Wordpress bans 'deadnaming'

[QuietContraryMary]

Your site will be taken down for

"The malicious publication of private details related to gender identity, including former names."

Note in general

"Examples of information which we don’t consider private are:

Photos of people (excluding nudes/minors).
Publicly available physical addresses, email addresses, or phone numbers.
Names."

en.support.wordpress.com/private-information/

Previous policy (as of November 15th) archive.is/fwcA7

So example:

It's ok to disclose that Tommy Robinson was previously called Stephen Yaxley Lennon, because he's not transgender.

But it's not ok to disclose that Caitlyn Jenner was previously called Bruce.

Two wordpress sites have thus far been taken down in the 36 hours since this policy was put into place, namely 'Gender Identity Watch', and 'Gender Trender'.

TransCrimeUK remains up for the moment, but it's quite likely to be taken down in the future.

Clearly there is some scope for deadnaming, if Wordpress decide that it's not 'malicious', whatever the fuck that means, but how far this extends is not clear. For example if you had a page discussing Charlotte (nee Charles) Clymer's unpleasant, if not necessarily illegal behaviour, and how it affects Charlotte's credibility as a 'feminist', it is not clear whether that would be deemed malicious.

It would however be central to any discussion about Charlotte's behaviour.

Is it bad that I want Tommy Robinson to come out as transgender for the hilarity that would ensue? Imagine the SJWs trying to square that?!?

(Disclaimer: I loathe Tommy Robinson and what he stands for!)

Well, trumptrump, the Wikkfiddlers decided that that the man in Australia who said she is trans, actually isn't.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barry_O%27Sullivan

This is a world first, and doesn't apply to rapists, murderers and other people who should of course be given priority access to women's spaces.

The reason Barry is not a real translady, apparently, is because Buzzfeed says so. (Seriously, I'm not making these up these are the shit-for-brain fools who write the world's most popular encyclopedia).

How long before we aren’t allowed to refer to someone as trans?

From a technical point of view; this is only applicable to blogs hosted on wordpress.com - if the blogs you've mentioned that are closed down move to their own hosting, they can upload their Wordpress back-ups there and use the self-hosted wordpress in exactly the same way that they were, without the censorship.

Well you might not be able to now. There's a 6'3 translady called Brianna (formally John) Wu, all mention of Brianna's trans status is prohibited from Brianna's Wikipedia page.

The Washington Post printed this very snarky 'correction' when Brianna complained:

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/any-old-blue-just-wont-do-insurgents-seek-to-topple-more-democratic-veterans-in-september-primaries/2018/09/01/85e26eee-aca3-11e8-a8d7-0f63ab8b1370_story.html

"Clarification: An earlier version of this story said that Brianna Wu is transgender. She identifies as a woman."

Does anyone else find the phrase “dead naming” utterly repugnant. No one actually died. Very insulting to grieving parents.

I love that correction! (And Brianna must have really pissed off the WashPo 'cos normally they out-woke the Guardian).

But this is scarey. The level of Stalinist air-brushing going on. If the info on twitter is right, the person who's brought this about is the person suing 16 Canadian women for not wanting to wax their balls (these are women not trained to do waxing of male genitalia, not insured to do it, and mostly small self-employed business women doing visits to people's homes/operating businesses out of their own homes). The person in question also has numerous incredibly creepy posts in which they fantasise about being in a women's toilets and having a 10 year old girl approach them for advice on how to insert a tampon. This is the sort of person who wants to air-brush their history. It's obvious why they would wish to do so, the question is whether it is in the public interest that they be allowed to.

The same goes for people out there with lengthy criminal records, harrassment, failed businesses bordering on the fraudulent, people who at one and the same time defend extreme porn (i.e. porn in which people suffer actual bodily harm during its production) and campaign for the age at which people can act in such extreme porn to be lowered below the current 18.

These people all, understandably, want their dubious pasts to disappear from public view. The question is why are people who should know better colluding in allowing them to air-brush their dubious pasts out of existence?

These people all, understandably, want their dubious pasts to disappear from public view. The question is why are people who should know better colluding in allowing them to air-brush their dubious pasts out of existence?

