.
But you are right about the 'tedious back-and-forth' (which I called 'unproductive discussion'): Further down, you very appropriately link to dang's ruminations on cognitive bias. Just please remember that none of us are guaranteed to escape the dangers of CB. I certainly know that I don't, despite a decent level of awareness on the issue.
My comment has sparked a lot of responses, many of them apparently assuming that I am somehow attacking Manning. I am not. I most clearly am not. I didn't say a word about Manning or the case. I stated (in perhaps unnecessarily pointed words, I'll grant you that) my sincere opinion on the objective validity of subjective gender change. If that point and its attendant controversiality is not worthy of intellectual curiosity, I see dark times ahead indeed (and for the record: I do).
If you see comments that you think violate the guidelines, please flag them or email us about it at firstname.lastname@example.org.
> This person is male. Could we please avoid the biologically nonsensical charade of referring to him as"she"?
What is your definition of male? "Has the XY chromosome pair?" "Was born with testicles?" "Was born male-looking?" All these have complicated causes and effects, and you will get contradictory answers for some individuals.
Are you aware that fetus development is driven by hormones as much as by genes? "This person is male" is a generally useful simplification. Prevalence of people with out-of-ordinary combinations of genetic and hormonal developmental factors strong enough to get into the intersex category is so low that it's normally perfectly sufficient point of view. That does not mean we should dismiss people with these minority genetic/hormonal makeups.
Refusal to respect another person's body/personality mismatch and insistence on calling them something they do not identify with is hostile and petty.
If they want to be referred to as a she, I don't see that it costs us anything to comply with their desire though... so I do.
These other replies miss the mark. It's not that, "calling a commoner a king is inaccurate, whereas a biological male could accurately be called female". Because that just brings you full circle back to arguing over whether biological gender and gender "identity" can be separated.
The more practical answer is that it doesn't hurt anything, and being a dick about it just makes you a dick. If you told me to address you as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, then I might privately harbor some doubts about your mental health. But I'd likely do it just to make you go away, m'lord.
I would not, however, feel bound by any commands to defend The Wall or anything.
As a consequence of respect for their personal identity as a member of society (and NOT fixating on their sex organs, which is frankly creepy), most people will refer to a trans* person as the gender they identify as, not the sex they were born with.
Or, if uncertain (because of genderfluidity and new pronouns like Xe/Xir/whatever), just using "singular they" and moving on with your life.
It's a polite society thing.
For me, I tend to assign gender by sex. I don't want to disrespect myself by saying something I don't believe. On the other hand I don't want to disrespect others either. So for now my approach is to sidestep the issue and refer to all trans people with "they".
We are not talking about cross-dressers. We are talking about transgender individuals. You wouldn't even be able to notice them standing in front of you once their transition is complete.
I don't understand that part. I think there are some concepts that are confusing you. All of the transgender individuals that I have known from before their transition pass as their new gender without any issues. The only way anybody would know if you told them.
You know how men always like to boast and compare their masculinity while drinking? Well, one time we were out drinking with friends. A man from my high-school (who was a girl last I saw him) was with us. He is quite manly, has a beard and looks like what you would expect a fashionable young man in his mid twenties to look like.
After a few beer one of the guys turns toward the man in question and, without having a clue that this is a transgender individual and tells him: "We know how it is with you lucky guys who hit the genetic lottery and are so manly. With a beard like that I bet all the girls must be throwing themselves at you. I must be half the man you are." ... My jaw dropped.
It was a ridiculous situation to witness but it shows just how easy it is to be next to someone who has gone through a complete transition without having a clue. If you live in a city, I'm sure that you have called at least one or two transgender individuals by their new pronoun without being aware of it.
I do the same, but also for cis people. It makes life simpler.
That's an opinion.
Gender is defined as: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
For most people, your gender and your sex are congruent. For others, it isn't.
Even if you don't agree: Why do you care?
Definitions are also not fact, by definition.
There are plenty of valid arguments for calling trans people the gender they want to be. This isn't one since it isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
Edit: The why do you care part is a valid argument, was addressing the rest of your comment
No. We don't. Transwomen are welcome in our bathrooms, locker rooms, and spas.
I sincerely believe that the vast majority of women are tired of being used as an excuse for bigotry.
I definitely understand the downvotes now that the comment has been flagged and is not able to be seen.
What do your greater political fears have to do with treating others with respect?
> I should think women care a lot that men are now allowed in their spaces based on an internal sense of "gender".
Are you talking about that bathroom debacle? I've got a simple solution: http://scott.arciszewski.me/blog/2017/03/trans-bathroom-righ...
It is important
to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria
is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.
Interesting claim. I'm not sure many people on the left killed doctors for performing abortions, for example. That was mostly "pro life" conservatives, from what I recall.
