In defence of deadnaming

So what actually happens when the police come around to speak to someone about an act that is deemed to be transphobic?

Polite word?
Caution?
Handcuffs?
Prison?

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

Ooops - that was to dancing, not Pain.

thedancingbear Stephanie Hayden has tweeted to a public audience, and asked for it to be retweeted, that they've gained an interim injunction against someone "prohibiting the Respondent from misgendering me, making any reference to me on social media, dead naming me, sharing information about me".

This is more than name calling. It is about an individual's ability to use the law to prevent their past crimes being discussed.

Calling someone something that they don't want to be called, and have made it clear it would upset them, is wankerish and intolerant, trans or not.

We don’t criminalise wankerish behaviour though. If someone says to me ‘bowl you are thick.’ Then well that’s rude. But it’s not criminal. If someone follows me round for weeks yelling ‘thicko’ at me then I might have a case for harassment.

But it’s worth mentioning here that there are women on this very board who have had:

Repeated death threats
Threats of rape
Pornographic websites set up about them
The pope informed about them (yes really, how batshit is that?)
Their kids photos, names and schools published online
And more

All for being gender critical and the police do not deem this harassment.

And yet the police are being called on women who dare to point out that someone who now identifies as a woman has a criminal past as a man.

I find that chilling. Actual violence is being dismissed, while legitimate speech is being criminalised. The chilling effect on debate is profound.

So no. Deadnaming may be rude. But it is vital to have the public record reflect reality. Reality can be a bit harsh, but that’s life.

I mean, it shouldn't be a crime, but it is still hostile and prickish

Calling someone something that they don't want to be called, and have made it clear it would upset them, is wankerish and intolerant, trans or not.

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

Is there any clarity on what the law is around this? At the moment, is it coming under a hate crime related to transgenderism? And if so, how can we challenge it?

Let's face it, all the fury about "deadnaming" has an entirely sinister purpose. If calling someone by their old name, or using the "wrong" pronoun, is treated as a criminal offence on a par with hitting someone in the face with a shovel, it means everyone has to tread on eggshells the whole time. If you can't even refer to someone by their birth name without being called a bigot and reported to the police, how are you ever going to find the courage to ask some proper, hard, searching questions about men using women's changing rooms?

I note that Tommy Robinson is frequently referred to as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and this is apparently OK. People often refer to it as his "real" name rather than his "dead" name, but, given that you don't have to go through a legal process to change your name, I can't see any difference.

And why all the outrage from people like Stephanie Hayden? The only logical explanation is that they don't want their new name to be associated with the crimes committed under their old name. I don't for one moment imagine that Hayden is acting under good faith. We should resist the pressure not to "deadname" at all costs.

It’s compelled speech. That’s not a great look in a democracy.

There are existing mechanisms to deal with any harassment. If I call a transwoman by their previous name mockingly and repeatedly, I’ll probably get done for harassment. There are laws to deal with it anyway. There’s no need for a new one. It has no benefit and many downsides.

Making deadnaming a crime serves to alter the public record - not make people more polite, and it certainly doesn’t make the public safer. The public record exists for a reason.

If I’m recruiting for a financially important position and Bob has embezzled his previous company, then demands as Babs that it never happened then that’s a matter of concern. If Bob has committed a crime and demands no one can ever mention it again because now Bob is Babs that’s a problem. If Babs goes about throwing out vexatious lawsuits to stop anyone talking about their embezzlement then that’s a problem.

There are already people demanding that they not be prosecuted for crimes they’ve committed in their previous gender. That’s a matter of public interest and a grave concern.

So no. Deadnaming may be rude, butvit cant be a crime. We can’t legislate against for hurt feelings

Changing your surname on marriage/ divorce does not mean your previous identity ceases to exist.

Correct. No matter what you've done to your body, etc, your previous identity exists - it's a matter of historical record.

