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?

But I don't think this is being enforced, is it?

e.g.. if someone applies for a new passport in different sex. You don't need a GRC, to get a new passport , Paris Lees got a doctors letter. (This info from an interveiw on bbc iplayer. )

Buggered, frankly I find it unacceptable that children should not be allowed to call their dad their dad including deadname. It is emotional abuse. We all know there are lots of cases out there, where transwomen disavow their identity and past and let the family pick up the pieces.

Also: Sorry, but if bougt a car from or had a relationship with or just tea....with John Doe and the person turned into Jane Doe years later, it is still John Doe for any such dealings with him pre transition.

I surely won't rewrite history. This is just silly.

Obviously Ian Huntley is an extreme case - but if he is genuinely transgender, and we do not know that he isn't.....

Ian Huntly? Indeed. No need to be trans even, with self id, anyone gets themselves the legal status of the opposite sex. (And into a changing room with my dd... ).

Removing any gatekeeping is a predator's dream come true, bye bye safeguarding.

I think the privacy clause was shoved into the gra at the 11th hour without much contemplation and scrutiny (much like the rest of the act really).

It should be scrapped. It sets a precedent for more legally protected lies and undermines the notion of truth being absolute and a different thing from shit people like to make up about themselves.

You have a right in law to call yourself anything you like - as long as this is not for fraudulent or criminal purposes.

Because of this, I'm happy to call a person whatever they want to be called.

Issues of concern are of course (1) that it does not magically 'erase' the fact that any given person has a history under their previous name and it isn't 'literally killing them' to refer to it (accidentally or for specific purposes) - some things you just have to live with, don't you?

And (2) some people who declare themselves trans do have a criminal (and in some cases, dangerous) history and must therefore not be allowed to claim the anonymity of their previous name.

There is no pragmatic need to pretend there is a difference between men who say they are women and genuinely believe it, and those who say they are women and do not.

Believing something does not confer validity, nor demand respect.

The test of a "real transwoman" isn't how harmful/harmless they are. There is no sense in deciding that one man is genuinely a woman but another man is not.

Noone should be allowed to hide their past nor demand that others collude in such a deception. We should not be criminalising or condemning people for telling the truth about those who wish to hide it.

It would be madness if they made deadnaming a crime, but any decent person deserves to be called by the name they prefer.

any decent person deserves to be called by the name they prefer

I'd say, they have the right to request it.

And decent people have the right to decline to do so, if the name change carries with it a meaning that they do not wish to endorse.

Each time a man chooses a female name (and pronouns) and demands that people use it, it isn't an arbitrary choice, it's a demand for submission, capitulation, compliance and tacit agreement of his so-called female status.

I resent complying. The rules on mumsnet are more Draconian thankfully than the rules in civil society. In real life I need not be forced to submit to calling a man by his chosen female name. Yet.

We are influenced by language.

You will have a viscerally different reaction to the phrase "she wanted to change with the other women"
And
"He wanted to change with the women".

even if you know I am referring to the same (male) person. The language dampens your natural reflex because it deceives effectively.

Abusive and dangerous males often change their names by deed poll to obscure their history.

Daily Mail article here, with comment from Nic Williams www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5798945/Trans-women-convicted-men-attack-vulnerable-inmates.html good on the DM for 'deadnaming' Martin Ponting who now says he is a woman Jessica Winfield and got transfered to a woman's prison.

How and why was Ponting/Winfield granted a name change?

People often change their surname when getting married. Surely referring to a previous name is just stating a fact.

I seem to remember that there was a period during which articles about Muhammed Ali would mention that he was formerly Cassius Clay. Even though he would have been widely identifiable from his photo (there usually was one, because at that age he was so photogenic).

Similar to Paris Lees, if you google Martin Ponting you won't find any news reports contemporaneous to his crimes. He has had them all wiped.

