Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

130 replies

CaptSkippy · 05/01/2020 18:12

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?

OP posts:
AllTheLittleAngelsRiseUp · 05/01/2020 23:16

YANBU

It is really important to ensure history factually records the actions and achievements of women, so this can be celebrated.

Women standing up for themselves and women wanting to preserve and celebrate women's history is not hatred. It's the opposite. Everyone, male or female, should love to celebrate the vital changes that saw the end of the exclusion of one half of society from so much of the action.

Identifying transgender people by their actual sex is not bigoted. It is fact. History likes facts. Throughout history, people have been identified according to their biological sex. This is why history is dominated by men, because for much of history women were actively prevented from doing lots of things.

You can't over-state the negative impact of girls and young women studying history and not seeing themselves represented. Or over-emphasise the power of seeing when women first began to over come repression and start making their mark.

It's deeply sad that some people hate women so much that they want to erase their achievements and replace them with men's achievements.

If you have no interest in women's history, go hand wring somewhere else with the false accusations of transphobia and leave the discussion. The discussion can happen without you, thanks.

Gardai · 05/01/2020 23:19

I’d say exactly the same to you Wotcha - if I or any other women say anything whatsoever about trans issues then I’m not towing the “right” line apparently.
There’s a certain contingent on here who love to silence and think they can...

Grumpydad1540 · 05/01/2020 23:21

It’s fine, I apologise...irrefutable proof has been provided by @Thelnebriati link to that well known source of facts...TWITTER!!!

Gardai · 05/01/2020 23:21

Wotcha, the points I’m considering are the long term ramifications of self identification and the effect this could have on services and help available to Women. I am allowed to think whether you give me permission or not.

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 05/01/2020 23:23

I am allowed to think whether you give me permission or not

Um, yes, of course you're allowed to think, why are you on about permission?
Think what you like, you're your own person.

Strongmummy · 05/01/2020 23:24

This reply has been deleted

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

Gardai · 05/01/2020 23:25

The likes of you and the appropriately named grumpy one infer that the only correct way is your way of thinking.

Thelnebriati · 05/01/2020 23:25

The twitter thread I linked to includes comments from one of the MP's who wrote the legislation, and an explanation of what it states.
Thats the second time you have ridiculed a link without bothering to read it.
The spousal veto will affect women married to men who transition. Its being pushed by politicians who also support divorce being made less traumatic.
Try to talk about that.

Gardai · 05/01/2020 23:26

Bravo Strongmummy let’s stop !

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 05/01/2020 23:29

The likes of you and the appropriately named grumpy one infer that the only correct way is your way of thinking

The likes of me? What's that supposed to mean? Because I expressed an alternative view to yourself?
Confused Biscuit
Then there's no paranoia on this thread. Hmm
Way to go to prove OP's original post right, these threads are always full to the brim with it.
I said think what you like. You in turn try the bollocks "the likes of me" to posters who set off your tin foil hat.

Grumpydad1540 · 05/01/2020 23:33

The twitter link led to an echo chamber of Jess Phillips MP being shouted down for something that wasn’t clear...it wasn’t irrefutable, peer reviewed fact, proof or statistics...it was (the same as this thread) opinion....making out I’m an argumentative idiot not willing to listen does not prove your point, rather dissuades from it. So far the links provided to “proof” have consisted of a google doc which hadn’t been read by those linking to it (and later written off as bunkum by another poster), a link to twitter and an invitation to “read the countless threads in Mumsnet”.

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 05/01/2020 23:36

making out I’m an argumentative idiot not willing to listen does not prove your point, rather dissuades from it

Exactly

Gardai · 05/01/2020 23:37

You two should hook up ❤️

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 05/01/2020 23:40
Grin

WTAF lmao

Because there's TWO dissenting voices? Noes!
You're not in the echo chamber out here, you might hear more than one or hear a different opinion which you might not be as used to.

Grumpydad1540 · 05/01/2020 23:43

@WotchaTalkinBoutWillis ha, you beat me too it. God I ❤️ You 😂

Gardai · 05/01/2020 23:44

Awww get a room you two.

WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 05/01/2020 23:44
Grin
WotchaTalkinBoutWillis · 05/01/2020 23:45

Awww get a room you two

lifeinthelastlane · 05/01/2020 23:45

Crimes should be be recorded as being committed by the criminal's biological sex.
People's preferred name should be used but all previous names should be passed on to the police as required or other appropriate authorities.

Cryingoverspilttea · 05/01/2020 23:55

This reply has been deleted

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

Retrofitted · 06/01/2020 08:25

Could we possibly get back to the OP now?

In case anyone has forgotten amidst the truly impressive derails, it was mostly about whether the OP is unreasonable to be seeing or suspecting transwomen more frequently on feminist speaking panels.

Has anyone got any stats related to that? or in the absence of those, anecdotes or twitter threads, blogs, articles, anything really.....

Thelnebriati · 06/01/2020 23:28

Its impossible to give clear evidence or statistics when it isn't being collected, the press wont report it, and the groups pushing the agenda re doing so from the shadows.
You have to read between the lines;
A trans woman recently gave evidence to a parliamentary inquiry into DV, they later tweeted that they had trouble accessing porn on the train ride.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3593346-DV-Select-Committee-contributor-wants-to-browse-adult-sites-on-train-wifi

in Canada, women in prisons are given the morning after pill in mixed sex prisons.
www.womenarehuman.com/violent-male-offenders-are-being-transferred-to-womens-prisons-in-canada/

A trans woman is running a rape crisis centre in Scotland. They claim not to be familiar with the UK law that states the position can legally be offered to women only. If you google for info, there's nothing.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3787146-Mridul-Wadhwa-Forth-Valley-Rape-Crisis?msgid=92870302

And here Grumpydad1540, LMFGTFY;
womansplaceuk.org/2019/09/21/spousal-consent-and-the-liberal-democrats/

Stronger2020 · 06/01/2020 23:43

I went to an observatory recently and was chatting to a very clever professor about the moon landings. I said, “wouldn’t it be great to get a woman on the moon,” and he replied, instantly and seriously, “it’d be even better if it was a trans woman!”

Retrofitted · 07/01/2020 08:17

That’s all very “look over there” inebriati, and again has nothing to do with the OP.

This tendency of using OPs that mention trans as an opportunity to list bad or questionable things that individual trans people have done is unjustifiable, and patently anti-trans.

Damntheman · 07/01/2020 08:20

A person doesn't have to be a woman to be a feminist. I don't even understand why this particular thing bothers you.