Deadnaming as a crime only serves to protect those with something to hide about their previous identity
As to comparing it to be called your married name post divorce, dont be ridiculous, one is forcing people to deny reality the other isn’t. Changing your surname on marriage/ divorce does not mean your previous identity ceases to exist.

My personal opinion is that deadnaming cannot and shouldn’t be a crime in itself. It has too many impacts. Harassing behaviour can be dealt with under existing harassment legislation, we do not need another law here.

This. We must keep the bigger picture in sight. Personal slight does not trump fair comment, nor safeguarding work, nor fit and proper scrutiny.

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

That's the angle I can sympathise with the most - that you might be outed against your will - but is it illegal? And as before, if you are public about being trans, how can it be a problem to be deadnamed. The world knows you had a previous identity so it's not like that can be the motivation for it.

Now, if someone continued to intentionally use the wrong surname with malicious intent - it's harassment.

It would be rude - should it be a crime?

What if bob smith committed a terrible crime as bob, and now they’re babs smith and insist that even mentioning their crime is hateful? How does that stack up with transparency? With safeguarding? DBS checks? Stuff like the laws that allow people to have criminal acts disclosed to them? The public record? Should joe smith, who committed the same crime as joe have all that in the public domain while babs gets it erased?

My personal opinion is that deadnaming cannot and shouldn’t be a crime in itself. It has too many impacts. Harassing behaviour can be dealt with under existing harassment legislation, we do not need another law here.

If someone is fat, it’s s fact. It would be rude to follow them round chanting they are fat, and that could be dealt with under existing legislation. Poor legislation would be to make any mention of weight a crime, or to compel people to say someone is thin,

Meghan Markle, Kate Middleton and even Fergie - who stopped being Sarah Ferguson 30 odd years ago are referred to by their wrong names daily.

Obviously these are just adult females so it doesn't matter.

Intentionality?? Is that another new word replacing a perfectly good existing one?

The intention behind any 'deadnaming' is to identify an individual where there's some confusion. That woman? Oh, she used be that bloke that murdered 2 kids; was a sports star; was that man...

An individual and their last remain connected, no matter how much they may try to escape it.

Often, when deadnaming, the intention is not benign

I find it concerning that people's pasts can be hidden because other it would be deadnaming and a crime might be committed.

If I, for example, sued 16 women who refused to wax my male genitalia, or had assaulted someone with a golf club, and then had the ability to make it illegal to refer to these incidents by declaring myself to be the opposite sex, that's an amazing tool I have at my disposal to obscure any of my past wrongdoings. A tool that is not afforded to the rest of the population.

Is deadnaming just not referring back to the name given at birth, as per the article, or does it include every single one used in the interim. Or future names?

Let's take the example of someone getting divorced. They revert to their maiden name. They don't like being called by their married name anymore, because it brings up painful memories.

This person probably wouldn't mind if someone absent-mindedly uses the wrong surname. Mistakes happen!

Now, if someone continued to intentionally use the wrong surname with malicious intent - it's harassment.

It's all about intentionality. Often, when deadnaming, the intention is not benign.

Great piece, thanks OP

"For the fact is that trans activists were born a particular sex. And they were given a particular name. And these facts were recorded, honestly and faithfully, by public-sector workers and officials – from midwives to doctors to birth registrars – in order that society might know who its citizens are.

To erase these old names, and to allow trans-people to change their sex on their actual birth certificates, which is now happening, is to engage in an explicit act of memory-holing, as it was called in 1984. It pushes down the memory hole true, recorded events. It replaces the truth – that a boy was born – with a lie: that a girl was born. It represents the complete subjugation of social norms and historical records'

In these times of social media, emails & tweets being screenshotted, it is easier than ever to reveal information some people may prefer to remain hidden. You just can’t erase the past though....if someone was born a boy, they were born a boy, we can all see certain individuals who say they are women, are clearly not.....our eyes aren’t lying....those individuals are!