Posted in

Court to Army: refer to Manning as a woman

by Jonn Lilyea••157

Anon in Jax sends us a link to NBC News which reports that the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals has instructed the Army to refer to that Manning person in court documents in either gender-neutral or female terms;

“Reference to appellant in all future formal papers filed before this court and all future orders and decisions issued by this court shall either be neutral, e.g., Private First Class Manning or appellant, or employ a feminine pronoun.” The order, signed by a court clerk, did not make the military change the name of the case in which Manning is referred to as Bradley and Chelsea.

Manning had sought the court order to force the military to use pronouns that conform to her gender identity; the military had opposed such requests, her supporters said in a statement. The Army and Pentagon didn’t immediately respond to requests seeking comment.

I wonder if the court is also going to order Manning’s body to start generating female chromosomes, too. I guess next they’ll declare that since Manning committed his crime as a male and he was convicted as a male, the wrong person is in prison.

It’s the Army’s own fault, since they’ve decided to pay for hormone therapy for the twirp (see – gender neutral);

According to the officials, since Manning has been clinically diagnosed as a transgender and is confined to the military prison, the Army is obligated to provide and pay for her hormone treatments — just as if she was confined to a civilian federal prison.

I could go along with it, if the Army wasn’t trying to hike health care costs for retirees while they’re doing this PC bullshit.

You might also like

Stupid people of the week

Wassef Ali Hassoun charged

Bride kicks guests out of wedding for Marines uniform

157 thoughts on “Court to Army: refer to Manning as a woman”

  2. Way to go Army!

    We have boys and girls sitting in wheelchairs missing arms, legs and their mind(s)from close combat, and these dildos are more worried about the traitor Manning’s feelings and lack of clarity with respect to gender expression.

    Fuck you, Army. You make me sick.

    RLTW.

    6. The Court has a duty and a responsibility to rule on motions and things like this when they are presented to them. They cannot pick and choose which issues come before them.

      While I might disagree with the decision, I am not going to disagree with the Court making a decision.

      1. I’m not sure but if he still has appeals pending, maybe they are holding off on that part of the sentence. Just my guess.

        Or it could be an error on the Judge’s part.

    10. The army did not make this decision. The Army tried to deny Manning the treatment. And they lost in court.

      1. Provide a citation supporting that assertion. I’ve not seen anything other than articles indicating the Army unilaterally decided to approve Manning’s hormone treatments. Those articles do not reference any Federal court ordering they do so.

    11. Thank you Green Thumb for speaking it straight. You hit that nail and countersunk it.

  3. “It” is gender neutral. How does this little weasel get all this power over the military? Rhetorical question. I’m retiring. I used to think that things were still kind of the same. I’ve been proven way wrong over the past several years.

    1. Gender neutral my ass, the little bastard’s dna says “MALE”, their only option is cut his balls off and throw him in prison for life!!

    1. I raise my glass to you in agreement and appreciation for this brilliant comment.
      It’s a cunt on so many levels. Slainte~

    2. May I suggest the addition of the words “turncoat” or “traitorous” after the word “as” above?

    3. I have a list of pejoratives ascribed to females. Some have already been listed. Mine include:

      slut
      whore
      bitch
      skank
      skag
      hag
      light frigate
      greasyrider
      scut
      wagtail
      codpiece clamp
      lightskirt
      hooker
      harpy
      flax-wench
      runion
      camp follower
      harlot

      I’m sure any of you can add to the list. Feel free to apply any and all to that perv.

      Oh! The thought did occur to me that Manning should change its name to Womanning.

        1. Damn is right! I thought I knew them all after 6 yrs in the Corps, 25 yrs as Cop, and 6 yrs driving a truck…Ex-Ph2 never ceases to amaze! I would only add “Fender Lizard” and “Lot Lizard” to that list maybe add new ones such as Yard Lizard, or Cell Block Lizard!

          1. I’ve been driven for over 30 years and you for got “beaver with a kick stand” but that’s ok

      2. Yeah, this comment reflects well on the Navy.

        If you are going to be a misogynistic piece of shit then why do it with a screenname that represents the Navy and Naval petty officers?

        At least it says “Ex”

        1. Misogynistic? Moi?

          Oh, now you’ve gone and done it, Lars the Dim.

          I’m a Navy veteran. I was in the WAVES.

