In defence of deadnaming

[welshgendercrit]

For ‘deadnaming’ is just a Newspeak word designed to demonise the telling of historical truths. Not satisfied with seeking to control contemporary discussion and attitudes, now trans activists and their allies (all institutions, in essence) want to control the past itself. History. No way. The past happened, it was true, and we should not allow that to be erased and forgotten just to make some people feel better about themselves.

Yet again spiked (which I never used to read) has written a good, hardhitting, sensible article on transactivism.

www.spiked-online.com/2018/10/11/in-defence-of-deadnaming/

I take gay people at their word because I know what sexual attraction is. I know what it means to find one group of people attractive but another not at all. Homosexuality isn't introducing an entirely new concept, sexual attraction exists, most of us experience it.

When a male says he identifies as a woman though. When he says he really knows what it means to be a woman because deep down he has these woman feelings. This is completely unfamiliar to me. I don't have these feelings. I don't know if my thoughts and feelings about being a woman are shared by every woman on the planet. I don't have some kind of feminine soul. I don't believe such a thing exists.

Am I also to accept reincarnation because some people deep down think they were here before in another life? If not, why not? The evidence for feminine souls is about on a par with reincarnated ones.

This is one of the many, many reasons why "deadnaming" should never exist or be acknowledged.

fairplayforwomen.com/deadnaming/

Ian Huntley is an absolutely evil person, and society should be ashamed that said person is being protected, whilst as the article correctly points out, there are only two "deadnames" in this story relating to Huntley - Jessica and Holly.

This entire ideology is so homophobic.

Don’t be a gay teen - be a straight one of the opposite sex
Don't be a lesbian - be open to everyone.
Don’t be gay - I mean who can even tell what gay means?

There’s really unpleasant current of telling people that they’re not allowed to be homosexual. Or heterosexual. Or know what a man or woman is. One must be open to everyone by default and reject case by case (after a load of whining and wheedling)

Disturbing

Fox

I spent an evening in the summer in a meeting room with 75 lesbians and one dad of a young autistic could be lesbian in the midst of a transing grooming episode. All of those lesbians, including some who had been in relationships with men objected profoundly to the insistence that their identity was claimed by males and they decided to write to stonewall to tell them that they were getting the L out because of this. So you are here telling us that we are binary (meaningless insult du jour) and fundamentalist (meaningless insult number two) among others which is fine, you know people that believe in male lesbians, but many don't. And the people here have a view that the male lesbian concept is part of the male female concept, and that ultimately it is a concept we can and do reject. A bit like the virgin birth.

This entire ideology is so homophobic.

Don’t be a gay teen - be a straight one of the opposite sex
Don't be a lesbian - be open to everyone.
Don’t be gay - I mean who can even tell what gay means?

There’s really unpleasant current of telling people that they’re not allowed to be homosexual. Or heterosexual. Or know what a man or woman is. One must be open to everyone by default and reject case by case (after a load of whining and wheedling)

Disturbing

So much this. I despise the way this crap has dressed itself up as all about freedom and loving who you want to and acceptance.

And yet goes out of it's way, persistently, to belittle, minimize, redefine out of existence homosexuality. It doesn't matter how many women you can get to say they love a bit of cock but identify as lesbians, homosexuality is a legally defined and protected attribute, and all the bullshit obfuscation conflating everyone's right to sleep with whoever they wish with the legal definition of homosexuality.

Why would you dispute the 'men' presumption? If a man is calling himself a trans woman then why is it a presumption that he is a man?

Because if TWAW then they never were men.

If you don't know 'yet' what makes a man into a woman, why spend so much time on here arguing for it? Unless as has said before you just believe everything anyone tells you in which case, i have some magic beans on offer.

I repeat, because their conviction doesn't sufficiently resemble what I would define as a delusion, and the opposition to it has the hallmarks of institutionalised disbelief and prejudice.

And contrary to what you seem to think, the only people who have tried to dictate to me personally what lesbianism is are transphobes. I'm surprised people on here don't see how annoying it is, given you fill threads with complaints about people telling women how to be and/or fancy women, but if you can complain about it so can I.

Because if TWAW then they never were men

What they transing from then?

And contrary to what you seem to think, the only people who have tried to dictate to me personally what lesbianism is are transphobes

You mean women?

No, I mean transphobic women. Other flavours of women are available, honestly.

It doesn't matter how many women you can get to say they love a bit of cock but identify as lesbians

Have you ever heard a woman say anything of the sort?

What on earth is institutionalised disbelief and prejudice?
What institution has caused me to not believe? Why is a lack of belief prejudice?

As a bisexual woman, I find some of these views on lesbianism awfully close to bisexual erasure. A person who is attracted to people of more than one gender presentation is bisexual. Pretending that we don't exist or aren't gay enough is really problematic in my opinion.

On dead naming aka the actual subject of the thread, I think it is rude to do it without reason or just for the purposes of outing someone as trans. AFAIK it's legal to out someone as gay/bi as long as you're not inciting violence but I would hate it to happen to me.

Dead naming for the purposes of information sharing and awareness is so important. Someone should never to be able to erase their historical crimes. If you don't know the name, you may not be able to ask under Sarah's law or claire's law, so you cannot keep yourself safe.

I agree, it's worrying that a lot of people who are pushing for this have past misdemeanours they want to cover up.

What are they transing from?

How can TW be W? What are women? What does it mean to be a woman? How can you identify as something if you don't appear to know what women actually are?

Why does thinking you're something make you that thing? Lots of people think they're Jesus but they're not really, are they. Anorexics think they're fat but they're not really, are they. No-one expects us to pretend that people who think they're Jesus are actually Jesus or to lie to anorexics and everyone else and agree they are really grotesquely fat.

