Breanna Manning's Twinkie Defense: 'Gays Can't Keep Secrets'

Perhaps I am missing something.  But as I understand it the defense is not at all trying to introduce the argument that Manning had diminished capacity because he was gay.  They are suggesting that he had diminished capacity because he was suffering from some kind of serious gender identity confusion, while at the same time trying to function within a military system that is absolutely intolerant when it comes to supporting and assisting people facing such psychological difficulties.  Or perhaps they are trying to suggest that Manning was a personally unconfused transgendered individual, but forced to endure debilitating stresses due to the institutional requirement that he hide his transgendered identity.

Most gay men, as I understand it, have no confusion about their gender identity.   They regard themselves as straightforwardly male-gendered, but just recognize that they are gay males.

I am not sure why as a liberal Democrat you appear (taking your post at face value) to have any difficulty distinguishing between transgendered people (the T in LGBT) and gay people (the G in LGBT).

The argument his lawyers are presenting, as your Politico link describes, is that he suffered from gender identity disorder.  They are not arguing that gays can't keep secrets.  They are arguing that his transgendered behavior and identity, to the extent he had one, reflected diminished mental capacity.

I don't like the argument that transgendered behavior can be seen as disordered or as evidence of diminished capacity, but it doesn't take a lot of reading to understand that that's what they're saying.  And they're his lawyers.  I don't fault them one bit for trying it.  The adversary system brings forward arguments that may likely fail, to give a party a fair day in court.  A military trier of fact may be moved by this argument, as insulting as it is to transgendered people.  What's not to understand about this?

The Breanna in the title is more of the rhetorical style you presented in the Romney piece.  It's Dennis Rodman stuff.  You commit a foul and pretend you don't, presumably to stand back and watch idiotic responses and then say you were high-roading it the whole time.  But Rodman was the master at not seeming to have committed the foul.  There's no comparably artful sleight of hand here.

I went back to ABL and read the comments there, and three or four people, including Allan, all politely said they had a problem with your title and/or word choice in the piece.  Because I'd wish for you to learn from the criticism and not tune it out, I will simply say that I find their comments understated and in the right direction.  You should listen to them.

Others have posited that what's being used is gender-confusion not homosexuality, but my impression was that this was a multiple-personality disorder argument, with a female being one of the personalities. It'd hardly be the first time MPD was used as a defense!

I think they're actually positing that being repressed and uncertain in the closet causes diminished mental capacity, severe distress and irrational behavior.

Which is a good thing, as it sets precedent for 10-20% of the Republican party.

The Politico piece makes clear to me that it's not a "twinkie defense," right here:

While defense lawyers occasionally asked questions suggesting that the leaked information might not have originated with Manning, a far greater defense focus was that Manning’s superiors failed to act on numerous signs that he should not have been deployed to Iraq and that he should have been stripped of his access to classified information.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70597_Page2.html#ixzz1hHx2dn4n

Where you apparently see a suggestion that homosexuals or transgenders shouldn't be allowed in the military, I see the suggestion that it's the responsibility of higher ups in the military to insure that mentally unstable individuals are not given important roles. It's interesting because this problem is also at the heart of the Ft Hood shooting. Few are suggesting Muslims shouldn't be allowed to serve, instead, higher ups are being blamed for being too politically correct to do something about all the warning signs coming from Major Hasan. Extra irony here: a military psychiatrist like Major Hasan would, theoretically, in an efficiently run military, be on the lookout for Major Hasan's and Bradley Manning's on verge of cracking up.

The defense is going after blaming Manning's higher ups, looks to me so far that it's as simple as that. Manning's supporters on the left aren't going to get what they want to see, apparently. But neither is it going to be an indictment of the repeal of DADT. There wouldn't be much difference in defending a female soldier with severe PMS or a male one with latent schizophrenia, that their superiors should have seen the problematic behavior much earlier--doesn't reflect on all the other healthy service people of their gender or sexual orientation or race or religion or whatever.

I cannot recall who said it right at this moment, but:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN INNOCENT MAN!

And I understand the drawbacks but this Wikileaks thing really bothers me.

LET IT ALL HANG OUT.

Kind of a 60's view of free speech.

The leaders are mad because they do not wish to be found out.

Now pretend you represent the 'bastard'.

Well you come up with whatever defenses are available and if they are not available you attempt to make them available.

That is the purpose of the adversary system.

Wha happen?