          That makes me a FEMALE veteran, you blithering, limp-wristed, fat-kidneyed, guts-griping, qualling, tottering, vain, pox-marked hedge-pig.

          You just cannot learn when to shut off that yap of yours. Keep it up, wise guy.

          You have no idea where you’re going, you insufferable, fuckless, buffalo-plaid pajama boy.

          2. Oh, no. You don’t get to concede, you mordant, dimwitted, vainglorious bugchaser.

            You stepped in it. You’re stuck with it for good.

              1. Argue? How can anyone as lazy, smug and self-serving as you are expect an argument?

                Oh, those are rhetorical questions. They don’t require an answer.

              1. No, ‘mordant’ is NOT a compliment, not even a backhanded compliment. A mordant is a fixative used in the process of dyeing fabric. The plainer reference is ‘a stubborn stain’. Hardly a compliment.

                1. I choose to believe you meant the more common meaning.
                  “expressing harsh criticism especially in a way that is funny”

                  But it is good to know that you were not intending that meaning. For a moment I thought you might be flirting with me. Was not sure how to let you down gently.

                    1. The Enhanced Radiation option vice using a high yield warhead. Surgical.

                      Nicely done. (smile)

              2. HEY Larsie-poopie-Rudy-poo the Smurf-hugging little snowflake, I WARNED YOU about messing with Ex-PH2 or ANY of the Lionesses of TAH®™. NOW you’re their prey/scratching post, AND I ENJOY EVERY BIT of your pain you little 0bamacare pajama boy! NO WAIT, I take that back, you make the 0bamacare pajama boy look like Seven Seagal! 😈

      3. Thanks, Grunt Sgt, for the input. I will add the lizard epithet to my list.

        Green Thumb, that’s the nicest thing you’ve ever said to me.

      1. Works, I guess. I personally think using either “traitorous” or “turnoat” instead of “pernicious” is a bit more accurate and descriptive. But that’s just me – I’m a big fan of being precise. (smile)

        1. Well, I think “pernicious” covers all manner of scummery, which he fits well. He’s not just a traitor. He’s a slimy piece of shit that revealed classified info as retribution for the Army not treating him up to his high standards. He got into fights. He was a bitch all around. And he tried to claim respect he didn’t earn. *grin*

          1. I could go for that. Unfortunately, the Army took the needle off the table pretrial.

      2. Or as I prefer to say it, “The Lionesses of TAH®™”! 😀 I originally wanted to say “Tigresses”, but those big cats typically run solo. A Pride of Lionesses however, lives like a family. they hunt together with one staying behind to nurse and groom the cubs (Hers and the others’) while the others hunt and bring back prey, they groom and nurse each others’ Cubs,… At the same time, a lone wandering Alpha Male will come and go as he pleases, eating whatever share of the Lionesses’ kill he wants to and then wanders off to another harem. The Alpha Male will one day be dethroned by another, after which he dies alone. The Lionesses however, will live with and care for each other all their lives. Mess with The Lionesses of TAH®™, and to them, you’re just another one of their prey animals/scratching posts!!

  5. This sounds so familiar. “You must refer to me as CPO” because I identify as a CPO.

    Hilarious.

  6. Is there anybody,we can write to write to express our outrage at this PC fooliness ? Born in a Male body, still the same Male. Joe

    1. It is not that simple. And this is medical science not PC politics.

      Gender identity is real. Gender development in the womb is a complex process and it can go haywire.

      In about 2% of births doctors often are forced to make a “best fit” decision on gender at birth and sometimes the appearance of the genitalia and the blood tests do not make it clear what gender a child is.

      If the brain chemistry is not consistent with that assignment made within the first few days of birth then it can become apparent later in life.

      Lets be clear; gender identity is a real medical condition and has been officially accepted as a medical condition for more than 4 decades at least. And the history of the diagnoses of the disorder goes back more than a century, longer in other societies.

      1. “That may be true. It is also irrelevant.”

        Gender reassignment surgery and associated therapy is not medically necessary to preserve life or physical health. It should not be provided at government expense. Period.

        Manning wants to go to the “chop shop”, he can do so on his own nickle – AFTER he gets out of Leavenworth.

        1. Again, he is not getting surgery.

          He is getting hormone therapy. Which doctors and the court have decided is necessary for mental well being.

          Your position is less valid if you are arguing against something that is not even happening.

