I've never heard of a court decision mandating a specific gender pronoun. What are your thoughts on this?

Can we just get past what s/he wants to be called and focus on what s/he did? Intentionally disclosing classified material to the public openly is a pretty big deal.

I'd say the crimes were committed as Bradley Manning. Any current reference can be Chelsea all she pleases, but Bradley committed crimes and he must be punished for them. If she wants all proceedings to refer to her as female during the time period the classified information was leaked, then I'd say that just adds to the charges of falsifying information - for enlistment, for security clearances, for handling classified information, etc - because that information was under the custody of Bradley Manning, a male soldier. If Manning wants to be that way about it, let's play ball.

The more I read about this case, the more I'm conflicted.

First off, I'm a former Intelligence Analyst. Let me get that right out there. Manning had a duty to protect classified materials, which he did not do. He pleased guilty to 10 of the 22 charges he faced during Courts Martial. He was convicted of 20 of them in total. He was acquitted of the "aiding the enemy" charge. Generally speaking, what he was acquitted of, and what he plead guilty of made sense. The charges he fought also made sense, as some of them were "modified" in scope. The government went to far, in what they were trying to do. He got 35 years in federal prison for his actions. This is appropriate. If I did what he did, I would expect the same. He released classified information.

Now, let's look at the person. He's obviously unstable. There were signs he was unstable before the incident. His leadership knew things were wrong. They tried to protect him, and it blew up in their faces, and didn't end up protecting Manning at all. This doesn't excuse what Manning did, but it does provide context.

The guys sick. He's been sick for a long time. Before the incident. During the incident. After the incident.

I may despise the guy for what he did, but that doesn't mean I still don't have an obligation to try to get him better. Even if I don't necessarily agree with the treatment.

Like I said, I'm conflicted. I don't like what he did. But he's a prisoner, and we're responsible for his care, and what that entails, whether mental or physical. If that means we have to refer to him by his legal name, or by the feminine pronoun, fine.