In defence of deadnaming

It's amazing how different the push for transgender "rights" differ from previous civil rights movements.

Previously groups had to prove they were oppressed and use that proof as a means of gaining allies. Now, I guess the deal is present a bunch of narcissistic statements followed by fumbled stats and scream really loudly.

How DARE you act like a PRICK to me! I want to PUNCH you!

So you're basically arguing vehemently for the right to act like a prick. Is that what gets you lot out of bed in the mornings?

I’m saying that we might not like what someone says to us, but we should keep their right to say it.

I’m an atheist, I don’t believe in any god or gods. But I dont demand no one else does either - I support people’s right to believe what they want, in a secular society. And I think, and the law agrees with me, that their right to belief ends at the point they would compel me to say I believe too. and vice versa. I can argue for my atheism. I can argue against religion, i can criticise it strongly. What I cannot do is force anyone to believe what I (don’t) believe or harm them for saying what they believe.

We cannot criminalise rudeness.
We cannot criminalise opinion
We cannot criminalise factual objective reality or scientific fact.
We cannot criminalise blasphemy
We cannot compel speech
We cannot erase the past.

Oh dear, what if accusing someone of acting like a prick is hate speech?

I wondered that.

No, I’m arguing that making deadnaming a crime has serious implications for safeguarding as well as being a fairly authoritarian thing to do.

Also, saying something shouldn’t be a crime isn’t the same as joyfully promoting it and telling people to engage in that behaviour. It’s simply pointing out that it doesn’t warrant criminalisation.

But again we don’t criminalise all poor behaviour.

So you're basically arguing vehemently for the right to act like a prick. Is that what gets you lot out of bed in the mornings?

Topical

Man withdraws 'right to be forgotten' case against Google

www.theguardian.com/law/2018/dec/20/man-withdraws-right-to-be-forgotten-case-google-uk-appeal

For DBS disclosures they have a system of "sensitive disclosures" for trans people where you don't have to disclose all your previous names to the organisation that you are doing the DBS with (I guess also for people in witness protection or having some other good reason for not wanting to reveal previous names) -- you disclose them directly to the DBS service and then the certificate comes back in your current name .

I don't know whether there are loopholes in this system, but that is how its supposed to work.

I agree though the idea of a straight forward protected characteristic having to be confidential is a bit weird.

I like you A, B, C, D and E examples drspouse , but i think this is more like someone saying we are having a conference and we want to make sure there are no all male panels, but the information about whether the speakers are male or female is treated as unknowable and confidential, :

"Dear Mr George Clooney thank you for speaking at our conference. Can you please confirm whether you are male or female (or would prefer not to answer), and is it ok if we share that information with X and Y for this the purpose of organising the session, on condition that they do not tell anyone else what sex you are"

If you go to some of the less than savory areas of the Internet where people look more deeply into the pasts of some of the most prominent trans people, you'll see that it's not uncommon for multiple (5, 10, more) identities to go hand in hand with abusive behaviour. The idea of a certain class of people being able to extinguish their past is an invitation to some really bad people to cover up some really bad stuff.

If by 'feelz' you mean 'basic civility', then yes it does.

But again we don’t criminalise all poor behaviour. Adultery isn’t illegal but it’s shitty behaviour that wrecks lives. The state however recognises that you can’t stop willing adults having sex with each. The impacts on freedom of criminalising adulterous behaviour would be significant

Deadnaming does no physical harm. If someone is in genuine danger from their past we already have mechanisms to deal with that.

We cannot make deadnaming illegal. It would prevent us from;

Safeguarding properly
Having a correct public record
Preventing hiding of past criminality

And it’s only being used to cover stuff up - notice how these cases are only wanting to cover up past deeds. They still have all their past educational qualifications and work experience. It’s selective forgetting.

Anyway, arseholish or not, history should be recorded as correctly as possible. Deadnaming should not be illegal.

If by 'feelz' you mean 'basic civility', then yes it does

Why is it 'civil' for a person who may or may not have committed crimes in their old names, to be able to wipe away all historical links by pretending to be someone else?

It is a get out of jail free card and puts people [mainly women] at risk.

I must have had half a dozen Christmas cards addressed to Mrs (DH’s initial and surname). I’m not even Mrs!