          1. I thought that was overturned, and he was actually getting both hormones and surgery? Or am I behind the times?

            1. He is not getting surgery.

              There has been no case where the federal government has followed a court order to provide this surgery for a prisoner even in the civilian prison system.

              There is a case that has been ongoing for more than a decade where an inmate has been fighting for the surgery and has doctors ordering but the government has refused. It has gone through numerous appeals and the last I heard the court ordered the government do it and they again refused. Appealed. Lost. And apparently are still appealing the decision.

              I do not see the Roberts Court ruling in her favor.

              If she does win, and gets the surgery, then I would say Chelsea would likely attempt to achieve the same result.

                1. I hadn’t seen that update.

                  That might seal it.

                  If the government had lost they would have appealed again and the currently conservative leaning Catholic dominated SCOTUS would likely have heard the case and probably ruled against the murderer.

                  However, the government winning at the federal appeals level means the murderer has to make the appeal and SCOTUS could just refuse to hear the case and let the appeals court ruling stand. Which would avoid a political mess.

                  I think it extremely unlikely that Manning would prevail in getting approval for a surgery if this precedent is left standing.

          2. You really need to work on your reading comprehension, Lars.

            My comment above includes the phrase “and associated therapy”. The Army has agreed to provide the latter. So contrary to your inaccurate missive here, I am hardly “arguing against something that is not happening”.

            Neither hormone therapy nor surgery is necessary to preserve either his life or physical well being. Ergo, they are elective therapies vice medically necessary ones.

            He can go talk to a shrink about his gender identity problems if he likes; the Army will probably provide that as part of the normal care they provide any soldier or detained convict at Leavenworth. But I’ll be damned if I want the government paying for elective medical procedures for this turncoat just be cause he says, “I wanna be different!”

            1. But here’s the legal question: if he does seek psychiatric help, and they give him Prozac or some other anti-depressant, would the hormone therapy fall under the same category of mental health?

              1. My take would be that the two are different and separable, for the following reasons.

                Psychoactive drugs are generally prescribed to correct brain chemistry imbalances, or to prevent the individual from potentially doing harm to themselves or others. They thus impact physical health or life concerns, albeit sometimes indirectly.

                In contrast, hormone therapy is designed to (1) replace hormones that normally would be produced by the body, but which currently are not, or (2) produce physical changes in the body through the introduction of hormones that would not otherwise be present.

                Manning’s body is genetically male. Therefore, reason (1) for hormone therapy is not valid. His body never did and never would produce the same level of female hormones as would that of a normal female.

                That leaves reason (2).
                The changes sought by hormone therapy are not necessary for Manning’s continued life and/or physical health. Therefore, to me they appear clearly to be elective vice medically necessary.

                Claiming them necessary for “psychological health” is IMO specious. If that is allowed, then any other elective cosmetic procedure you might name can be similarly allowed for the same reasons. That’s obviously ridiculous, and subject to potential major abuse.

                Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not giving a legal opinion here.

                2. Additionally, it should be added, ~70% of those who go through the hormone replacement therapy and decide to actually go through the procedure end up committing suicide.

                  That is the good news.

                  The bad news is they would stack that in with those honorable veterans who decided there fate and use him/her/it/thing as a statistical eveidence.

                  But I digress.

                  -MrFace

                3. Not being a lawyer myself, I do realize that these aren’t the same class of drugs as psychotropic ones. That said… if they make the cunt less crazy (not trying to kill itself or cut off its giblets with a fork) wouldn’t they be considered to do the same thing?

                  1. I’d argue that if the same result can be obtained with a psychotropic drug that does not have irreversable phyisical effects, then the psychotropic drug would be the one of choice. But I’m neither a lawyer or a doctor. I could be wrong.

        2. Could not agree more. When it comes down to it nobody can really say what someone feels or thinks. If governments(state or federal) starts handing out surgeries then every lifer who has had enough of the big boy prison can cry gender confusion and angle their way to a softer gig.

          Not to mention I’m of the opinion that God doesn’t make mistakes in the first place…

              1. Hey, it’s Lars the Infallible. He asserts it as fact, it’s a fact.

                At least to him.

                1. Aint that the truth. Every post of sweet Lars has the air of “I will not be questioned”. He seems to be an expert on every fucking subject that comes up here.