Why are we even talking about this? Partisan politics isn't relevant.
Chelsea Manning is free. This is cause for celebration.
I will, however, say that 7 years of prison can be devastating for anyone but 35 years can totally ruin their life with virtually no chance of recovery. Most people have support systems, but will they still be intact after nearly half the average life span?
Regardless of your opinion of what Manning did, the fact that she is no longer in prison means that at least one more person has a chance at life. Isn't that worth celebrating?
Was this misrepresentation of the parent comment (disinclination being presented as inability) intentional?
> This can be said about every criminal. Do you wish for all criminals to be released?
There is much grey between the black and white in this world.
As such any imprisonment beyond ensuring suitable deterrence (which would certainly be the case with seven years) is plenty.
Rehabilitation has to be the central goal of all and every imprisonment. Sometimes that might not be possible, but even in those cases it has to be attempted.
He said, /after/ conveniently inserting partisan opinion and contradicting himself.
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
If you think a story is spam or off-topic, flag it by clicking on its 'flag' link.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
This seems like mainstream TV news, not really Hacker News.
She copied a lot of that data onto a CD and passed it to Julian Assange, who is the head of Wikileaks. Wikileaks publishes digital data it receives from whistle-blowers, both summarizing and analyzing the data itself. It also provided access to other journalists (Der Spiegel, The Guardian, etc.) in order to incentive scoops and increase the impact of the leaked material. Some of the material includes the "Afghan War Logs", which is essentially raw military data on the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, including estimates of civilians killed in raids. The data itself is available to the public as an SQL or CSV database.
One of the pieces of data was the so-called "collateral murder" video which shows a U.S. apache helicopter firing on unarmed civilians, including a Reuters journalist who died and two children who were injured. Reuters had filed a FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act) to get public access to the video, but was unsuccessful. Since Manning had access to database, and because digital data has a marginal cost of $0, he was able to copy the video onto the CD passed along to Assange, thus bypassing the stall tactics of the U.S. government in releasing the video.
Manning was caught after the FBI had apparently enlisted Adrian Lamo-- himself a former hacker (or I guess cracker to be exact) who apparently Manning trusted and chatted with over IRC.
Also-- and I admit this is a digression from actual "hacker news"-- the U.N. Special Rapporteur on torture publicly stated that the U.S.'s treatment of Manning while awaiting trial was "cruel, inhuman and degrading." In fact, when someone from the press finally got the nerve to ask about this, a U.S. state department official called Manning's treatment "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid." (He then resigned.)
Anyway, we're talking about the release of a computer analyst who got caught confiding in a well-known hacker, and who was sent to prison for passing the largest collection of digital documents to someone who is at present probably the most well-known hacker in the world.
If this subject isn't relevant to a site called "Hacker News", what is?
The CNN mainstream news was that she is being released from prison and she wants to grow her hair. Okay. My opinion is that this isn't really hacker news... more pop-culture about someone who once was convicted of copying intelligence data to a CD and giving it to someone. The story of the hacking was a while ago.
You have a very narrow definition of Hackers.
I would really love to live in a world where Chelsea Manning's transgender identity and her very public transition would not affect how much some people might vilify her. But there are many people that are still very uncomfortable -- violently uncomfortable at times -- with transgender people (and generally people with non-binary/fluid gender identities).
Further, Manning's transition was very public, and her transition was likely for many people the first time we/they read a newspaper article or heard a news report that used a different pronoun for someone than they had previously. For people new and resistant to the idea, that might breed resentment.
Manning is not merely a transgender person, but a very high-profile transgender person. I think that this, by itself, and separate from her still-hotly-debated role in leaking classified material, articulates significant dangers that she faces in returning to civilian life.
Bradley (now Chelsea) was seen as a whiny dude who was not a team player, would not take his lumps, and lashed out irrationally against an institution he felt had wronged him. An attack on the entire concept of military thinking and discipline. The epitome of "bleeding heart liberalism".
Being trans into the bargain is fairly explosive. Now it's not just her actions that are offensive, but her very existence.
Not exactly a diverse sample of the population.
> Statistics documenting transgender people's experience of sexual violence indicate shockingly high levels of sexual abuse and assault. One in two transgender individuals are sexually abused or assaulted at some point in their lives. Some reports estimate that transgender survivors may experience rates of sexual assault up to 66 percent, often coupled with physical assaults or abuse. This indicates that the majority of transgender individuals are living with the aftermath of trauma and the fear of possible repeat victimization.
It should be noted that Trans people aren't yet fully covered over hate crime laws so they get lumped in with general LGBT stats. This should change contingent on if the murder in Texas gets successfully prosecuted as a hate crime
You can do what you want, but don't expect people to believe your arguments if you aren't willing to support them. "It's obvious" isn't an argument.
first that came up when searching for it.