Opinions
Feminist, trans advocates should support Bradley Manning
Wikileaks suspect sought to create a better-informed democracy

By Rainey Reitman
Some thoughtful feminist scholars have recently called on the Bradley Manning Support Network to begin referring to the accused WikiLeaks whistle-blower with a female pronoun. Emily Manuelās essay in Global Comment highlighted why many of us who strongly support transgender rights are sensitive to the pronouns we use when we refer to Manning.
As an ardent supporter of Bradley Manning and a feminist, I have given this issue a great deal of thought.Ā Given the unusual and perhaps unprecedented circumstances of the situation, I wanted to explain why Iām still calling him Bradley. In so doing, I also hope to demonstrate why folks who care passionately about queer and transgender rights should come out in support.
First, we should bear in mind the basis upon which some have made suppositions about Manningās preferred gender identity. By and large, we are dealing with evidence that has not been established as fact. We can look at some Google searches found in forensic evidence, a smattering of late-night private chat logs, and potential testimony from those in whom Manning may have privately confided.
If these materials are to be believed, then it appears that Manning was questioning his gender identity. Manningās lawyers have noted that he had sought counseling, but we donāt know if any final decision was ever made. We donāt know whether Manning wanted āBreannaā to be a primary identity, or if this was an alter ego that was never meant to be indicative of primary gender identification. We do know ā from our own private conversations with friends and family members ā that prior to his incarceration, Manning had not asked people to refer to him with a female pronoun.
The decision to transition ā especially when it entails life-changing hormones or even surgery ā isnāt something undergone lightly or quickly.Ā Like many who are unsure about their gender identification, Manning used the Internet as a sandbox to begin experimenting with these complex issues. Unfortunately, he was arrested and forced to undergo many torturous months in solitary confinement, without proper medical, social, and emotional support during this time of questioning. We donāt know whether he reached a final decision.
From the earliest stages, the Bradley Manning Support Network has sought to honor Manningās choices. Early in the campaign, we reached out to Manningās aunt and lawyer and asked what name he preferred we use in our advocacy. They got back to us to say that āBradā or āBradleyā would be fine.
Since then, weāve sent Bradley packages in the mail showing him the fliers, stickers, postcards, T-shirts and photos of rallies all emblazoned with the name āBradley Manning.ā Manning has issued three public statements since his incarceration: during his first Christmas behind bars he issued holiday wishes; after many long months in solitary confinement he released a multi-page letter describing his abusive conditions; and after the pretrial hearing in December, he communicated through his aunt that he appreciated our support.
Notably, he didnāt ask us to start referring to him as Breanna. Advocates for Manning have an obligation to respect his agency and use the pronoun he had preferred prior to his arrest. None of us has the right to switch pronouns for Manning unless he tells us otherwise.
We also need to bear in mind that PFC Manning is currently – and quite literally – fighting for his life. He faces ridiculous charges of “aiding the enemy,” which carry a maximum sentence of death, despite the fact that our government’s own impact assessments found no harm to national security from the WikiLeaks materials. This extreme retaliation against Manning for uncovering war crimes stands in stark contrast to the military’s recent decisions to let other soldiers, who have admitted to killing unarmed civilians, walk free with nothing more than a cut in their pay.
This is not the normal legal environment that we may remember from our high school civics class. This is a show trial of a political prisoner. The military is openly abusing Manning of his rights in order to create a calculated psychological impact, and no doubt as a sharp warning to others who might consider exposing crimes and corruption.
Manning has been subjected to prolonged solitary confinement, which carries the risk of severe psychological damage. During that time, he was on several occasions ordered to remove his clothing and stand at “parade rest” in front of his guards. Those in the military know that this position requires you to place your hands behind your back. By all accounts, PFC Manning was the only detainee at the Quantico brig who was subjected to this peculiar form of humiliation. Military officials have since refused to turn over video-recordings that they made of these incidents.
It is difficult to conclude that this very specific form of degrading treatment has nothing to do with the fact that Manning was known to be questioning his gender identity.
When pressed on the mistreatment at a White House press conference, President Obama suggested that these absurd measures were imposed on Manning for his own safety. This excuse contradicted the findings of brig psychiatrists tasked with evaluating Manning, who found on every occasion that he posed no threat to himself in custody.