                  1. My first experience with him was when he disputed my claim that Chuck Hagel’s tenure as Secretary of Defense was brief by current standards. I averaged out the last 25 years of SecDef terms and Hagel came in at about half of an average term. Lars’ response was that I hadn’t gone back far enough. No facts, just the simple, unsupported statement. That’s when I quit answering his stupid comments. He uses his emotions and distorted perceptions to support his contentions. Not worth my time.

                    1. I cannot understand why people like Lars post here. He does not agree with anything that his said, he gets boot stomped by everyone for his opinions and he has very little in common with the majority of the posters. I guess he sees himself as our conscience and the true voice of reason here. I prefer not to think of him at all. His saving grace is he will tire of this after awhile and leave us for a spell.

                    2. His term of service was significantly below average. So when I said was relatively brief it was true.

                      If I did say “current standards” then I understand your issue with my comment. But I do not recall using that term and I do not know where that post is.

                      And the fact that he is half the average supports my characterization that his term was “brief”.

                    3. Since you’ve forgotten, the conversation went like this, Lars;

                      Jonn Lilyea · Top commenter · Founder/Plenipotentiary at This Ain’t Hell
                      For the record, Hagel was SecDef for 635 days, Panetta; 608 days, Gates; 1,643 days, Rumsfeld, 2,158 days, Cohen; 1,457 days and Perry; 1,085 days, Les “Mogadishu” Aspin; 378 days. So, of course you’re right, Lars, in recent history, Hagel’s term wasn’t short at all as long as you only compare him to Panetta and Aspin. But overall, that’s an average of 1138 days per SecDef. That qualifies for an “already?” in my book.

                      Commissar · Top commenter · UC Berkeley
                      Jonn Lilyea Nice research John but you chose a small sample size. I went back further and found him to be in the middle range of the last 13. He was ineffective. Good enough reason to replace him. I expect the next one to be a female.

                    4. And here’s the work that you said you did, but apparently you didn’t;

                      Donald Rumsfeld 427

                      Harold Brown 1460

                      Caspar Weinberger 2497

                      Frank Carlucci 424

                      William Howard Taft IV (acting) 59

                      Dick Chaney 1402

                      Les Aspin 378

                      William Perry 1085

                      William Cohen 1457

                      Donald Rumsfeld 2158

                      Robert Gates 1643

                      Leon Pantta 608

                      Chuck Hagel 720

                      For an average of the last thirteen Secretaries of Defense = 1101 days. That’s with one of them being an acting SecDef for less than 60 days. I gave you that one. And Hagel was still short of the average by over a year.

                    5. Average term duration of all 24 permanent SECDEFs prior to Ashton Carter:

                      1019.4 days

                      However, Truman went thru 4 SECDEFs in roughly 5 years 4 mo. Omitting those, we have:

                      Average duration of all SECDEFs since beginning of Eisenhower Administration (Jan 1953): 1129.2 days

                      Further, many SECDEFS were forced out of office due to a change in the political party holding the White House, or in one case were appointed to another Federal office (Attorney General). Omitting both those and the Truman SECDEFs, we have:

                      Average duration of SECDEF Term: 1307.7 days

                      Yeah, Lars – any way you slice it, you were wrong. Man up and admit it.

                  2. My Pa, LtCol D, had a name for people such as Lars. That term was “Sexual Intellectual”.

                2. Well since we are not paying for his surgery and there is no current legal filing requesting that the government pay for the surgery, and since there is not certainty any request for gender reassignment surgery would be decided in Manning’s favor then my statement that we are not paying for his surgery is FACTUALLY ACCURATE.

                  But apparently facts do not matter to this forum. Ideology and the “liberals are fucking up the country” narrative is all that fucking matters.

                  1. The sexual re-assignment surgery will, at some future date, become necessary as part of his treatment. At that point, there is a good chance we, the tax payers, will end up paying for that, along with the rest of his/her therapy.

                    My advice to you about this forum is develop some calluses and be prepared to defend your position, as we are all called on to do, from time to time.

                    1. I am prepared to defend my position. However, since I am defending it from multiple people at the same time it can get a bit ridiculous.

                  3. Yes, your statement is factually accurate – today.

                    Just like the statement that the Army was not planning to pay for his hormone therapy was factually accurate – a year ago.

                    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/bradley-manning-gender-surgery-95797.html

                    That earlier statement is not factually accurate today.

