Twitter bans misgendering and deadnaming

I have been following this with great interest and wonder why we can't use "xx name", that is, inverted commas, when forced to say a name which someone insists is used. It would then be seen as complying in order to have a voice there, but is also sticking up two fingers at being told what to call someone who is hiding their past. I'm not on Twitter but could not bring myself to use the names that deluded people tell me to use .... or would they then ban inverted commas?

I predict Verbeena will magnanimously make an exception for rapists and murderers. Because she used to be gender critical and opposes self ID, you know.

Perhaps V can see inside people's souls? It's a neat trick.

Good points. The TRAs won't like them.

Observer article today by Kenan Malik:
'Debate ends when we label views we simply disagree with as ‘hatred’
To kill off discussions on difficult subjects will only give rise to loathing and bigotry

(extract)
"Woman’s Place is a feminist group dedicated to defending the idea of women-only spaces. Its meetings have been disrupted by protesters and banned by local councils as “providing a platform for hate speech”. When another feminist group, Liverpool ReSisters, put up stickers proclaiming “Women don’t have penises” on Anthony Gormley statues on Crosby beach, they were investigated by the police for possible hate crimes and condemned by the city’s mayor, Joe Anderson, for their “hateful” actions.

The Canadian feminist Meghan Murphy recently tweeted “men aren’t women” and asked: “What is the difference between a man and a trans woman?” Twitter shut down her account for “violating our rules against hateful conduct” and forced her to delete her tweets.

The issue is not whether Stock or Murphy or the ReSisters are right in their views. I agree with some of their arguments, disagree with others. The issue, rather, is whether it is valid for them to raise the issues they do or whether the very act of doing so constitutes “hatred”.

If it is “hate speech” to question a particular definition of what it is to be a woman, or “bigoted” to express concern about non-natal women being allowed into female-only spaces, the very notion of public debate is transformed. There would seem to be little one could say on most difficult issues that could not also be construed as hatred.

To suggest that the kinds of questions posed by Stock or Murphy should not be asked is to suggest, contra Joubert, that it is better to settle questions than debate them. The trouble is, questions are rarely settled without debate. Stock and Murphy raise certain issues not because they are bigots but because of the realities facing women in society. Whatever one thinks of their arguments, these realities will not disappear simply by labelling critical feminists “hatemongers”. (cont)

amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/25/debate-ends-when-we-label-views-we-disagree-with-us-hatred

And of the correct spelling of Meghan.

I am fairly sure Glinner is going to be banned again. He has some balls. I am just wondering what we can do to show support. Otherwise people like Glinner and Megan are on their own so to speak. I am pretty ignorant of Twitter.

I predict Verbeena will magnanimously make an exception for rapists and murderers. Because she used to be gender critical and opposes self ID, you know.

Constant use of they or repeatedly saying their name over and over to avoid saying she - can understand why it would come across as harassing or intolerance towards who they are

You think calling Ian Huntley, the rapist and murderer of young girls, a man - is harassment and intolerance?

How so exactly?

And people wonder why Malta is so in the vanguard for trans rights. I expect Cyprus will be next. Or Grand Cayman. Maybe Luxembourg. Erasure of one’s past name and history is so very useful when it comes to money-laundering.

Yes.

Hmmm. A while back I'd probably have posted that it was ridiculous, how is using the wrong pronoun a hate crime etc?
You only need to read these threads enough to realise that it can actually be more than that though
Constant use of they or repeatedly saying their name over and over to avoid saying she - can understand why it would come across as harassing or intolerance towards who they are.

Verbeena That next stage of enforcement you seem to be hoping for might be tricky.

Interesting that you have identified harrassment and intolerance.

Maybe we should all follow the example of your dear queen. But take it further. Everyone could adopt the pronoun 'one'. In all declinations.
One feels one agrees with one's opinions.

Hmmm. A while back I'd probably have posted that it was ridiculous, how is using the wrong pronoun a hate crime etc?
You only need to read these threads enough to realise that it can actually be more than that though.
Constant use of they or repeatedly saying their name over and over to avoid saying she - can understand why it would come across as harassing or intolerance towards who they are.

Francis Crook executive director of the Howard League for Penal Reform "said that she was worried that ‘some men with a history of extreme violence and sexual violence against women have found a new way of exercising aggression towards women’.

‘These men are not transitioning because they like women and want to be a woman, but in order to exert a new kind of control and dominance over women, a sort of infiltration."

source:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5798945/Trans-women-convicted-men-attack-vulnerable-inmates.html

Claude Knights (safeguarding expert, retired after 15 years as head of Kidscape, ivolved with anti-bullying charity and Westminster Safeguarding group)
on sex offenders who transition and are afforded the opportunity to change their name and hide their history as a consequence & recent case of "Christopher Noble, 32, transitioned to Christyl Knight while behind bars for keeping a stash of over 4,000 vile pictures and videos of kids as young as six months old"

“Allowing these individuals to hide a secret past is a dangerous practice.”
“Anyone who’s fuelled the vile trade in indecent images of children and therefore contributed to their sexual abuse should not be allowed to change their name.”

Source: www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3006679/paedophile-jailed-transgender-christyl-knight-christopher-nobile/

Even converts to Islam never insisted that all reference to their former names be erased.

Wikipedia hasn’t deleted references to Cassius Clay from Muhammad Ali’s biography and you can still buy albums by Cat Stevens.

Am I allowed to say that Tommy Robinson's

Unclear - read point 9 here.

hub.unlock.org.uk/quick-links/top10/#for-more-information

But, he probably does have the right to apply for the Right to be forgotten under GDPR.

Yes, because he's not trans. If he changed it to Tamara, no.

Am I allowed to say that Tommy Robinson's real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon?

They need to be regulated as public services, because that is what they now are — they stepped into the agora and took it over. But the agora has to be a free marketplace of ideas or it’s not an agora, it’s only a pulpit.

Totally agree.

I’ve noticed over the last couple of years that even hardcore libertarians have started arguing that Twitter and Facebook are virtual monopolies and need to be broken up.

Markets only work when there is competition.

The more people they ban the less money they will make from advertising.

Wordpress banned Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True blog in Pakistan because he reprints the Jesus and Mo cartoons.

Transgenderism is the West’s new religion and criticism is blasphemy.

I disagree with a lot of gender critical rhetoric but this is worrying. There are times when it is absolutely in the public interest to say what sex people were born as, in the case of crimes as you’ve pointed out. I’m wondering now how this will impact online news outlets outlets hosted on Wordpress (as many mainstream national news sites are)

Vicky

We could call it a nightmare (which it is) but we can also reframe it as an opportunity.

How great it is to have yet more evidence to show to most of the general public, who haven't been aware of this as of yet, that the cult-like slavish 'they're a woman if they say they're a woman' argument marches on.

Many of us have been where many others may be right now. Be nice, don't want to be seen as 'phobic' (now a meaningless cover-all), think most trans discussion is about people who have dysphoria.

Moments like these are opportunities to have the conversation widely again.

Mostly people are 'boiling frogs' thinking everything's sort of OK, not affecting them, not really a problem.

Actions like this ban is pouring a pan of hot water directly on frogs who were only midly simmering before!