But thankfully I’ve managed to struggle through the pain it elicits and get over it.

Expected to give my ‘maiden’ name on contracts and the like, yet if I decide I’m a man, I can then scream discrimination for being ‘dead named’? Am I not being ‘dead named’ every time I meet someone from my past that refers to me by my maiden name, or is that different because I’m only a woman?

I'm actually fine with people calling other people by their preferred names. I am known by my nickname, for example, so it would be churlish of me not to afford the same courtesy back.

But when it comes to official documents etc the concept of 'deadnaming' just falls apart. If I'm applying for a passport I have to use my full names, if I change my name on marriage I have to tell them both names, etc etc.

(The whole deadnaming thing always makes me think of Ian Huntley. The reason we have DB checks wants to transition and change his name. Not at all dodgy that, is it?)

adults who were adopted (as children)
We don't have to give our children's previous names on forms, but they were quite young when placed, and don't have medical records in those names (except from their home country). I know that on medical records (not the name on the file, but written inside) many adopted children will have previous names, but when an adult for e.g. a DBS or a job they won't have to give those.
So the HCP can SEE the previous names but should never be using it to locate a record.
And yes, they do sometimes look at the first name on the record and call that out in the surgery, I have heard. And sometimes that is a name that will identify them to someone who lives locally and is a risk to them.
So that's a heck of a lot more important than not liking to be called Fred.

What is the charge - harrasment / hate crime?

2 issues:
1.Unless this person has a GRC, then it is factually correct to refer to them by their legal name & gender.

1. Unless this person has changed their name (legally), then it is still factually correct to call them by their legal name.

What is the charge & how are the police supporting it?

Dammit! There are

My name has changed twice since I was 18. I am legally obliged to declare both my former names when - for example, as I did last year - I complete a new DBS form. Both former names appear on my DBS papers, which I am periodically asked to show to schools as part of my work.

I can see why trans people might not want to have their previous names (the first names, which tell anyone who hasn't yet spotted it that they are not the sex they are presenting as) - but their are circumstances where, frankly, it's tough shit. DBS disclosures being a prime example.

Public safety dictates that a person should not be able to 'bury' their 'dead name'.

I'm not sure if this holds up as a comparison, but what about adults who were adopted (as children) or whose parents divorced or remarried leading to a name change against the child's will? It is still legal, though not kind, to misname them and link them to a person or past they might prefer to forget. I don't know if children, as minors, have a bit more protection.

It always comes back to the feelz, doesn't it?

If by 'feelz' you mean 'basic civility', then yes it does.

You can keep your fucking biscuits.

The term ‘deadnaming’ is utter hyperbole.

The person hasn’t died. In fact, they should be feeling bloody grateful to be alive and living in a society that pays so much attention to their desires and feelings.

It’s one thing for a transsexual person to politely request that you respect their new identity by referring to them as the opposite sex, it’s just not practical to pretend what happened in the past didn’t actually happen.
Exactly. I will happily call my neighbour/colleague by their married name, their maiden name that they've reverted to, their new nickname, but I won't not do a DBS check for Guiding under all names possible.

Is it illegal to out someone who is gay/lesbian/bi?

I'm not sure but I don't see how it can be. There have been people arguing that since gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, it must be illegal to out people for it.
But I have the protected characteristic of female sex and everybody can see that I have it. Friend A has the protected characteristic of being disabled, friend B of being a member of an ethnic minority. Everyone can see that A is disabled and B is BAME.

So is it illegal for someone to tell work night out organiser C who hasn't met them, that, in case you didn't know for the purposes of our work night out, A will need wheelchair access and none of us want to go back to that dodgy club where B was racially abused?

And if not (since C will realise when she meets A and B), is it illegal to tell C that D doesn't want to go to the dodgy club where they are homophobic, and E despite being called Sarah will be going in the other changing rooms at the spa?

When I decided some years ago that I wanted to have erased from church records the fact I was baptised catholic as an infant, so that I would no longer be counted as a member of the Catholic Church, I was told by the priest that my baptism was something that happened. It couldn’t be erased. I couldn’t claim I hadn’t been baptised because that would be a lie.

Agree with bowl
She says it so well 💪