In this environment, those of us who have the luxury of relative freedom need to recognize that Manning might not be able to say everything that he really wants to say. In fact, we know this to be true. There have been several occasions in which meetings between Manning and his attorneys have been recorded by the military. Military officials have blocked Juan Mendez, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, from having a private meeting with PFC Manning. Manning has rejected an offer from the military to allow him to meet with Mendez on the condition that the meeting be monitored.
In short, Bradley Manning is being silenced. Whether through these direct restrictions on his ability to communicate freely, or more subtly through media narratives that attempt to erase his political agency, the establishment does not want us to hear Manning’s true voice.
Each one of us working with the Bradley Manning Support Network anxiously awaits the day when Bradley Manning can speak freely, unencumbered by the shackles of oppression and injustice. But until that time, we canāt presume to speak for him, especially on an issue as personal and yet political as gender identification.
Lt. Daniel Choi, who was discharged from the Army for being openly gay, recently called on the queer community to stand up for Bradley Manning. In an interview with Keith Olbermann, he decried the mediaās portrayal that Manningās sexual or gender identity was being used an excuse. He instead noted that Manning had displayed the highest level of integrity in his actions:
āI think at this point we canāt say that he did any of this or didnāt do any of this because heās gay or transgender. He did this because heās a good soldier… Iām proud of him as a gay soldier because he stood for integrity. And Keith, one thing about the gay community is that our community, among all of the communities in the world, weāre the only one that bases its membership -ā its membership ā on integrity and telling the truth about ourselves, declassifying that information for the betterment of our entire lives and societies and families. And when we do that, we realize that the gay movement is more important than just for gay people alone.ā
All available evidence points to Manning being driven by integrity. At the Article 32 hearing, military prosecutors submitted a note allegedly attached by Manning to the materials they say he sent to WikiLeaks concerning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It read:
“This is perhaps one of the most significant documents of our time, removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of 21st century asymmetric warfare.”
This seems to be the core motivation for Manning: to enlighten and educate the world, to create a better-informed democracy, to shed sunlight on the darkness covering our foreign policies and ongoing wars overseas. And, as queer activists have long known, there is power and transcendence in choosing truth, even when that truth makes others uncomfortable.
Rainey Reitman is a writer and a feminist. She sits on the Steering Committee of the Bradley Manning Support Network.
Opinions
On Pope Francis, Opus Dei and ongoing religious intolerance
Argentine-born pontiff died on Monday

āGood Fridayā set the stage for Saturdayās anti-Trump/MAGA āHands Offā protests serving as a timely lead-in to binge-watching Alex Gibneyās two-part HBO political documentary, āThe Dark Money Gameā on Easter Sunday. In āWealth of the Wicked,ā nefarious Opus Dei āSvengali Leonard Leo strategically seduces politically disappointed Catholic Federalist Society billionaires into subsidizing a scheme to ‘pipeline’ malleable conservative judges to take over the Supreme Court and overturn reproductive rights.
A key victory for āOperation Higher Courtā came in 2010 when SCOTUS ruled 5-4 in Citizens United v Federal ElecĀtion CommisĀsion, that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment free political speech rights as individuals ā as long as their unlimited cash donations go to 501 c(4)’s or Super PAC slush funds and not directly to candidates. Twelve years later, in 2022, they got their payoff with the overturning of Roe v Wade by Leo-promoted Catholic justices.
But Leoās political conniving is not the only exploitation of moral corruption. The documentary exposes conservative Christians too.
Gibneyās anti-hero is a former rabid anti-abortion lobbyist named Rev. Robert Schenck. He tells of turning to a fellow conservative in Cleveland, Ohio after Trump won the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 and asking: āAre we really going to do this? Weāre going to choose this man whoās inimical to everything we believe?ā The other evangelical replied: āI donāt care how bad he is. Heās going to get us the court we need.āā
Schenck explains the unholy alliance between Christian conservatives and Big Business. āWhenever you talked about government regulation, the argument was eventually ā āthese same characters who control my business are going to start trying to control your church. So, itās in your best interests that we defang this monsterā ā and that brought a lot of religious conservatives over.ā
And thereās this: āWe have a little aphorism built on a Bible verse: āThe wealth of the wicked is laid up for the righteous.ā So, yeah, letās baptize the billionairesā money. We can do that ā and it eventually brought together this alliance.ā
Schenck later reveals an intense epiphany that resulted in regret for how much harm he caused. Not so for Leo.