Why do you want us all to lie? It's a very fascist thing to do. TW are not W. That's just a silly thing to say. TW are TW. And men.

How did TRAs end up expecting everyone to lie as they were told to?

What is this shit? Maybe in your house the little women do what the men tell them to, but we don't actually live in the 19th century now, and in my house, women and men both have eyes and opinions and common sense.

Treat women with respect or don't expect to get treated with respect.

Because if TWAW then they never were men.

Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

I repeat, because their conviction doesn't sufficiently resemble what I would define as a delusion, and the opposition to it has the hallmarks of institutionalised disbelief and prejudice.

Given that you can't seem to stomach unbelief in your ideology, and you attribute hostile motives to non-believers. I would suggest that it is you who the victim of an institutional system of belief and prejudice.

Language is used to communicate, but under your classification, lesbian coupling could mean two men, two women or a man and a woman, so coherence is fucked for starters. Likewise heterosexuality. It could mean anything. And everyone had better keep awake because it can all change tomorrow.

"A world where nobody was able to discriminate between gay and straight sex? Add a few more preferences to Grindr and bring it on."

"Essentially you're talking valid sex vs invalid sex, aka sodomy. All sex that isn't PIV is technically sodomy. We most of us manage to hit the spot despite this appalling vagueness. Get over it."

???

I'll take responses that bear zero relation to any of my posts for $500.

Sex is not gender.

Sex is not sexuality.

Gender is not sexuality.

Stick to the subject.

Deadnaming.

If someone is fat, it’s s fact. It would be rude to follow them round chanting they are fat, and that could be dealt with under existing legislation. Poor legislation would be to make any mention of weight a crime, or to compel people to say someone is thin
Bowl hit the nail on the head several days ago, it seems. The derail seems very familiar, I'd put a small bet on who that person is.

It's me.

You promised that you were done Fox many many posts back?

I love the child who points out the emperor’s nakedness. This is not hateful and nor is the boy stupid.

Given that you can't seem to stomach unbelief in your ideology...

I'm the only person on this thread who's not only admitted to uncertainty, HerFemaleness, but is advocating it as a virtue.

As for how and why the universe’s expansion is accelerating, no I couldn’t explain that to you. But I know an astrophysicist I could call for you, and he could do that. The fact that you might not understand his explanation doesn’t mean that it isn’t an accepted scientific explanation.I believe a Nobel prize has been awarded for the discovery.

Do please call him and get him to explain to you that he can't explain it because nobody knows for sure and dark energy is as yet just a glorified placeholder. And that the prizes for Saul Perlmutter and so on were awarded purely for the discovery that it was accelerating, because nobody was expecting it, as you'll see in early editions of A Brief History of Time which doesn't even consider the possibility. Those bemusing paradigm shifts, eh?

Nor can I explain to you why a cat purrs, but I’m quite sure a veterinarian or an animal biologist could explain how a cat purrs.

Nope, again, as yet they can only hypothesise. Your quite sureness is really not helping all these worries I have about people's unwarranted certainties.

As for homosexual attraction, we can speculate as to why it exists, but the fact of its existence has been verified in all sorts of laboratory experiments measuring physical changes that occur during human sexual attraction.

Those tests also seemed to show that many people get turned on by pretty much any filth they're shown regardless of their sexual orientation. You might say it's unwise to make black and white statements about human sexual attraction. And verifying the existence of homosexuality was never the problem because all the homosexuals enthusiastically fucking each other and writing poems about it is really all you need. Destigmatising it and legitimising it was the problem, and this wasn't started by labs or psychiatrists' convocations but by riots and demos and people basically just insisting.

If you’ve not taken any courses in logic or set theory, I highly recommend them.

Tbh I do conk out at a certain point but I definitely remember the bit where Bertrand Russell spent several years and a few hundred pages proving that 1+1=2 and everyone got all excited about maybe finally being able to be quite sure about how cats purr complex axiomatic systems and then Gödel came along and buggered that hope for good.

You sound very young. Your argument is style is one of demagoguery as opposed to logical discussion.

It's Christmas and you're probably busy, so I'm going to try and save us all some time and suggest that if you want to try and patronise or unnerve me then taking pot shots at my mental and verbal capabilities is probably not a strong suit. You should go for my worldly inexperience, certainly, but also my callousness, pomposity, self-absorption, superciliousness, history of being gaslighted, middle class guilt, general fear of losing the respect of people I like and also, given that I'm aware that demagoguery is kind of a non-starter in a roomful of people who flatly disagree with me, the strong possibility that what you're picking up on there is the fact that at this point I'm arguing with you for the sheer joy of it rather than to exercise my social conscience and l'm quite happy to admit that I'm not at all proud of that either so it's definitely worth you having a crack at it.

.

Having said all that, I've just caught up with the thread below. Rat is smarter than me and now I do understand to my satisfaction in what manner trans people are trans, so who knows, maybe I'll bother you less in my newfound cognitive harmony.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3449035-To-not-care-whether-people-say-sex-or-gender?topicid=2724&threadid=3449035&pg=22

You promised that you were done Fox

I know you like precision so look it up because no, I didn't, I just made a statement of vague intent. And as I indicated earlier, I can't derail anything on my own. So restrain the urge to cry DARVO and just ignore me if you think I'm so beneath you.

Of course you can explain HOW a cat purrs.

WHY is hypothesis territory. HOW is a matter of biomechanics.

This weird Pomo idea that everything is a matter of opinion. Next time you stub your toe, make sure to tell yourself mass and inertia and nerve transmission are a matter of opinion and you’ll be fine.