In defence of deadnaming

Fox - what are these trans women transing from?

Still waiting to hear why disbelief is prejudice.

I didn't say they were. That's not what "and" means. But the two often go hand in hand, don't they.

Rufus, apologies! It was not aimed at you

Oh thats quite alright...by the end i was just babbling

Only, not on!

(Typing with cat on lap.)

Oink, hate crime doesn't apply on to ethnic minorities: it also applies to people with disabilities.

I'd like to see the government of the day produce some figures for how specific legislation has met its aim.
For example, racially aggravated crime. Has the introduction of hate crime categories made ethnic minorities' lives safer? (Obviously allowing for the possibility reporting has increased)
Has the ban on handguns after Dunblane decreased gun crime? I don't care that we banned handguns, but I do know there was very little debate on it because it was considered to be The Right Thing To Do. Did it achieve anything in actual gun crime stats?
Minimum alcohol unit pricing in Scotland. If a two litre bottle of cider goes up by a fiver how many people will that actually affect? Is the alcohol problem in Scotland driven by street drinkers only? What happens if they all turn to Spice instead? I mean, I hope they don't and I hope it works as a policy, but do we ever get to see a review?
The Dangerous Dogs Act? Four breeds made illegal - and it hasn't had an effect on the number of overall attacks.
Getting back to the point, if the government was to pass legislation to make misgendering or deadnaming a hate crime, and then fail to review the effects of knee-jerk legislation (like it fails to review other knee-jerk legislation) it would compound the problem.
Harassment is harassment, we should have a properly funded police force, a properly funded justice system and a properly funded prison service so financial considerations don't affect justice outcomes. At present we have none of those things so whoever has the loudest voice and fattest wallet gets justice, while the rest of us get a crime number or a chat with a PCSO the following week...

Language is used to communicate, but under your classification, lesbian coupling could mean two men, two women or a man and a woman, so coherence is fucked for starters. Likewise heterosexuality. It could mean anything. And everyone had better keep awake because it can all change tomorrow.

You have to wonder why it is so damned important for this ideology to obscure the meaning of language. Particularly when it pertains to women

This. The misogyny of this ideology is crystal clear.

Rat is smarter than me and now I do understand to my satisfaction in what manner trans people are trans, so who knows, maybe I'll bother you less in my newfound cognitive harmony.

LOL. I'm not sure whether Rat is smarter than you or not. You're both quite similar. not a compliment

So what's the motivation for pursuing such a law if not to hide the past?

Hiding the past is the only reason.

So reporting on arrests is a no-go since the Cliff Richard case so the Crawley duo are lined up for a payout.
Reporting a criminal's previous alias is a no-go if that criminal decides to claim to be trans.
Safeguarding is now literally a tick-box.
Other countries with self-id imprison and hospitalise according to (birth) sex. But we won't.
We've still got super-injunctions for the rich so we don't report on them, and when parliamentary privilege is invoked to name them that is questioned.
The Speaker has been proven to be biased in a way I can't remember happening with previous Speakers.
E Lord is threatening the Times who are one of the few newspapers to report factually on some of this.
The NUS still haven't dealt with their alleged wanker.
The Labour Party still haven't helped/reined in/supported/addressed their women's officer who isn't a women's officer.
A feminist site had been closed down.
An activist has been silenced on several media platforms.
A comedy writer is facing legal action.
Further legal action is being pursued by the subject of this thread, which appears to be vexatious
It's just scary on all fronts, really.

I have to say that further legislation in terms of hate crimes is usually ineffective. Assault is assault, harassment is harassment, etc. Adding more hate crime categories (ostensibly to add as an aggravating factor to a crime) hasn't resulted in an improvement in the number of assaults or harassment cases. It's already illegal to harass someone and it's already an aggravating factor to do so because of "transphobia" so making it illegal to mention someone's previous name will just have a chilling effect on reporting (and presumably little effect on real harassment). So what's the motivation for pursuing such a law if not to hide the past?
Where's the evidence that making it illegal to hurt (certain) people's feelings will lead to lower rates of actual crime? Is there even a link or is the proposal pure egotism?

Rufus, apologies! It was not aimed at you - it was a general comment aimed at the posts derailing the thread.

Still waiting to hear why disbelief is prejudice.

The manipulation of language is so last year. Plain English is the new black!

I'm not sure there is anyone on the thread who disagrees that making deadnaming illegal won't benefit criminals and predators.

Some people will disagree on principle because it is what TRAs want, but I haven't heard any credible justification.

Sorry disrespectful and yes i agree it should remain legal

Deffo off now

Absolutely.

Muhammed Ali never complained about being referred to as formerly known as Cassius Clay, as that led to a discussion about his conversion to Islam and his resulting change of name.

He did become pissed off if people continued to use Cassius Clay after his name change and conversion were explained.

As Clay, he was a young and talented boxer and he built on that reputation as Ali.

The 'right to be forgotten' must have limits.

Hiding criminal behaviour with a name change should be a criminal act in itself.

Which, incidentally, should remain legal.

A gentle reminder: the topic is deadnaming.

Thats not a compliment

Though i realise ive just engaged

Rat is smarter than me

No she isnt

Dont put yourself down...ever, you are obviously clever and have quite the way with words

sex that isn't PIV is technically sodomy

What now?

Are we changing the definition of everything now

Oh and i should point out that im just quoting a poster, not attempting to engage

Though im too tired to work out what pointing out to my friend who eats chicken that she isnt a vegetarian (or me as i now eat fish) makes me

the only people who have tried to dictate to me personally what lesbianism is are transphobes

Of course they are,

I have explained what a vegetarian is many many times...wonder what that makes me

Well put, E J.