                    For someone who claims to have been a unit S2 and S2 NCO, you certainly seem to have trouble performing analysis and making forecasts – AKA “connecting the dots”.

                    I also notice you haven’t responded to me catching you in an outright error of fact above. That’s OK – I didn’t really expect you to respond. When you get caught in a gaffe you seem to either (1) deny the error and assert you’re correct anyway, or (2) execute the classic “sidestep maneuver” by ignoring same.

                    Don’t think we don’t notice that kind of stuff, Lars.

                    1. First, you are saying I am wrong about the fact that we are not paying for his surgery because in the future we might.

                      So, then I am not wrong. It is not based on some hypothetical future where his legal team requests that the government pay for his surgery and the court makes the unlikely and unprecedented decision that we do.

                      There is no order that we pay for the surgery, we are not paying for the surgery. The order that we provide hormone therapy. The order to provide hormone therapy has a great deal of legal precedent which is why the Army lost. Hormone therapy is regarded by the medical community as mental health treatment.

                      I read my comment concerning the SECDEF:

                      “Jonn Lilyea Nice research John but you chose a small sample size. I went back further and found him to be in the middle range of the last 13. He was ineffective. Good enough reason to replace him. I expect the next one to be a female.”

                      I honestly do not understand why the comment is pissing you off so much. I do not even remember the context. So I said he was average in this post and now months later I agreed that I said his term was below average because I honestly did not remember the post or the context of the post.

                      Whatever, who gives a fuck. I was either wrong in my original post or I was wrong in remembering what I said about the original post because he cannot be below average and average at the same time.

                      At this point I have no clue what the hell you are arguing.

                    2. First, you are saying I am wrong about the fact that we are not paying for his surgery because in the future we might.

                      Um, no. What I am saying is that you are technically correct today, but that the recent past indicates a good chance you will not be correct in the relatively near future.

                      Most fifth graders can distinguish between those two concepts when presented as clearly as I did above. Apparently you have difficulties in doing so. And you’ve compounded that error by your erroneous follow-on comment here.

                      At this point I have no clue what the hell you are arguing.

                      Obviously, – since you bring up the unrelated topic of SECDEF term lengths.

                      A quick comparison of comment timing makes it very clear that’s NOT the subject of the “other error of fact” I’m referencing here. My only comment on that particular error of yours occurred nearly 1 1/2 hours after my comment above; ergo, it’s not possible that was what I was referencing. You missed that point entirely.

                      One could use that failure to draw inferences concerning your intellect. I’ll be nice and refrain from doing so.

              2. Because the FACT is we are not paying for it. We are only paying for hormone therapy.

              1. MSgt, (1Sgt?)

                Lars is making a distinction between the hormone therapy that Manning is receiving and the surgery he will undoubtedly receive in the future.

                Lars’ post is factually accurate now, but that doesn’t mean it will be in the future.

  7. I really don’t care how he identifies himself. I am offended that he expects me to help pay for him to change his “identity”. I see no reason to conform to his wishes or change how I identify him. He is a convicted felon who endangered or hurt a lot of people. We have this rule in America, “innocent until proven guilty”. We are now past that part. His “identity” don’t enter into it.

    1. Absolutely agree. I just read an article in Nature that shows gender isn’t as binary as we at first thought. It was a thought-provoking thing. That said, I don’t want to pay for his surgery. This is not an issue of life or death. Fuck him. I actually would rather he just drop dead, but hey… I’m insensitive like that.

      2. I guess that makes me insensitive, too, because I wish that whiny little crapweasel would drown in his own vomit some night, after lights out.

        1. The Army has not yet said it will pay for Manning’s gender-reassignment surgery. However, the Army also originally said they would not pay for Manning’s hormone therapy, either.

          http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/bradley-manning-gender-surgery-95797.html

          Connecting the dots to make the prediction of a future 2nd flip-flop in this case seems trivial. I’m surprised you missed that, Lars.

          Well, no – not really. I don’t believe you’re actually as smart as you think you are.

        2. Man, I sit here on the sidelines watching this, and LarstheDim just can’t keep his idiot yap shut.

          Provide proof of your assetion, lars, you fathead, or shut up. And stop making blanket statements.

          1. The court never ruled that the government had to pay for the surgery. It ruled that the government had to pay for hormone replacement.

            And the fact that dipshits like you demand I prove a negative is fucking ridiculous.

