Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

In defence of deadnaming

606 replies

welshgendercrit · 28/11/2018 14:43

For ‘deadnaming’ is just a Newspeak word designed to demonise the telling of historical truths. Not satisfied with seeking to control contemporary discussion and attitudes, now trans activists and their allies (all institutions, in essence) want to control the past itself. History. No way. The past happened, it was true, and we should not allow that to be erased and forgotten just to make some people feel better about themselves.

Yet again spiked (which I never used to read) has written a good, hardhitting, sensible article on transactivism.

www.spiked-online.com/2018/10/11/in-defence-of-deadnaming/

OP posts:
Datun · 24/12/2018 09:54

DisrespectfulAdultFemale

Correct. Women fought hard to make sex a protected characteristic. If anyone can be any sex, how does that work?

Likewise if anyone can be any combination of sexual orientation irrespective of who they are actually attracted to, or sleeping with, how does that work?

This is how we have arrived at the point where male bodied individuals who express an interest in the menstruation of 10-year-olds, are able, quite freely, to photograph said children in the female toilets.

Anyone who supports it, is complicit.

DisrespectfulAdultFemale · 24/12/2018 09:48

Let me get this straight correct: Person A has a penis and has sex with Person B, who also has a penis. That is lesbianism. If Person A has oral sex with Person B (or vice versa, so as to be inclusive) that is cunnilingus.

If Person A has sex with Person C, who has a vagina, that is lesbianism, too. If Persons A and C have oral sex, that is cunnilingus.

sackrifice · 24/12/2018 09:33

Hooray! We're back to 2D + 69 = L. Just in time for Christmas!

Happy Holidays

Grin
Mariotta · 24/12/2018 09:01

And if two men fellating one another can be called lesbian sex, I don't think you'll get many takers.

Hooray! We're back to 2D + 69 = L. Just in time for Christmas!

Datun · 24/12/2018 08:54

Given that sex reassignment is also legally certified I think they'll be fine about a cis woman and a trans woman being a lesbian couple. You're not even trying now, so I think my work is done here.

Can you tell me how you can discriminate, on the basis of homosexuality, towards a couple where one is male and one is female?

MadamBatty · 24/12/2018 08:42

Fox you promised. You said you were done.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 24/12/2018 08:34

Given that sex reassignment is also legally certified

It isn't. Gender reassignment is.

Datun · 24/12/2018 08:00

fox your entire premise relies on TWAW, but until you can adequately explain the W in that, you're shouting into the void.

And if two men fellating one another can be called lesbian sex, I don't think you'll get many takers.

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.

You don't see many people hammering gay men into agreeing that cunnilingus needs to be part of their sexual repertoire.

NonExistentFox · 24/12/2018 07:23

You can refuse to recognise a word whose meaning you are clearly cognisant of if you think that will help you communicate, but I didn't use the word ciswoman and as such your statement is nonsensical..

You’re done Fox? Hurrah, no more word salad.

I can see one ineptly obscure sentence and it was a pretty important one but you should still be able to work it out on your own. I believe in you.

MadamBatty · 24/12/2018 06:37

You’re done Fox? Hurrah, no more word salad.

ChewyLouie · 24/12/2018 06:27

Fox
Life is too short so I only read your last paragraph. I refuse to recognise your word ciswoman and as such your statement is nonsensical.
Overjoyed to read your work here is done,my work has just started. You and your ilk will not erase the meaning of the word woman.

NonExistentFox · 24/12/2018 06:00

Fox, we all find threads that trolls continually try to derail repellent. Keeps happening though,trolls keep on trolling.

Yeah, see, I wasn't trying to derail. I try to avoid coming in here, I was going to make a throwaway comment that was more about the billboard and hope you came back with nothing worth bothering about, but people had to start on the Pride thing because you think the lesbians are in the bag as your constituents, allies or at least emotive props and you can't handle the thought that large numbers of them loathe everything you stand for.

My subsequent posts have been responses to replies, some or most of them from straight people, almost all of them of childlike ignorance, telling me how to gay. If you're appropriating my concerns as a member of a less privileged group and you don't have my consent or the relevant experience, well now, that sounds like a complaint with which you'd feel you could sympathise, doesn't it?

I've also listened at great length to the opposing views of other lesbians but there's no universal user agreement, none of us gets to dictate the others' views on homosexuality and straight people can think what they like, safe in the knowledge that we don't have to care. So if you don't want your thread "derailed" by pertinent replies then ignore them and definitely don't post possessively about things which you haven't got the right to dictate, such as lesbianism, feminism, this board or this thread, especially if you also feel entitled to derail threads that you don't like with passive-aggressive lacunae such as recipes and biscuits.

seriously, a woman saying she's a lesbian has no more authority to change the definition of words than anyone else. And I don't know why you think it.

Well, people to whom a word pertains often take ownership of it and manage to deliberately repurpose it if they don't like its current usage, e.g. queer going from a pejorative to a generally defiant to a more specific political sense. But in general yes, words follow a process of evolution through common use, and sadly for you there is no interventionist referee. People gradually use them in a different way, often by simple error, and so nauseous now means nauseated and nauseating means nauseous whether you or I or the dictionaries like it or not. Or they drift towards a more specific interpretation or a less specific interpretation for necessity or convenience's sake. So if a critical mass of people take lesbianism to include trans women then it will, and your preferred meaning might eventually go the way of the panda in the same way that "pathic" still means passive or suffering but is no longer used to refer to bottoming men because society doesn't feel the need to stigmatise them so much.

Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic under equality law. If you disagree with that, take it up with them.

Given that sex reassignment is also legally certified I think they'll be fine about a cis woman and a trans woman being a lesbian couple. You're not even trying now, so I think my work is done here.

ChewyLouie · 24/12/2018 00:31

Fox, we all find threads that trolls continually try to derail repellent. Keeps happening though,trolls keep on trolling.

Datun · 24/12/2018 00:24

fox - seriously, a woman saying she's a lesbian has no more authority to change the definition of words than anyone else. And I don't know why you think it.

You could line up a thousand women saying they are lesbians who get turned on by men, and it wouldn't make it any more accurate.

It's nothing to do with people counting as lesbians 'in my eyes'. Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic under equality law.

If you disagree with that, take it up with them.

NonExistentFox · 23/12/2018 23:43

Oh dear lord. A lesbian isn't something that one woman could be more valid than, than the next woman. It either is, or it isn't.

That was irony, but if you want to engage with the substance of what I said rather than pick at the stylistic undertones, you can read it as "If you don't want to believe a lesbian could disagree with you…"

I wish any of my friends who do count as lesbians in your eyes did want to come here and disagree with you, but as I indicated earlier they are less self-absorbed people than me and find these threads too repellent to engage with, not just on principle but with a visceral disgust that puts me to shame.

DisrespectfulAdultFemale · 23/12/2018 22:50

Welcome to Humpty Dumpty World where words mean whatever someone wants them to mean.

Datun · 23/12/2018 22:34

If you want to believe a lesbian who agrees with you is thereby a more valid lesbian than one who disagrees with you

Oh dear lord. A lesbian isn't something that one woman could be more valid than, than the next woman. It either is, or it isn't.

Unless you truly believe that men can become women. In which case knock yourself out.

sackrifice · 23/12/2018 22:24

At what point does a man change into a trans woman? How does this miracle happen? What changes have to be in place to make the distinction?

Bowlofbabelfish · 23/12/2018 22:22

Nobody is suggesting that the word lesbian means you are attracted to men. We're talking about trans women.

Are you saying you believe humans can change sex?

NonExistentFox · 23/12/2018 22:17

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Datun · 23/12/2018 19:24

I realise I have been derailed, but here is my response.

fox, irrespective of how many women who say they are lesbians you can find, who claim they will sleep with bepenised individuals, the word lesbian has a meaning.

You know it, I know it, lesbians know it and the men who want to sleep with them also know it.

Pretending that the word lesbian means you are attracted to men, is obscuring, deliberately, men's oppression of women.

As is deadnaming. For every person to whom deadnaming might really be traumatic, you will find men who want to obscure who they are, what they've done, and why.

Bowlofbabelfish · 23/12/2018 18:53

essentially giving people protected identities

Indeed. And we should be pointing that out and contrasting with the very few cases where such a thing is actually used. I wonder how many people in the uk actually have protected identities?

FloralBunting · 23/12/2018 18:06

As it happens, I changed my given name. I did so for very deep psychological reasons to do with the various forms of abuse I experienced, and I did so when I was about 35 years old.

My old name is connected in my mind with a person who doesn't really exist any more and it helped me to get past some of the difficulties I had. No one except a few stubborn family members call me by my old name.

I am quite willing to call anyone by whatever name they wish. But none of us, trans or otherwise, can pretend our past didn't exist, for all sorts of very good reasons.

Some people call me by my old name to be rude. It's not meant well, it's a control measure on their part. I choose to rise above it as a provocation, because the simple fact is that almost everyone in my life knows me as something else and I refuse to give power to those who would hurt me.

That's what you do when you work through trauma and come out the other side. So, i get that someone wouldn't like to be deadnamed, and I understand how it feels when it is done maliciously.

But it is complete bollocks to insist it be punished. People can be shits. Its unpleasant but that is real life. You can't insulate yourself from bad feelings, and those that try tend to be rather stunted people.

ChewyLouie · 23/12/2018 18:02

Interesting point there Babel, the term deadnaming is essentially giving people protected identities. There is no need for such an extreme measure for people toying with their gender identity. Dead naming as a concept needs to be dropped.
The idea that a group that is frequently aggressive, violent and self entitled are too vulnerable to see or hear their own name is absurd.

Bowlofbabelfish · 23/12/2018 17:49

There are a very few incidences where it’s appropriate. Witness protection for example. I think some criminals also get protected identities after release (one of the Bulger killers has? I’m honestly not sure how I feel about that.)

Deadnaming should remain legal because:

  • it’s too open to abuse. Any criminal could change their name and erase their history, leading to serious safeguarding loopholes.
  • the official public record is a vital thing for statistics and history and investigation
  • it effectively creates a compelled speech situation, and that’s totalitarian in nature.
Swipe left for the next trending thread