.
From inside the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where she is serving a 35-year prison sentence, that is precisely what convicted Wikileaker Chelsea Manning has been doing – fighting for her existence.
Since first being diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2010, Chelsea has struggled to be recognized and affirmed by the government, the public, and even some of her supporters, as Chelsea.
In a December op-ed published in the Guardian, she :
We should all have the absolute and inalienable right to define ourselves, in our own terms and in our own languages, and to be able to express our identity and perspectives without fear of consequences and retribution. We should all be able to live as human beings – and to be recognized as such by the societies we live in.
This month, after a year and a half of fighting, including filing over two-dozen complaints, numerous formal grievances, a demand letter, and a federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU, Chelsea Manning finally received some affirmation of her humanity. On February 11, she began hormone treatment for her diagnosed gender dysphoria.
But even with this victory, Chelsea's fight continues.
The government is refusing to let Chelsea grow her hair as other female prisoners are permitted to do. Instead it is forcing her to keep an almost shaved head in accordance with male hair standards.
Meanwhile, in her criminal appeal, the government has refused to honor Chelsea's female identity and is and her former name in the legal papers for that case – a clear signal that they seek to further dehumanize her as she fights for her freedom. Around the country, countless other transgender women and men in prisons, jails, and immigration detention centers are struggling to be heard, to receive treatment, and to survive unbearable conditions. In other words: to simply exist.
This last week, the Southern Poverty Law Center the Georgia Department of Corrections on behalf of Ashley Diamond, a transgender woman who has been denied the medically necessary hormone treatment that she relied on for 17 years prior to her incarceration. In response to her pleas for treatment, Georgia prison officials mocked Ashley calling her a "he-she-thing" and ridiculing her health and safety needs.
From prison, Ashely : "It is amazing how a minor brush with the law has turned into a death sentence. This is about more than just hormone treatment. This is about gross human rights violations. Three years of torture is enough."
Indeed. Three days would be enough, three years is nightmare.
Across the political spectrum, people of trans people to receive the basic medical care we need. Television shows and even in the wake of tragedy, media outlets think it permissible to erase our core humanity by our lives and genders in death.
As Ohio-based trans activist Cherno Biko :
Our fight is not for equality, it's for liberation and survival. Our bodies are being criminalized and policed to the point of extinction. It is crucial that we channel our energy and resources to our communities' most vulnerable.
While we mourn the many trans women we have lost this year, we must also stand with those trans people living under unbearably violent conditions. Exposed to unthinkable deprivations and degradation, our incarcerated trans brothers and sisters are everyday defending their right to exist.
What an incredibly modest, yet truly brave and resilient demand. Until no more trans people are subjected to the fear of death for being who they are, fighting for trans survival in and out of prisons is our duty and privilege.
From Chelsea to Ashley to the countless whose names we do not know, we see you, we defend you, and we support you.
Learn more about transgender rights and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.