Dead naming and the perversion/erasure of women's history

[CaptSkippy]

For those who are no familiar with the term, "dead naming" refers to the use an old (usually first) name trans-people used to have before they transitioned and took on a new name. It will surprise no one that trans-women get most upset about this an cry bigotry if an old name is used or even alluded to.

But recently I have begun to see the consequences of the widely accepted taboo on these names in full effect, although it should surprise no one that this was going to happen and I think in fact many feminists have been warning us for years (if not decades).

I like to watch videos online about feminist debates and feminists lectures. Some Youtube channels are devoted solely to that purpose. A particular interest of mine is the topic of women's history and how it has been largely left out of the history books.

However, sometimes I will see a speaker or panelist and get a strong impression I am looking at a trans-woman. This is usually brought on by a very distinct masculine mannerism or shape of face.
Sometimes my suspiscions are confirmed when a speaker had access to certain male institutions that were untill recent decades off-limits to women, but are now known as the first women in such an institution (such as Jenner). However, often times Google will tell me nothing, due to the taboo on the subject. If it's not about sports or other male only fields, I can't find anything at all.

I often wonder if I am just paranoid and seeing trans-women where there are none. What galls me is that I can't tell. I can't research it. I can't know who were the first women doing exactly what, due to our exclusion from history books and now I also can't tell sometimes, because we have to accept supposedly former men as "female" pioneers.

Am I unreasonable to be suspicious of certain feminist-minded speakers or I am letting my paranoia getting the better of me?

Who is wanting to use crime stats to persecute anyone?

The question is how can we start to understand the drivers behind women being convicted of more sex offences if the sex data is self id. There may be an issue, there may not be. Don't you think it's useful to know?

The people in question you are worried about 'persecuting' are convicted sex offenders, don't forget. And how is it persecuting anyone to understand demographic info of criminals?

People can read the thread for themselves.

@Grumpydad1540 rape victims have complained about having to call their attacker by a female name/she/her in court and have been 'told off' by the judge for not doing so, despite being raped by a man.

Also if a rapist says they are a woman, they, and their penis, are put into a woman's prison. Women have been raped because of this.

It absolutely does 'matter'.

So you are worried that women who want sex of sex offenders accurately recorded are seeing to persecute male sex offenders who id as female and are recorded in the stats as such.

Yes that is clear.

So the point of this thread is what then??? Because it comes across as a group of self righteous bigots trying to convince one person that they are wrong and “trans are bad”

No it doesnt.

Who has said that?

Another poster brought up stats and you got stuck right in.

I do think sex offenders are bad, irrespective of their sex or gender, though.

Or is it the fact that the bigots only have one person to try and convince because the rest of sensible normal Mumsnet has stopped listening?

So yet another woman/guy telling us women to shut the fuck up when a poster tries to discus a valid point. Go to bed grumpydad, we get your point. Yawn.

Sensible Mumsnet my arse.

Inebriati and frogs, that article you’ve both linked doesn’t seem to support your concern or give evidence of rising numbers of rapes recorded as committed by women.

''Record numbers of women are being convicted of sex offences.
The number has doubled in two years with 120 women and girls found guilty of attacks including rape and sexual assault in 2016 according to the latest figures from the Ministry of Justice. That was up from 48 in 2006.''

So it’s about convictions categorised as sex offences. It counts, for example, a female teacher having a relationship with a boy under 16.

Also these stats are from 2016, and comparing it to 10 years before that, so not covering the recent years.

When data sets are as small as this, any sort of meaningful analysis would include narrative for context, and any inference or conclusion would carry a caveat for the very small sample size.

the rest of sensible normal Mumsnet has stopped listening?

True, dat

Did you manage to read the whole article? I couldn't as not a subscriber.

The rape stats may not be in there (like I say I can't read it) but they do exist, maybe have a Google. Or, look for threads on here from that time, there was a lot of discussion.

The point about it being a very low number is that any change looks massive. And the numbers of male sex offenders are many times more. So even a few men ID ing as women can skew the women's stats massively. Surely you can see that?

To answer the OP, I think yabu, and that your OP comes over as if you feel quite threatened by trans people.

Women’s place in history has far bigger struggles to deal with than a very very small number of trans people gender swapping along the way.

YANBU
Lots of gaslighting on this thread.

The "It never happens" brigade.

Small data sets are inherently vulnerable to skew, hence the inclusion of narrative when considering them.

That’s exactly my point. No reasonable person would draw conclusions from a data set of that size without narrative accompaniment.

And no, I don’t plan on going googling. You linked the article to support your point. It doesn’t support your point at all.

@Retrofitted post is why Mumsnet needs a “like post” button

Lisa/Craig Hauxwell is one of many rapists who's crimes have been recorded as committed by a woman.
If male DNA is found at a crime scene, who do the police look for?

So you don't draw any conclusions about the difference in sex offending levels between men and women because the number of women being convicted of these crimes is so small.

Interesting .

YANBU OP and an interesting point I hadn’t considered. And I’m allowed to consider no matter what some folk think.

Mumsnet needs a”fuck off” button too.

Gaslighting, goading, “it never happens brigade” This sort of comment is so unhelpful and pointless.

I thought this was a discussion? Where people were invited to consider a question and give their views?

OP wants to know if they come over as paranoid. Yes, they do.

Frogs and Inebriati want to discuss a report they saw about increased numbers of sex crimes recorded as committed by women. Great, we’re discussing.

It doesn’t support the contention that there has been “a large increase” in rapes recorded as committed by women.

I thought this was a discussion? Where people were invited to consider a question and give their views?
Nope, they all go the same way. As you say, the OP question was does it come across as paranoid to "see trans women where there are none." (OP's words)

OP wants to know if they come over as paranoid. Yes, they do

Exactly
But now we're on a train of have you read the article, look at all these stats and burblings about fuck off buttons and gaslighting for anyone not toeing the "right" line of discussion
Whatevs

Its more than doubled; the increase started when the GRA was introduced, and is more than the total number of convicted female sex offenders before the GRA.

Here's another problem; the proposed ''spousal veto.'' Women can currently divorce a partner who wants to transition, several parties want to change that.
If the law changes, their marriage will be retroactively described as a lesbian marriage that took place in a registry office whether they agree or not. They will have to wait 5 years for a no fault divorce.
twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1213934229689655296

YANBU OP and an interesting point I hadn’t considered

What bit?