I'm no fan of Spiked but was interested to see that O'Neill had a piece that discusses Ponting/Winfield: A rapist in a women’s prison? Society has lost the plot

The idea that we should erase that name to avoid offending his trans sensibilities is perverse: it erases matters of legal record; it memory-holes the name of a criminal. It negates history itself: in this case that a man called Martin Ponting raped two girls. To instruct the media never to mention the name ‘Martin Ponting’ is to engage in a victim-disrespecting act of Orwellian erasure. It once again elevates the eccentric sensitivities of one individual over the rights of everyone else: in this case the right of the public to know and speak about all the details of a crime

I'd quote more but it's open access and should be read for some wholly appropriate anger and good phrasing.

Victims often come forward when they see a name in the paper or somewhere, whether for advertising ir because the person has been charged or arrested for other crimes. Of course those who have carried out criminal acts will benefit from changing their names.

Any goodwill or opportunity they get is obtained by the deception of being someone else - surely this constitutes fraud? Especially if you cannot deadname. Anyone can claim to be so horribly, terribly upset that it hurts them to be reminded, but you cannot prove that this is actually true.

There was transwoman (already convicted and in prison) convicted today for other past offences and the offender was irate. Possibly that they weren't immune to their own past.

It makes sense to me to be able to say "Joan Smith, formerly known as John Brown, was convicted of murder in 1992". That's all fact and there's no way it should be suppressed.
However, your boss shouldn't introduce you to the office as "Gemma, who slept with her husband's best friend" or "Dave, who went bankrupt five years ago" . It's not "in the public interest" and would just be bullying. It might be fact, but it is irrelevant.
So no, there should never be a blanket ban on revealing an individual's previous name, it sets too many precedents legally.
The bullying aspect covers malicious deadnaming. If Julie shows up to work and someone found out she used to be called Trevor, and insists on calling Julie "Trevor", that's a pretty clear-cut case of bullying and harassment.
Also, a translogic question. If a trans woman was "always a woman", even when she didn't know it and was busy being a married straight man with kids, then why hide the previous name? If she was always a woman then that's just another part of her womanly existence, surely?

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.

That's interesting, because married women don't get to do that, they have to show the marriage certificate at interview. Ditto anyone who changes name by deed poll, even if it's to escape an abusive ex. It's almost like trans people have more rights concerning names on certificates than anyone else.

Yes, I agree Turph

Caitlin Jenner didn't win an Olympic gold medal, Bruce Jenner did. Same as Jessica Ennis won an Olympic gold medal in London in 2012 and Jessica Ennis-Hill won a silver medal in Rio four years later (not Jessica Ennis-Hill winning in London in 2012)

From another thread but I think this is highly relevant.

go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-offender-seeks-to-wipe-crimes-as-aman-from-record-qfk5w68lb?shareToken=2bb5072907deafb68dd42f53a6ab758a

Sorry hopefully better link

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-offender-seeks-to-wipe-crimes-as-aman-from-record-qfk5w68lb?shareToken=2bb5072907deafb68dd42f53a6ab758a

From the Times article "Karen White, formerly known as Stephen Wood, then as David Thompson".

Why was Wood/Thomspon/White allowed a name change at all? And why did he change from Wood to Thompson. FFS.

This is all so seriously scary.

The idea of being able to wipe out previous sins is dangerous, be it trans 'rebirth' or clerics being 'forgiven' by their institutions.

People are of course allowed to change their names and to be known as what they prefer to be called. I don't have a 'right' to call someone by a name they don't like.
BUT sometimes it is extremely relevant- e.g. former offences etc. That is why the case that is being fought at the moment to have sex-specific offences wiped from your record is terrifying. There is only one serious one remaining, which is of course rape. Privacy can never be allowed to trump another person's safety and right to bodily integrity.

I'm inclined to think that, in the case of mentally competent adults, disassociation from past crimes should be the exception rather than the rule. For example, fraudsters can seriously wreck other people's lives and would presume be delighted to be able to change name and carry on.