This is an excerpt from Gareth Goreās comprehensive book Opus, for Rolling Stone Magazine:
āDURING THE DONALD TRUMP YEARS, conservatives ā led by Leonard Leo ā took control of the Supreme Court … At one Federalist Society event, his good friend Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas jokingly referred to Leo as the third most powerful man in the world, presumably behind the pope and the president of the United States.ā
On Monday morning, Pope Francis died. I liked this pope, compared to the others. I covered Creating Change during the AIDS crisis when author Paul Monette delivered his brilliant, scathing denouncement of the Catholic Church, then unexpectedly ripped up a portrait of Pope John Paul II. Pope Benedict XVI was just crotchety cruel. But Pope Francis ā named for St. Francis of Assisi ā had that big smile and genuinely seemed to care about migrants, the vulnerable and the marginalized ā like us. He even used the word ‘gay’ instead of ‘homosexual.’
Pope Francisās reply to a question about a Vatican āgay lobbyā on a flight from Rio de Janeiro to Rome made global news. āIf a person is gay and seeks God and has good will,ā he said in 2013. āWho am I to judge? We shouldn’t marginalize people for this. They must be integrated into society.”
What did this mean? Welcoming inclusion into a family that officially considers us ‘intrinsically disordered?’
And then there was Pope Francis’s interaction with Juan Carlos CruzĀ ā a whistleblower in Chile’s clerical sex abuse scandal.
“He said, ‘Look Juan Carlos, the pope loves you this way. God made you like this and he loves you,'” Cruz told The Associated Press.
Meanwhile the Catholic Church Catechism affirmed, “this inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”
Ergo, a behavioral choice.
Therein lies the problem.
LGBTQ people are seen largely as individuals with sinful same sex sexual ‘inclinations.’ So when the pontiff touted ‘the equal dignity of every human being,’ and rebuked Vice President JD Vance with the ‘Good Samaritan’ parable, whereby love ābuilds a fraternity open to all, without exceptionā ā we are still the exception.
Francis was all also human ā having to apologize at one point for using a gay slur. But what of the bigger things like, did he know about the Opus Dei takeover of the U.S. Supreme Court when he chastised Vance about deporting migrants? Did he know that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to pay $880 million to 1,353 people last October, who allege they were victims of clergy sexual abuse? With a previous payment of $740 million, the total settlement payout will be more than $1.5 billion dollars. Is Leo chipping in to replenish that?
And itās not over. Earlier this month, Downey Catholic priest Jaime Arriaga, 41, was charged with several counts of child sexual abuse which allegedly happened when he was serving as a transitional deacon at the Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church.
Longtime U.K LGBTQ+ activist Peter Tatchell ā whoās campaigned against Catholic homophobia for 58 years ā says Pope Francisā legacy is complicated.
āI extend my condolences to Catholics worldwide on the passing of Pope Francis. While we often disagreed on issues of LGBTQ rights, I acknowledge his more compassionate tone towards sexual minorities. His recent moves to allow blessings for same-sex couples, albeit with limitations, signaled a small but significant shift in Church doctrine,ā Tatchell said in a statement.
āHowever, for millions of LGBT+ people globally, the Catholic Church remains a force for discrimination and suffering. Under his leadership, the Vatican continued to oppose same-sex marriage and trans rights. Catholic bishops lobbied against the decriminalization of homosexuality in many parts of the world. The Vatican still upholds the homophobic edicts of the Catechism, which denounces the sexual expression of same-sex love as a āgrave depravityā and āintrinsically disordered.ā Francisās legacy is, therefore, a mixed one ā offering some progress, but leaving deep-rooted inequalities largely intact.
āThe struggle for LGBT+ equalityĀ against a homophobicĀ church must continue. We urge the next Pope to go further ā to end the churchās support for discrimination, both within the faith and in the widerĀ society.ā

Brad Tennis loves running. For years, the meditative rhythm of his feet on pavement brought him peace like nothing else could. And it turns out, he was quite good at running as he even qualified for the Boston Marathon. But while Brad was chasing his goals, unbeknownst to him, his heart was slowly deteriorating.
In November 2018, out of the blue, Brad was diagnosed with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy or ARVC, a rare heart condition that causes the heart muscle to break down over time. ARVC increases the risk of abnormal heartbeats and chance of sudden cardiac death. Brad was fitted with an internal defibrillator and told he could no longer run. Doctors warned him that endurance exercise would only accelerate the disease.
