In defence of deadnaming

Yes absolutely oleanna.

Now if your neighbour insisted that you stand up in public and tell the world she was slim, and that you’d be arrested if you didn’t - that’s analogous to what’s happening here. Compelled speech with a threat behind it.

I've said something similar elsewhere, so apologies if I'm needlessly repeating myself. But it's possible to say completely truthful things but still harass someone.

Say I take against my neighbour. She is overweight. If I send her notes saying "Why are you so fat?", I am not using abusive language or lies, but it's not very nice and anyone would agree that it could be upsetting.

If I then start posting on her Facebook page "Why are you so fat?"; deluge her email inbox with the same question; plant some lovely summer flowers in my garden (visible from her garden) that spell out the word "FAT"; wear a t-shirt saying "Why are you so fat?" when I am out in my garden; and hire a plane to fly over the neighbourhood with a banner saying "Why are you so fat?" - I would hope that the police would knock on my door and tell me to give it a break. And if I persisted, I should expect more than a word in my shell-like

But this is about how things are said, not just what is said

That Canadian creep who is suing the beauticians and has taken an interest in 10-year-old's menstruation, calls disagreement hate speech. Amd women talking about their rights, hate rallies.

The individual is proud to have got Megan Murphy banned from Twitter. The individual, due to the law, is able to get backing, legally.

So no, I will not only promote my own personal right to offend people, I will also promote theirs. I will push back, to the deliberate point of offence. To yes, prove my fucking point.

I have just seen a term being coined, which is deadly in its accuracy.

Hate facts.

If something is being said with the intention of causing hurt and distress,

Hurt feelings ? No.
Actual incitement to harm is already illegal

You’d make all comedy illegal for starters, and Puritanism never ends well for anyone. Locking people up for saying offensive things is what totalitarian societies do

You're kidding, right?

Oof that’s veering towards the very hurtful. My finger is hovering over my speed dial to the police....

The irony, as we have pointed out many times before, is that TRAs apparently think it's fine to say things like "Die, Terf cunt" or "I hope all TERFS die in a fire" or "TERFS can choke on my girl dick" but think that "deadnaming" or "misgendering" should be illegal.

Either they are genuinely too thick to see that if you outlaw giving offence, it has to work both ways - in which case there's no point in arguing with them. Or they don't believe for one moment that deadnaming is really offensive, but are pretending it is as part of their ongoing war on women - in which case there is still no point in arguing with them.

They are literally (and I'm using this word in its correct sense) beyond reason.

If something is being said with the intention of causing hurt and distress,

You're kidding, right? That means no one could ever have an argument, a spat, a row.

My sister and her best friend frequently go at it like knives. You want them arrested. Nonsense.

And no-one is suggesting everyone goes around deadnaming trans people out of a sense of spite.

It's so people, mostly men, can't obscure past crimes. And that we can accurately identify risk.

Interesting how you are more than happy to forego both those things, though. Why is that?

You keep on conflating being harassed with being offended thedancingbear.

The way it goes is that someone who is harassed might also be offended but if someone is offended it doesn't mean they're being harassed.

It's really not that difficult.

You want to criminalise dead-naming? Are you having a laugh?

Sticks and stones may break my bones
But names will never hurt me.

I assume none of you would seek to criminalise abusive catcalling of women then? I would, in a heartbeat. Or does that come under allowable free speech too?

If something is being said with the intention of causing hurt and distress, or will blatantly have that effect, then I think there's absolutely a conversation to be had about whether it should be unlawful.

Of course deadnaming can't be illegal.

I could change my name every month and prosecute everyone, over and over.

People get dead named all the time.

Unless, of course, it's just illegal for trans people..

DP and I have been together 25 years, but we are not married and have our own names. Approximately 2/3 of the Christmas cards we've received this year have been addressed to us in his name (e.g. "Mr and Mrs J Smith" or "John and Jane Smith").

I find it very mildly annoying. But I don't get worked up about it. This is because I am not a self-absorbed, narcissistic, overgrown toddler who thinks everyone else should be forced by law to respect my feelings.

If only the same could be said for our TRA friends.

