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'd like to see the government of the day produce some figures for how specific legislation has met its aim.
For example, racially aggravated crime. Has the introduction of hate crime categories made ethnic minorities' lives safer? (Obviously allowing for the possibility reporting has increased)
Has the ban on handguns after Dunblane decreased gun crime? I don't care that we banned handguns, but I do know there was very little debate on it because it was considered to be The Right Thing To Do. Did it achieve anything in actual gun crime stats?
Minimum alcohol unit pricing in Scotland. If a two litre bottle of cider goes up by a fiver how many people will that actually affect? Is the alcohol problem in Scotland driven by street drinkers only? What happens if they all turn to Spice instead? I mean, I hope they don't and I hope it works as a policy, but do we ever get to see a review?
The Dangerous Dogs Act? Four breeds made illegal - and it hasn't had an effect on the number of overall attacks.
Getting back to the point, if the government was to pass legislation to make misgendering or deadnaming a hate crime, and then fail to review the effects of knee-jerk legislation (like it fails to review other knee-jerk legislation) it would compound the problem.
Harassment is harassment, we should have a properly funded police force, a properly funded justice system and a properly funded prison service so financial considerations don't affect justice outcomes. At present we have none of those things so whoever has the loudest voice and fattest wallet gets justice, while the rest of us get a crime number or a chat with a PCSO the following week...

Oink, hate crime doesn't apply on to ethnic minorities: it also applies to people with disabilities.

Only, not on!

(Typing with cat on lap.)

Rufus, apologies! It was not aimed at you

Oh thats quite alright...by the end i was just babbling

Still waiting to hear why disbelief is prejudice.

I didn't say they were. That's not what "and" means. But the two often go hand in hand, don't they.

Fox - what are these trans women transing from?

They're not, it's an adjective, not a verb, based on a preposition. Is Transalpine Gaul going anywhere?

DisrespectfulAdultFemale
Of course, I was just picking one category where there was evidence of existing crime before the changes were made. I just wanted to know if there was a before and after.
Otherwise they pat themselves on the back after passing a law (with no extra resources to enforce it) and it achieves nothing.
We could ban sex dolls tomorrow, for example, as we could argue they encourage dangerous sexual behaviour. It would be entirely toothless without more border force staff to intercept packages, without more police to build a case against illegal importers and without money and places in the justice and prison systems (even if this wasn't an imprisonable offence, if imprisonable offences no longer carry a custodial sentence due to overcrowding and financial pressures then there is a knock-on effect on other non-custodial sentences). It would be a pointless law because it would only be enforceable if a fully formed prosecution case landed in their lap. It wouldn't solve the problem.
We pass far too many laws like that, and a deadnaming or misgendering law would be the same. Unenforceable without specific impetus, specific social pressure and some wodge. Who would use such a law, and against whom?

They're not, it's an adjective, not a verb, based on a preposition.

So they are not transitioning in any way? So what is the difference between the men that are boys/men for all their lives, who have kids, get married etc etc, and the trans women that they are at some determined point? Are you saying that they are exactly the same thing and there is no transition?

I'd say that as social beings there's something vital that happens in people to do with recognition.

No ‘how’ is beyond science even if it’s out of reach of our current science.

I'd imagine as you get more abstract and rarefied you'd start running into undecidable problems.

But in this case, yeah, that's the point I've been making. Wait and see whether something elucidates things instead of treating people like they're a contradiction in terms. The history of telling minorities they're delusional is bad and usually involves gaslighting.

Strange how so many transwomen talk about their 'transition'...

The two go hand in hand?

This is where the abusive nature of these conversations go every time.

The small group of people who have decided to believe the sex change PR campaign cannot stop themselves from abusive behavior like this.

Why is that? Is there a weird need to have an enemy? Anyway I don't want an answer, it's all such ludicrous pomposity. Pathetic.

No, the history of telling women they’re delusional is quite long and it has usually involved theories that were later found to be — shall we say, ridiculous?

It happens to most categories of people viewed as less valid, yes, not just minorities. Women are a paradigmatic and probably archetypal example but we're not the only one or the absolute, and certainly as individuals we're perfectly capable of oppressing other people, including subcategories of women, in the same way.

trange how so many transwomen talk about their 'transition

In the old days trans was used as shorthand for transitioning from man to women and it was just left as that

Now they have had to find a new 'innocuous' phrase for natalwomen and now trans stand for the opposite to cis

As i have seen the 'transalpine' thing used to say why cis is a dumb fucking phrase when used to describe natal women

Its ludicrous

I agree bubonic

The history of telling minorities they're delusional is bad and usually involves gaslighting.

Oh my sides

DARVO away, MadgeMidgerson. A lot of gaslighted minorities get it and stand in solidarity with trans people instead of pulling the ladder up after themselves.

Today's Top Tip: using long words doesn't make what one writes any more true

How exactly are [mainly white] men an oppressed minority?

Because they cannot access the lesbians who understand what the word means, sackrifice. And they end up having to say things like "I wouldn't want to sleep with a raddled transphobe anyway", which totally doesn't sound like a disgruntled bloke who can't get his end away...

What, exactly, does this have to do with deadnaming?

I guess I just find irony funny, sorry

OlennasWimple This is how I talk. If you want I can substitute "prime" for the fancy words or you can substitute an argument instead of just saying no,

Re: deadnaming

I am not a fan of legislating ‘niceness’, or ‘feelings’.

there are compelling reasons, not least to do with safeguarding as to why no one should be allowed to delete their past, or prevent any access to it. even if it makes them sad.

the whole concept of deadnaming springs from a need for coercive control.