Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Chelsea Manning may sue prison over its refusal to provide hormone therapy

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Can I please make a really stupid statement but if “Chelsea” hasn’t had hormone treatment and is currently in an all male prison, doesn’t that still make him a man? Therefore, referring to him and a her is some how inaccurate?

    1. I dont think we know as to whether she has had some hormone treatment and or T blockers already, often it is given in lower doses upon diagnosis of gender dysphoria to help “solidify” the diagnosis in M to F.
      In any case the denial of medical care in prison is regarded as “cruel and un-usual punishment” in most civilised societies. I see no reason why it should not be regarded as such in this instance.

    2. Michael Stevens 28 Aug 2013, 11:19pm

      I guess your question comes from not knowing much about the trans world. I am not trans, but have trans friends and work with trans colleagues. The use of names and the pronouns they identify with is of real importance to them, no matter whether they have just started exploring the process of transitioning or if they have been through every possible stage of it. It is a simple matter of respect. Theyknow who they are, and they are asking for support and respect in living in a way that is authentic to them. I don’t think that’s a big ask.

  2. Just wondering (irrelevant to one’s personal opinion of her guilt or not) why does the american prison service owe Chelsea hormone therapy now that she’s been convicted? As far as I can tell Chelsea hasn’t previously been taking such therapies so it isn’t a continuation of anything, and the therapies aren’t considered a basic requirement of life so obviously shouldn’t be standard prescription. Above and beyond her want to become a woman I am honestly flummoxed as to what she thinks her legal standing is here…

    1. Untreated gender dysphoria can be life threatening. She will be in prison for a long time. Do you want to punish her twice over by denying her treatment?

      1. Very true. I agree entirely as to the general predicament of gender dysphoric people (hence why my comment is posed as a question, not a statement) I just don’t see why she has suddenly decided that the state should be funding it? Surely if she has been considering this for a long time she will have had insurance policies/private support for such a move. I just find it peculiar given the timing of her decision and the way in which she has presented her argument so abrasively… something about it seems off.

        1. TheMiddleWay 29 Aug 2013, 4:16am

          Just like LGB individuals before the end of DADT, the U.S. Military discharges transgender individuals from service. I imagine that all of her medical care was provided by the military, thus it would have been impossible for her to seek treatment without losing her job. To deny her treatment now is no different than denying treatment to a diabetic simply because they weren’t properly cared for outside prison.

        2. A couple of points:

          - Manning’s gender identity was already an issue 3 years ago when she was first arrested. Her gender dysphoria is not news now. The timing of this announcement, as we read in the article, is a response to the prison’s refusal to supply hormone treatment.

          - As you can read in the article, she had not “decided that the state should be funding” her treatment. She has offered to finance it herself.

    2. Most civilised people regard it as cruel not to provide prisoners with medical treatment. You seem to be in error as to what Gender Dysphoria is. Taking hormones does not make somebody gender dysphoric. Horemones are given to those who are gender dysphoric. You can’t seem to grasp that this is a MEDICAL condition and medical treatment is an important human right. Trans prosoners should no face an extra punishment purely because they are trans.

      1. Thank you for your words. I can see that as this is obviously a subject close to your heart you’ve clearly misread my question as an abrasive call to arms. As such I see your response as deeply irrelevant, verging on ignorant, and shall not entertain any further discussion with you on the subject.
        Thanks again,
        B

        1. Your question was really ignorant and offensive. You claimed that transition related medical care wasn’t a basic requirement of life.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all