Someone bragged about still holding the same position, and feeling sorry for all those who voted to hide his post (which insisted that Chelsea Manning was a man) and doubled down - repeating that Manning is a man until surgically altered...
The jury voted to leave it 6-0 because he said it so respectfully - here are their comments:
"Legally Manning is a man. Manning may psychologically be a woman, but Manning until the process is begun is a man under the law. The alerter should figure that out."
"The poster explained his or her rationale in a civil manner. I think it he should honor Manning's request but there is no "rule" that forces this-not in custom nor in law; even the news is still calling Manning "Bradley" and "him." This is a tough concept to understand for people who haven't dealt with it. "Punishing" with a hide for "not getting it" is in a backhanded way intolerant, too. Not everyone comes to the table with the same degree of awareness. Teach, so he will learn, don't punish. If the poster has a history of LGBT hatred, the admins will see a pattern and take care of it."
"misinformed but not hate speech"
"I see a respectful post presenting a point of view--perhaps not universally held--but a point of view."
That same poster has now repeated it a half dozen more times (despite plenty of teaching, by me and others). So much for teaching and merely being misinformed...ugh.
= new reply since forum marked as read