            1. Please provide a citation supporting your assertion that a competent court has ordered the Army to provide Manning’s hormone treatments. All I’ve read indicates that the Army unilaterally announced earlier this year that it would do so. I’ve seen no indication that this was due to any court ordering same.

              4. I would delete the first two post in response if I could. They were related but not about the hormone therapy and I cut and paste them in haste.

            2. Making a statement, to wit: the court never did this or that – is a blanket statement requires back up. Otherwise, lars, you nincompoop, you have no legs to stand on.

              1. Yeah. It appears it was the commandant. Manning filed suit but the case had not been decided. The Commandant of the Disciplinary barracks approved the treatment.

                Though apparently the treatment has not begun yet so the court case may proceed.

                1. You don’t say.

                  A quick Google search conducted at about 2PM today convinced me that was almost certainly the case. Only took you about 5 hrs to figure out the same thing.

                  Doing one’s homework before commenting is a good thing, Lars – especially here.

        3. Hey Lars, thanks for the good idea. I bet the other inmates would be happy to do the surgery for free. I’m sure that there are other guests at the US Disciplinary Barracks who are good with a knife.

          On a more serious note, I didn’t say surgery, you said it. I said I don’t want to pay for anything to do with changing his identity.

          There isn’t anything wrong with his identity. Left alone, it won’t wither and die or become cancerous or turn into a yellow submarine. I see no reason that he should expect prison or his government to change him to be a different person when he leaves than when he entered. Prison is a place where one is sent as a punishment and he certainly deserves that.

          “Identity therapy”, drugs, or sex-change surgery are not part of any rehabilitation so – how is the taxpayer obligated to do this and if there is no obligation then what benefit do we get out of it? He isn’t a bridge or a highway or an office building or, most particularly, a competent military person where construction or training have value. He’s a dirtbag. I find it extremely unlikely that prison and therapy and surgery are going to change that and I am offended that you want me to pay for any of it.

  8. Wait,what? Are they trying to tell us that it was never reduced from PFC to PV1 as part of the court martial’s sentence?

    Or am I missing something?

    1. Thank you- I was looking at that too. Why the hell is he referred to by any appellation other than “Prisoner”?

  9. As I have said here and elsewhere many many times, unless and until scientists can figure out a way to change that whole XX/XY Chromosome thingee, then Manning will remain a male.

    2. Chromosomes are the human blueprint. It is quite possible for them to be FUBAR. Sometimes the sex chromosomes are the ones that are affected, and you end up with diseases like Turner Syndrome. This is a whole different ball of wax than what Manning is running with, though. Work is still being done on the chromosomal link for what we currently refer to as ‘gender.’

  10. DNA cheek swab says you’re a dude then you’re a dude….choosing to cut your dick off and make an innie where the outie was doesn’t alter the male reality of your birth.

    You just become a dickless male masquerading as a woman…that’s fine if it’s what you need to keep yourself sane, but I’m not required to buy into your alternate reality…

    1. That’s why I think we should refer to him as Beenadick Arnold Manning. It covers all the bases: treason and sexuality.

  11. The Wannabe-Eunuch Bradley Manning can go fuck HIMself. I give exactly zero fucks what HE wants to be called. HE is a traitor. HE can fuck HIMself in HIS ass.

    Last time I checked, mine was not the minority opinion. So fuck HIM and fuck HIS supporters.

  12. OK. If I insist that my new identity is the Queen of England, will Big Army supply me with a new crown? I want the tall one, with all the pretty shiny gems and that Maltese cross looking thing on top. While they’re at it, could they also send some ermine cape thingies?

    Hey! A legitimate request, right? And notice that I’m not being greedy – only requesting one of each. Of course, if they include scepters and other stuff, I will share with all y’all.

      2. And a butler, personal maid, head groom, postilions on call, and ostler at each end of the journey – yes, of course. A fourragon to carry your personal luggage. And the finest inns and hostelries along the way.

        1. Upon further consideration, the crown jewels can stay in London and we will simply take the expanded staff, additional livestock, and the buildings all those folks and critters will require. Addressing me as “Your Majesty” will also not be required, however, bowing when we are on the throne will be necessary.

        2. Understood. No flourishes, no rose petal-strewn paths, no trumpets and fanfares; just the down-to-earth Queen who drove an ambulance during The War and has a wicked sense of humor.