AIUI, the criminal offence regarding "dead naming" (or less dramatically, disclosing an individual's previous identity without their consent) is limited to those who know about the former name through their work. So if I work in HR and process the DBS checks for new starters, and thus know that Babs Smith used to be Bob Smith, it would be an offence for me to gossip about that round the water cooler with my colleagues.

Which I agree is appropriate in most situations - there are lots of private details that some people will become privy to in a professional setting that are not appropriate to share more widely without good reason, such as medical information.

It isn't, however, a crime for those colleagues that I gossiped with to go and tell other people that Babs used to be Bob. Or if someone used to work with Bob and recognises them as Babs, they aren't committing an offence to say "Hey, you know that new team member on Floor 5? They're called Babs now, but when I was working in accounting I used to see them every Monday but they were Bob back then"

As an aside, Noteven, I believe that Caitlyn Jenner is very clear that Bruce Jenner won the decathlon gold, and has made no attempt to have the record books changed. This is at least convenient, as it avoids the issue that no woman has ever won the decathlon at the Olympics, as it doesn't exist as a competition (women compete in the heptathlon)

Deadnaming is usually known as 'formerly known as' and is perfectly acceptable for most people.

There was also 'The Artist Formerly Known As Prince' when he reduced his name to a Ankh-like symbol

Sticks and stones may break my bones
But names will never hurt me.

Sometimes a bit hard, but an important lesson to be learned.

Shut down. Naughty autocorrect

It doesn’t bear - being offended is not the same as being harmed, or harassed, or someone being cruel to you personally.

None of those things are offense. Offense is generic, ones sensibility and/opinion/view is offended.
Being offended is not harmful. If someone finds being offended harmful to them they may have a fragile sense of self. Being offended is not the same as targeted harassment, harm or damage.

Someone might sit through a comedian’s show and be offended by it - no harm is directed at them. If the comedian gets everyone in the audience to laugh at the person to the point they are so upset they leave, that’s directed. Offense, by nature, is not. It’s generic

Part of living in a free society is listening to stuff we find not to our tastes or views.

Who polices what’s offensive? It’s opinion. What’s offensive to me might be something you believe in strongly or vice versa. Some people find homosexuality offensive. I don’t. Whose opinion forms the law? Some people find nudity offensive. Some people find swearing offensive. Whose opinion forms the law? Ok now say some people find eating meat offensive - whose opinion forms the law?

The idea of offense causing literal harm is being aggressively weaponised to shit down legitimate free speech. Offend me all you like - it doesn’t harm me.

Courage? Well, one of the definitions these days seems to be grown men believing they can become women and hiding from other men in women’s spaces whilst silencing women’s dissent. So brave and stunning, so courageous.

Being offended doesn’t hurt you.

Of course it does.

We need to get Cheryl tweedy on board.

Has she ever not been dead-named?

All the ‘you’ in that post is the generic you. Speaking to the world at large. We need to stop crying like toddlers over perceived offence and deal with actual, physical real world harm.

So you're basically arguing vehemently for the right to act like a prick

That’s free speech for you. Tolerating other people acting like pricks and having views you find offensive, stupid, idiotic or wrong.

You cannot legislate offense- why? Because anyone can SAY they’re offended by anything at all. And if anyone can be offended by anything then it’s meankngless, but all anyone has to do to get you locked up up is say you offended them.

The only sane way is offence secularism - you have the right to offend me and I have the right to offend you. I don’t have the right to harm you, and you don’t have the right to harm me.

Offence is not harm. Ideas are not harmful. Speech is not hateful unless it’s directly inciting harm. One really dangerous idea that’s being put in people’s heads at the moment is this idea of literal violence Where ideas can hurt. Where words can hurt. This is where the idea of no platforming comes from. But when students etc are told exposure to ideas that they find uncomfortable can actually harm them this is the logical result.

A hundred years ago people of 19,20, 21 were dying in trenches for their country. Today we are whining about pronouns. We’ve lost our grit and we are sitting ducks for whatever controlling, totalitarian crap anyone wants to push on us.

Grow up. Being offended doesn’t hurt you.

Is accusi someone of acting like a prick misgenitaling them?

@candipeel but we'd do that to get a panel that wasn't all white.