After processing the news of this condition, Brad felt like himself for a while. But in 2020, he started experiencing Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) shocks to halt life threatening arrhythmias. Despite numerous surgical and medical interventions, the shocks began to get more frequent. By 2023, the toll of the disease, the ICD shocks and the treatments led to progressing heart failure. By the end of 2023, he was feeling breathless on stairs, having trouble playing physically with his children and finding it difficult to keep up at work. His world was shrinking.
In February 2024, Brad started the process with Johns Hopkins Hospital to be listed for a heart transplant. A couple of weeks later, he had another shock, more testing and then a doctor put him on ECMO (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), a life support machine that is used when a person’s heart is failing. Soon after, he got the news of a lifetime: āThereās a heart available and today is the day!ā
The organ transplant marked the beginning of a new journey. Brad focused on recovery ā building up his strength, learning his new body and adjusting to life with a new heart. Last summer, he was cleared to exercise again and is enjoying playing with his kids ā something he deeply missed.

“I would never say I’m back to feeling normal. I’m always going to have to carefully manage my stress and my activities to protect my health and my new heart,ā said Brad. āBut the transplant was lifesaving and means that I will be there to build a life with my husband and my kids.”
Brad is still moving forward. He and his family are enjoying life again ā and heās even bought a new pair of sneakers with the hope that heāll be able to return to running regularly.
āOrgan donation and transplant have reopened doors that I had thought were closed forever,ā Brad shares. āItās given me the chance to be present and have a full, happy life with my husband, son and daughter.ā
His husband, Drew, adds, āEvery day, I’m reminded of Brad’s strength, resilience and bravery.ā
Brad doesnāt take this lifesaving gift for granted and is grateful to his organ donor hero. āI think itās an amazing thing ā to give life and give hope. Even in tragedy, someone gave me a gift… a second chance. Everyone can register to be a donor and save lives like Bradās at infinitelegacy.org.
Commentary
Fight against TERFs goes global
UK Supreme Court on April 17 ruled legal definition of āwomanā limited to ābiological sexā

After last weekās U.K. Supreme Court ruling that reduced the legal definition of āwomanā to ābiological sex,ā footage of a group of women celebrating the decision with champagne spread virally across the media. These women are known as trans-exclusionary radical feminists, or TERFs.
In response, thousands of transgender people and their allies ā including parents, siblings, and pro-trans celebrities ā flooded the streets of London, Sheffield, Manchester, Cardiff, and other cities across the U.K. on April 19, to protest the erosion of trans rights. The fight between TERFs and trans* people have become more visible to those outside of the British LGBTQ+ community.
But this isnāt just about the U.K. The problem has gone global. For me, as an openly trans person who has lived in four different countries, it feels deeply personal.
For years, British TERFs have been spreading misinformation about gender around the globe, collaborating with far-right politicians and inspiring anti-trans violence.
At a pro-trans protest I attended in Sheffield, one of the speakers, Sofia Alatorre, a trans woman from Mexico now living in the U.K., dedicated her speech to the ways British TERFs, with their powerful movement supported by celebrities, such as āHarry Potterā author JK Rowling, are influencing people in South America.
āWhen I go to Mexico now, I don’t just hear people talking about transsexuals as degenerates anymore. Instead I hear about what bathroom we should use, or whether we belong in sports,ā Sofia told the Washington Blade. āThese are not lines that come from Mexico. They are finely crafted narratives designed to drive a wedge by weaponizing ācommon senseā gut reactions to complicated subjects. Because without these, they’d have to face the uncomplicated reality: We are just people trying to live our lives happily. In the U.K., the entire media infrastructure is sympathetic with āgender criticalā TERF ideology to the point that sympathy blurs into outright support. With these lines finding footing in the Global South, it seems clear that the U.K. has become an exporter of transphobia.ā
Unfortunately, TERFs even showed up at a trans event, attempting to argue with the speakers.
One of the trans* organizers of the Sheffield demonstration, who preferred to remain anonymous, expressed their love for the trans* community and trans* people. They emphasized that they are not expressing hatred toward TERFs ā they simply want them to reconsider their position.
