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/

The larynx twitches, and the vocal cords move accordingly and this occurs regardless of inhaling or exhaling - the movement of air over the rapidly moving (up to 100x a second!) vocal cords creates the sound wave of the purr.

That’s HOW.

WHY is opinion

We may not know for certain why cats purr or why the universe is expanding so fast, but it's possible to do proper research into these observable, testable phenomena and demonstrate the soundness of various theories. Without needing to resort to sexist and homophobic stereotypes and blind faith in untestable assertions like "but I feel like a woman"

Anyway, no-one will ever convince me that the worst thing in the world is identifying someone who has a previous name. Perhaps part of the problem is that TRAs believe that using someone's birth name suddenly reveals that an individual is trans because they refuse to acknowledge the inconvenient truth that in the vast majority of cases we already know because most trans people do not "pass"

There is a theory it’s a kind of self soothing hum. Even a theory it helps tissue healing.

But that ( the why) is the sort of thing that’s a matter of speculation. We can't ask a cat and we are not cats. We can definitely work out the ‘how’.

We even know how bees fly, although it took us a while. No ‘how’ is beyond science even if it’s out of reach of our current science. A ‘why’ may never be found for many things.

We can’t ascribe a why to many crimes.

One possible ‘how’ though is the loopholes created by things like deadnaming being illegal.

Welll said EJ

Well put, E J.

the only people who have tried to dictate to me personally what lesbianism is are transphobes

Of course they are,

I have explained what a vegetarian is many many times...wonder what that makes me

Oh and i should point out that im just quoting a poster, not attempting to engage

Though im too tired to work out what pointing out to my friend who eats chicken that she isnt a vegetarian (or me as i now eat fish) makes me

sex that isn't PIV is technically sodomy

What now?

Are we changing the definition of everything now

Rat is smarter than me

No she isnt

Dont put yourself down...ever, you are obviously clever and have quite the way with words

Thats not a compliment

Though i realise ive just engaged

A gentle reminder: the topic is deadnaming.

Which, incidentally, should remain legal.

Absolutely.

Muhammed Ali never complained about being referred to as formerly known as Cassius Clay, as that led to a discussion about his conversion to Islam and his resulting change of name.

He did become pissed off if people continued to use Cassius Clay after his name change and conversion were explained.

As Clay, he was a young and talented boxer and he built on that reputation as Ali.

The 'right to be forgotten' must have limits.

Hiding criminal behaviour with a name change should be a criminal act in itself.

Sorry disrespectful and yes i agree it should remain legal

Deffo off now

I'm not sure there is anyone on the thread who disagrees that making deadnaming illegal won't benefit criminals and predators.

Some people will disagree on principle because it is what TRAs want, but I haven't heard any credible justification.

The manipulation of language is so last year. Plain English is the new black!

Still waiting to hear why disbelief is prejudice.

Rufus, apologies! It was not aimed at you - it was a general comment aimed at the posts derailing the thread.

So reporting on arrests is a no-go since the Cliff Richard case so the Crawley duo are lined up for a payout.
Reporting a criminal's previous alias is a no-go if that criminal decides to claim to be trans.
Safeguarding is now literally a tick-box.
Other countries with self-id imprison and hospitalise according to (birth) sex. But we won't.
We've still got super-injunctions for the rich so we don't report on them, and when parliamentary privilege is invoked to name them that is questioned.
The Speaker has been proven to be biased in a way I can't remember happening with previous Speakers.
E Lord is threatening the Times who are one of the few newspapers to report factually on some of this.
The NUS still haven't dealt with their alleged wanker.
The Labour Party still haven't helped/reined in/supported/addressed their women's officer who isn't a women's officer.
A feminist site had been closed down.
An activist has been silenced on several media platforms.
A comedy writer is facing legal action.
Further legal action is being pursued by the subject of this thread, which appears to be vexatious
It's just scary on all fronts, really.

I have to say that further legislation in terms of hate crimes is usually ineffective. Assault is assault, harassment is harassment, etc. Adding more hate crime categories (ostensibly to add as an aggravating factor to a crime) hasn't resulted in an improvement in the number of assaults or harassment cases. It's already illegal to harass someone and it's already an aggravating factor to do so because of "transphobia" so making it illegal to mention someone's previous name will just have a chilling effect on reporting (and presumably little effect on real harassment). So what's the motivation for pursuing such a law if not to hide the past?
Where's the evidence that making it illegal to hurt (certain) people's feelings will lead to lower rates of actual crime? Is there even a link or is the proposal pure egotism?

So what's the motivation for pursuing such a law if not to hide the past?

Hiding the past is the only reason.

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.

LOL. I'm not sure whether Rat is smarter than you or not. You're both quite similar. not a compliment

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.

You have to wonder why it is so damned important for this ideology to obscure the meaning of language. Particularly when it pertains to women

This. The misogyny of this ideology is crystal clear.