  13. As far as I’m concerned, this tear-spewing, whining, puking, mewling, lame excuse for something less than a human being is using this demand as an excuse to get into the women’s head (bathroom) and be a peeping tom.

    If he wants this shit, he should have to pay for it, the same as I have to pay for anything I want done. If not, I’m going over to the VA and demand that a shrink approve extensive cosmetic surgery, HRT, a boob job to get my girls back up where they belong, and stem cell therapy for my arthritis, and I shouldn’t have to pay for it becasue I want to feel better about myself by denying my progression into my elder years.

    Not just ‘no’. Fuck that shithole, NO.

  14. Manning wanted “her” and the Army wanted “him.” The court ruled that neither is to be used. Instead, Manning will be referred to only in gender-neutral terms. Manning, therefore, is now an “it” in the eyes of the court and I hope that the Army uses exactly that term.

    2. I’m more partial to “the individual formerly known as ‘Bradley Edward Manning'”.

      Seems a bit pretentious – just like that little sniveling turncoat narcissist wannabe changeling. IMO it fits.

  16. The latest survey at fort Leavenworth says he/she in not much of a man to begin with.

    1. How about
      Prisoner manning
      Traitor Manning

      Remind him every day that this is as good as it will ever get for the duration

  19. So IT wants to be referred to in a “Gender-Neutral” fashion, well there you go. On a positive note, once IT gets castrated, IT will be completely unable to reproduce, there’s the bright side of the story!

  20. Just saw that Chastity Bono, now Chaz Bono is looking for a penis. Sounds like a pretty good donor scenario, no?

    1. Oh, G-d, NO!!
      Just do a “Lorana Bobbit” on WoManning, and throw “the offending piece of flesh” to the side of the road for any starving stray to eat – if it dares.

  21. The Obama military…..

    More rights and privileges as a traitor than if you do the right thing.

  22. All the wishful thinking, “feelings”, surgery, and hormone therapy in the world won’t change Biology 101.

  23. Sad fact you will not be allowed to refer to Manning in any form calls him a traitor. I would his MALE name or defendant. Joe

  24. Well, if we are going to argue this and that about sex chromosomes, I can ask my sister to send me some source references to quot in this regard. I’m sure she wouldn’t mind. One of her pre-med students might even have something quite current on the relationship between hormones prescribed for sex change, and sexual dysphoria.

    I will say, however, that taking conjugated estrogens for a prolonged period of time has been shown, in an extremely long study following thousands of women, to increase the risks of breast cancer, AMONG OTHER FEMALE-ORIENTED CANCERS.

    This kind of thing is not to be taken lightly. If you take conjugated estrogens during menopause, the intent is to relieve the effects of menopause on women, e.g., hot flases and osteoporosis. If you stop taking them, as I did when the results of that study were released, you get the side effects.

    For sex reassignment, this is a one-way street. I doubt seriously that manning has the faintest idea what it is getting itself into. (See, I sued gender-neutral terms.) There’s no try-out period. Once it’s done, that’s it.

    And I do not want to see that creepy crapweasel in the women’s bathroom.

    1. Hmmmmm,… Along with the fact that IT, the traitor B. Manning will run a much higher risk of cancer from HRT along with the fact that IT will no longer be able to reproduce after castration does give a mild silver lining to that cloud of effluvia!!

  26. Pardon me while I change the heading of this thread:

    TAH to Army: refer to Manning as a cadaver.

    That’s all I got to say…

  27. For the court’s pleasure, I have compiled a list of gender neutral terms that are appropriate to use in reference Manning in official court documents:

    Shit Head
    Fucktard
    Ass Clown
    Fuck Face
    Shit-for-brains
    Lying Traitor
    Oxygen Thief
    Failed Abortion
    Jackass
    Dumbass
    Retard

    And my personal favorite gender neutral term…

    Marine Grunt.
    (Please don’t hate me 😛 )

  28. Is dumbfuck Manning still XY? Yup. So I’ll keep referring to him properly, as a fucking dude.

    1. Biologically speaking, ok…concur.

      Everything else, he’s a worthless little shit.

      1. Don’t get me wrong he should be shot, hung, or given lethal injection but Benedict Arnold was a man too. I just think that we should refer to this traitorous POS as a man, because HE is a traitorous POS man. 🙂

        Changing of definitions is a leftist tactic, and even when it comes to traitorous scumbags I refuse to play their game.

Comments are closed.