This. It's really chilling.

This is on par with Jimmy Saville. Everyone at the BBC, the police, broadmoor etc knew about it but it was easier to turn a blind eye.
We are in the same situation today - the vast majority of MPs, councillors etc know this is a bad idea but they are putting their own ambition first.

"I love that correction! (And Brianna must have really pissed off the WashPo 'cos normally they out-woke the Guardian)."

Brianna got quite righteous about it

twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/1036634247703027712

As ever, Mrkhtake2 has some interesting information on how the deplatforming of GC voices from social media is happening (interestingly, she mentions that AC claims to have a direct line to some of the people responsible for deplatforming):

twitter.com/mrkhtake2/status/1063805163234824197

Brianna Wu has criticised unrealistic images of women in video game, eg. Lara Croft.

This is what she thinks real women look like (taken from her game Revolution 60).

The characters were based on the developers. Pencil necks and big tits. This is what they see in the mirror.

In two words: cui bono?

Total dick move, WordPress. You have taken the side of those who have something to hide.

Where else is good for blogs? Mine is WordPress. Nothing to do with trans so this won't affect me but I don't want to use them any more.

The entire concept of a dead name is offensive. A person lived with that name for a period of time. That is a historical fact even if that person is not famous. To deny the existence of a name is to try to erase a person from history. That impacts other people not just the individual.

I am happy to use whatever name a person has adopted for the present because I generally try to be polite, but that doesn’t mean we all have to pretend the past doesn’t exist.

Wu has political ambitions. If Wikipedia won’t report that she’s trans and nobody can discuss it on Wordpress they can falsely claim to represent women. Voters have the right to know who they are voting for.

This is getting downright sinister. Feels like a kick in the gut, can't imagine what these brilliant writers must be feeling.. Word press can burn itself down. Let me know the new platform and I'll donate.

Really don't see the problem with this. If someone has changed their gender, they've made a decision about their identity and it's not anyone else's right to decide who that others should know about it, or anyone else's decision to start calling them by their previous name.

It would be a very nasty thing to do anyway, so banning it is good.

t would be a very nasty thing to do anyway, so banning it is good.

It’s not a nasty thing to accurately describe historical events. On the court documents that describe crimes that have been committed for example. Karen White committed and was convicted of paedophilic crimes when named Stephen Wood. That is a fact. A historical fact. It is extremely sinister that you think because he’s now a convicted rapist going by the name of Karen White, it’s “nasty”.

trumptrump

Is it bad that I want Tommy Robinson to come out a *feminist for the hilarity that would ensue? Imagine the SJWs trying to square that?!?

(Disclaimer: I loathe Tommy Robinson and what he stands for!)

Funny how that works too. In my experience the majority of feminists, including the tens of thousands at uni and recently post grads, go along with this madness

Funny that you felt the need to add the disclaimer. What you wrote gave no indication that you liked him but you were so terrified of that being thought you had to add that.

Interesting.
I think it is the same group fear on the left that drives people to either go along with the TG agenda or at the very least look the other way and say nothing.

I wonder who hosts kiwi farms?

Countess - there are loads of places that host Wordpress sites for free. I don't blog so have no recommendations I'm afraid but I agree entirely with your stance.

This is utterly sinister

But not all trans people are paedophiles. It's like saying all gay people are perverts, which used to be common. Of course, if someone's former name is important in court it should be used, but I think on wordpress it's a different matter. It's a blogging site not a court of law.

No, not all transpeople are paedophiles, no one said that.

No one said all trans people are paedophiles. For completeness of the record, no one has EVER equated “all trans people” with anything at all, positive or negative. But if you police the language of a blogging site, it’s part of a problem. There is already an example above of one of the leading newspapers of the world famous for investigative journalism that was forced into avoiding stating a fact. If you remove the possibility of stating facts by policing language it’s the perfect example of Orwellian behaviour. The fact that at the moment it’s just a blogging site means we have an opportunity to stop it before it becomes ingrained in culture.

Cookies, seriously? You don't think the little matters of truth and fact come into it at all?