The danger of NOT being able to "deadname".....what do we need to do?

[loveyouradvice]

This is one of the scariest aspects of transactivists - claiming that it is totally unacceptable to talk about who someone was BEFORE they transitioned....and the more they say it, the more it becomes unacceptable....

No one should be able to deny 10-40 years of their life did not happen - that what they did in their previous persona is irrelevant....

Terrifying now if Ian Huntley choses a new name in the public media....

Terrifynig in some many instances....

Why is it allowed and becoming increasingly acceptable?
What do we need to do to stop this?

There's a huge difference between Ian Huntley and someone who, for their own reasons, changes how they identify.

Why are you trying to conflate Ian Huntley with the rest of the transgender community?

Its not just one case. Violent offenders should not be able to change their name or sex, or erase their past in this way.

Buggered, but that means there needs to be a way to identify the genuine from those gaming the system, and the push for self ID does not allow that to happen.

What system would you suggest? At the moment the TRA line is someone is a trans women if they say they are.

And even those who transition for genuine reasons shouldn't be able to hide a criminal past in my opinion.

I thought 'dead naming' was using a previous name specifically to upset the person. If someone has previous names - as I do and lots of other women too - then it should be acceptable to state that name for legal matters etc. So if I am now known as Matilda Smith, but was born Mary Ann Jones, then became Mary Anne Carmichael upon marriage, and I commit a criminal offence, I see no reason why I should object to the newspapers telling all and sundry that those were my previous names. I may have been using one to commit the crime.

There has been one murderer in the US who tried to escape trial because he'd committed the murder while a man, now 'identified' as a woman so claimed the crime of the previous self should be ignored. The court, thank God, was having none of it.

Just because TRAs demand something, it doesn't mean that it is the law. For instance, the law does not state that transwomen are women...obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate gives them legal recognition in their acquired gender.

The issue is more around harassing or hostility towards a person because they are transgender than stating a fact, although GRC details can be protected information. Also, being transgender means undergoing, proposing to undergo, or having undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment...it's all about working towards obtaining a GRC.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homophobic-biphobic-and-transphobic-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance

Obviously Ian Huntley is an extreme case - but if he is genuinely transgender, and we do not know that he isn't - this would apply.... And of course, we can't chose who we do this for and who we don't

Personally I believe more of a person's history needs to be "owned" by them.... i.e. beyond criminal stuff.... e.g. acceptable to talk about qualifications obtained under deadname, and even just things like used to be married to, date x, etc....

It is an extreme thing to do to erase one's history - and inappropriate to demand that others do - that person has done them, the good and the bad

That's a point. How would anyone who self identifies as someone else ever get a job? All their qualifications will be in their previous name. My degree is is nearly 30 years old and if I decided to 'come out' as transgender, it would have the 'wrong' name on it so I couldn't get a postgrad job any more...

How would anyone who self identifies as someone else ever get a job? All their qualifications will be in their previous name

They write to their University and examination boards, explain they are transgender and ask for a copy of their examination certificates in their new name.

There has been one murderer in the US who tried to escape trial because he'd committed the murder while a man, now 'identified' as a woman so claimed the crime of the previous self should be ignored. The court, thank God, was having none of it.

It did take them longer to find him because of his identity change.

When Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Al he did not erase his history. Everyone still knew him a heavy weight boxer. But newspapers don't feel the need to mention his previous name when they write about him.

Ian Huntley is never getting out of prison and if they tried to move him to a womens prison it would peak the entire country in one fell swoop. Even the most militant TRA wouldn't want that because it would blow it all up in the media and risk alienating their supporters, surely?

You can (in England anyway) swear an affidavit in front of a legal person (can't recall if it's a commissioner for oaths, notary pubic or whatever) to clarify name changes. I've done this as I have had a few surnames & attempted to ditch a middle name so I have all sorts of names on various documents. I am conscious that it makes me look a bit suspicious but I'm really not!

Sigh. See www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/13/google-loses-right-to-be-forgotten-case. The right for people who go through gender reassignment to have their gender history forgotten is hardly exceptional these days and courts will be pragmatic wrt criminals.

Yes and this law was criticised by many for exactly this reason.

Even the most militant TRA wouldn't want that because it would blow it all up in the media and risk alienating their supporters, surely?

It would. But they are committed to this batshit ideology.

People know he was Cassius Clay though it isn't a secret no-one is allowed to talk about and it isn't called a "dead name" just a previous name.
It's the trying to erase and rewrite history aspect of dead naming I find creepy and more similarities between trans ideology and cults or fundamentalist religions. The trans person is born again with a new identity like a nun or someone converting to Islaam or a Moonie.
Surely lots of trans folk don't feel this especially ones who had kids and enjoyable careers pre transitioning.

When signing a legal document they often have every name you have ever used including every variation of your name.
Make dead naming illegal and the criminal element will have a field day.

Muhammad Ali ditched his slave name, as did so many others who had been forced to give up their real name and take that of their owners.
You really creep me right the eff out when you try to use hundreds of years of oppression to compare with the inconveniencing of the privileged white male.

I had no idea he had a slave name. No need to get sarky. I don't assume all black peoples were slaves and am not in to boxing.

There are spent convictions and those committed by juveniles to be taken into account. Try to find Paris Lees' history and it's been bleached.

But part of that will be juvenile, part maybe spent and a lot of right to be forgotten. In these dark days I now wonder if right to be forgotten was also largely a transgender push.

I was responding to SarahAr, not you, 2rebecca, and I will be the judge if I need to get snarky, thank you every much.

Well I agree with you, the idea that anybody gets carte blanche to order others to wipe their slate clean, no matter what dubious practices or offences they've commited is potentially very alarming.

''How would anyone who self identifies as someone else ever get a job? All their qualifications will be in their previous name''

SarahAr: ''They write to their University and examination boards, explain they are transgender and ask for a copy of their examination certificates in their new name.''

and that doesn't sound open to abuse at all People will be selling the degrees to the highest bidder

I totally agree that on a personal level coming to terms with one's past is neceessary, however difficult.

And there is no such thing as a right to absolute secrecy, only a reasonable expectation of privacy, which has limitations eg for the grreater good. I don;t see why trans people should have yet another special exception, which is controlling and makes safeguarding very difficult.

But according to this;

13.The Home Office reserves the right not to issue a document in a new name to a person who is either a registered sex offender or was convicted of an offence involving the use of false or fraudulently obtained genuine documents. Any decision not to issue a document will depend upon the purpose for the change of name, the nature of the offence committed and whether the change of name may be used to perpetrate further offending. However, such restrictions will not go beyond the time the person ceases to be recorded on the Sex Offenders Register or after their conviction is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. A situation where an offender is also considered to be a vulnerable victim or witness and a threat to life exists, is one example of where we may choose to issue a document in a new name. Home Office

I think we need to be asking why so many male sex offenders have been given permission to change their name when clearly a male who rapes and sexually assualts women is an additional danger if he is allowed to present as a woman.

And actually, 'as a woman' he is an additional danger if he only targets men. He tries to become a wolf in sheep's clothing to either sex.