Chelsea Manning should not be victimized by governmental discrimination given her unique choice of self-identification

Chelsea Manning ,  who is a former united states  army analyst of  intelligence  was primarily  responsible  for one of the major  classified  information  leaks  in the  united states  history.  He represents a very high sentence of thirty five full years for serving as a traitor of the American army.   Chelsea Manning should however not be victimized by the discrimination governmental based on her unique option of self identification.  It is everyone’s human right to stand for what they believe in based on self expression freedom (Steinhardt, Hoffman, & Camponovo, 2009).  Her gender choice should therefore not be utilized in wrong treatment rather she should be punished for leaking confidential information without a counting on her gender.  As a transgender  Chelsea  Manning  has conquered  so much hardships which includes  the lack of  treatment  for  hormones  as a transgender.  Manning has received adequate torture by being sent to an all male sentencing facility. To add to the  discrimination  the facility  denied  Chelsea  treatment  for her dsyphoria gender  despite being  diagnosed  by the  military doctors  back in 2010.

Chelsea Manning should not be victimized for opting on her unique self identity as this is a compromise of humanity.  This means that through victimizing her based on her gender choice her life is particularly being endangered.   Chelsea has the right to access health care. Manning is  human  and  defenseless to discrimination and thus her  choice on  her unique  gender as a former  intelligence  analyst in the  American a army should be  respected.  One’s ender identity cannot be utilized to fight against them as that is everyone’s constitutional right that should never be restricted (Steinhardt, Hoffman, & Camponovo, 2009).

Discrimination as well as violence   and particularly sexual violence that is subjected against transgender females can be described as negative in a disproportionately manner.  This  means that gender  expression should be  equally  distributed among  all  individuals  in regard  on the crime committed  against the  state (Steinhardt, Hoffman, & Camponovo, 2009).  Hormone therapy for the transgender inmates is termed to be a legitimate form of medical treatment.  Manning should therefore not be subjected to unusual and cruel punishments. The  governmental discrimination should therefore not  victimize  Chelsea Manning  for her  unique  gender option and  should  help her in pursuing  appropriate  and lawful  treatment and healthcare.  In general  incarcerated  and imprisoned  individuals  only hold the constitutional  right  in accessing  treatment that  is aimed  at  preventing the occurrence  of deterioration (Steinhardt, Hoffman, & Camponovo, 2009).  This means that if Manning demonstrates deterioration without being offered hormonal treatment she is expected to receive adequate medical acre as well as proper treatment.

Manning’s choice of unique gender is not different from the choices that are   made by other individuals based on their constitutional rights.  Gender  dysphoria is similar  to other  illnesses and therefore  lack of appropriate treatment  is a violation of the established  care standards as well as  the  obvious  constitutional  prescriptions  that are  done  against  deliberate  indifferences to  treatment and serious medical  needs that should be offered t individuals  held under the government  custody. When one is held under the governmental custody discrimination based on some constitutional choices should never be an option (Steinhardt, Hoffman, & Camponovo, 2009).  The governmental discrimination should therefore not victimize Manning based on her gender choice as it is their duty to offer her the necessary treatment.  In addition this should not be utilized  as a measure  of the treatment  she receives as  this were not  her  sentence  charges.  Manning is entitled to proper  treatment  because  that is her  constitutional right and her decision  cannot  be questioned  as  stated  by  the legal laws.

 

 

 

 

            Reference

Steinhardt, R. G., Hoffman, P., & Camponovo, C. N. (2009). International human rights lawyering: Cases and materials. St. Paul, MN: West.