āIf you’re a TERF and reading this, we donāt hate you,ā they said. āWe don’t hate you. There is nothing I hold in my heart but deep pity for you. You do not know the community of love that we have as transsexuals, and you only know your community of hatred. If you are tired of feeling nothing but hate, come and talk to us, we’re nice, I promise. This protest is a rallying cry that we can’t lose, that we are all here for each other, and that we can do whatever the f*ck we want when we work together. We may be out here today in rage, but what keeps us alive is love.ā
But it doesnāt seem like TERFs are ready to show love toward trans people ā or to see trans women as their sisters. At our local protest in Sheffield, they were so agitated, jumping toward speakers and trying to engage with them, that the police had to intervene and remove them to prevent a fight. It reminded me of TERFsā behavior I encountered in St. Petersburg, Russia, and in Russian-language online spaces.
Unfortunately, itās not just South America that has been influenced by UK TERFs. The country I currently live in is known within European and U.S. queer communities as āTERF Island.ā
Some trans Americans even avoid traveling to the U.K., afraid of the influence that Rowling holds over millions due to her wealth and cultural impact.
In Russia, Ukraine, and other Eastern European countries, so-called āradical feminismā is the most prominent feminist movement. Radical feminism, which emerged in the 1960s, is based on the belief that patriarchy is the root of all other forms of oppression.
In modern Eastern Europe, this has led to a situation where many feminists fail to acknowledge racism, ableism, and transphobia ā excluding everyone except cisgender people, Slavic, atheist, and able-bodied people from their movement. Historically, radical feminists have not focused much on the trans* community, but with the rise of trans* activism in the 2000s, many became fixated on targeting trans people.
Many of my Russian-speaking trans friends have been badly bullied by local TERFs. Some even experienced suicidal thoughts and severe anxiety due to online harassment from them. And these TERFs werenāt developing their ideology locally ā they were importing it. The anti-man rhetoric was inherited from American prominent radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Ti-Grace Atkinson, while the transphobic elements were āexportedā to Eastern Europe, primarily from the U.K. and specifically Scotland.
Even before Rowling, there was Magdalen Berns, a Scottish TERF YouTuber who was extremely popular among Russian girls and women. It was Berns who helped bring Rowling into anti-trans activism.
I spoke with Sophie Molly, a Scottish trans activist and politician who ran as an Independent MP candidate in the 2024 U.K. general election for the Aberdeen South constituency.
TERFs ruthlessly harassed her during her campaign.
āTransphobia is institutionalized in the UK. It is systemic and it’s getting worse with each passing dayā she told me. āLocal TERF have a slew of legal professionals on their team too. Like Sarah Phillimore and Joanne Cherry. TERFs have been continually lobbying the government to oppress trans and gender non-conforming people. Dragging their rights and freedoms through the courts. All under the pretense of protecting the rights of women. In reality these conservative groups are backed and funded by billionaires. Billionaires that want to remove trans people from public life, due a personal prejudice they hold. The majority of TERFs are wealthy and privileged white women. Most of them are not LGBTQIA+. They have obscene amounts of money to spend on persecuting a tiny minority. Trans women are women ā no matter what the U.K. Supreme Court dictates.ā
But another problem of TERFs is that they are policing women as well. Even the Supreme Court decision targeted women.
āThe [Supreme Court] decision is an attack on the rights of both trans people and women,ā Sophie said. āIt reduces women to their anatomy, which is extremely regressive and misogynistic in my opinionā
Women for decades have fought to ensure their lives wouldnāt be defined by the sexual organs they were born with. TERFs are now doing exactly that ā attempting to reduce womanhood to biology, while also dictating how women should behave, all in the name of āsisterhood.ā
Modern British TERFs have received support from figures like musician, far-right influencer, and convicted murderer Varg Vikernes, as well as ultra-conservative organizations such as the Russian Orthodox Church, an institution notorious not only for justifying the war in Ukraine with homophobic rhetoric but also for its long history of opposing womenās rights. This kind of āfeminismā is a global threat, not only to trans* people but also to girls and women everywhere.
Editorās note: The author uses trans* in order to be inclusive of nonbinary and gender queer people.
-
Opinions16 hours ago
David Hoggās arrogant, self-indulgent stunt
-
U.S. Federal Courts5 days ago
Federal judge blocks Trump passport executive order
-
Books5 days ago
āPronoun Troubleā reminds us that punctuation matters
-
Federal Government14 hours ago
HHS to retire 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth