In defence of deadnaming

Men have persuaded you to say this stuff

Some people are just plain stupid, without having anyone prompting them.

Women are a paradigmatic and probably archetypal example but we're not the only one or the absolute, and certainly as individuals we're perfectly capable of oppressing other people, including subcategories of women, in the same way.

Does that translate to nasty women in plain English?

In country where a man can butcher a woman in the vilest of ways and then, claiming it was consensual be sentenced to less than 4 years

where 2 women a week are murdered by men, often known to them

I want to know what the feminist fuck ‘pulling up the ladder’ means

can any mother help?

Pulling the ladder up. What utter shite. Men have persuaded you to say this stuff, men with a cross dressing paraphillia. And you are so gullible you are proud of it.

@NonExistentFox In your sentence:

Women are a paradigmatic and probably archetypal example but we're not the only one or the absolute, and certainly as individuals we're perfectly capable of oppressing other people, including subcategories of women, in the same way.

could you clarify who is meant by ‘women’ in the first clause (women are a paradigmatic etc)

and who are the subcategories of women they might oppress?

The way it is constructed makes it sound as though you are asserting a hierarchy of womanhood:

1 women
2–> n all thesubcategories of women

And coercive control is what abusers do. Hence the desire to make "deadnaming" illegal.

Re: deadnaming

I am not a fan of legislating ‘niceness’, or ‘feelings’.

there are compelling reasons, not least to do with safeguarding as to why no one should be allowed to delete their past, or prevent any access to it. even if it makes them sad.

the whole concept of deadnaming springs from a need for coercive control.

OlennasWimple This is how I talk. If you want I can substitute "prime" for the fancy words or you can substitute an argument instead of just saying no,

I guess I just find irony funny, sorry

What, exactly, does this have to do with deadnaming?

Because they cannot access the lesbians who understand what the word means, sackrifice. And they end up having to say things like "I wouldn't want to sleep with a raddled transphobe anyway", which totally doesn't sound like a disgruntled bloke who can't get his end away...

How exactly are [mainly white] men an oppressed minority?

Today's Top Tip: using long words doesn't make what one writes any more true

DARVO away, MadgeMidgerson. A lot of gaslighted minorities get it and stand in solidarity with trans people instead of pulling the ladder up after themselves.

The history of telling minorities they're delusional is bad and usually involves gaslighting.

Oh my sides

I agree bubonic

trange how so many transwomen talk about their 'transition

In the old days trans was used as shorthand for transitioning from man to women and it was just left as that

Now they have had to find a new 'innocuous' phrase for natalwomen and now trans stand for the opposite to cis

As i have seen the 'transalpine' thing used to say why cis is a dumb fucking phrase when used to describe natal women

Its ludicrous

No, the history of telling women they’re delusional is quite long and it has usually involved theories that were later found to be — shall we say, ridiculous?

It happens to most categories of people viewed as less valid, yes, not just minorities. Women are a paradigmatic and probably archetypal example but we're not the only one or the absolute, and certainly as individuals we're perfectly capable of oppressing other people, including subcategories of women, in the same way.

The two go hand in hand?

This is where the abusive nature of these conversations go every time.

The small group of people who have decided to believe the sex change PR campaign cannot stop themselves from abusive behavior like this.

Why is that? Is there a weird need to have an enemy? Anyway I don't want an answer, it's all such ludicrous pomposity. Pathetic.

Strange how so many transwomen talk about their 'transition'...

I'd say that as social beings there's something vital that happens in people to do with recognition.

No ‘how’ is beyond science even if it’s out of reach of our current science.

I'd imagine as you get more abstract and rarefied you'd start running into undecidable problems.

But in this case, yeah, that's the point I've been making. Wait and see whether something elucidates things instead of treating people like they're a contradiction in terms. The history of telling minorities they're delusional is bad and usually involves gaslighting.

They're not, it's an adjective, not a verb, based on a preposition.

So they are not transitioning in any way? So what is the difference between the men that are boys/men for all their lives, who have kids, get married etc etc, and the trans women that they are at some determined point? Are you saying that they are exactly the same thing and there is no transition?

DisrespectfulAdultFemale
Of course, I was just picking one category where there was evidence of existing crime before the changes were made. I just wanted to know if there was a before and after.
Otherwise they pat themselves on the back after passing a law (with no extra resources to enforce it) and it achieves nothing.
We could ban sex dolls tomorrow, for example, as we could argue they encourage dangerous sexual behaviour. It would be entirely toothless without more border force staff to intercept packages, without more police to build a case against illegal importers and without money and places in the justice and prison systems (even if this wasn't an imprisonable offence, if imprisonable offences no longer carry a custodial sentence due to overcrowding and financial pressures then there is a knock-on effect on other non-custodial sentences). It would be a pointless law because it would only be enforceable if a fully formed prosecution case landed in their lap. It wouldn't solve the problem.
We pass far too many laws like that, and a deadnaming or misgendering law would be the same. Unenforceable without specific impetus, specific social pressure and some wodge. Who would use such a law, and against whom?

They're not, it's an adjective, not a verb, based on a preposition. Is Transalpine Gaul going anywhere?