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/

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3436868-In-defence-of-deadnaming?topicid=5365&threadid=3436868&pg=5

All page 5 proves is that you're a derailing twunt, deliberately misunderstanding the topic and going on about sexual preferences.

Deadnaming.

The act of using an old name for someone who wants you to forget something major, something criminal or something horrible.

A victim of incest or assault by spouse and no longer wants to be known by the family name?

Deadnaming is a horrible thing to do.

Sexual offender who rapes and/or kills his victims and wants to be known by another sex and name in order to lull the people around him into a false sense of security?

Deadnaming is a public service.

Absolutely WTF

Entirely on point, WTF. I completely agree, as my post about changing my own name hopefully illustrated.

WTF has it.

It's just a never-ending litany of appropriation. And in this case, appropriating decent, principled reasons why people may not want their name to be known.

There is no cause that cannot be appropriated and subverted to give men more rights to women in this movement.

Oppression, discrimination, race, intersectionality, sexism, violence against women. All of it. It's subverted, given the Twilight zone treatment, re-branded as progress and disseminated as widely as possible.

Oppression, discrimination, race, intersectionality, sexism, violence against women. All of it. It's subverted, given the Twilight zone treatment, re-branded as progress and disseminated as widely as possible.

It's not just practically useful strategy. Many of these "activists" actively get a kick out of the duping delight of it all.

It's not just practically useful strategy. Many of these "activists" actively get a kick out of the duping delight of it all.

That's what - in my opinion - is a big motivator for the stunts the Canadian guy is pulling - he's loving seeing how much he can get away with.

That's what - in my opinion - is a big motivator for the stunts the Canadian guy is pulling - he's loving seeing how much he can get away with.

Absolutely. What on earth is the point of suing these women? It's going to send your 'cause' around the globe.

And in all seriousness, (although I've got my fingers maniacally crossed behind my back), surely people will not buy that this is a legitimate aim of anything other than a sexual kick?

So, to him, it's totally worth it. It's worth revealing himself, to get the kick.

All page 5 proves is that you're a derailing twunt, deliberately misunderstanding the topic and going on about sexual preferences.

No, it doesn't. I compared deadnaming to other passive-aggressive and dog-whistle statements of fact. It was on-topic. I moved straight on to criminal records and Mr. Wachs. Everybody else started on lesbianism because they can't handle the existence of #LwiththeT lesbians.

The fact that your post gives no consideration to the trans people who aren't sex offenders and do find deadnaming a reminder of something horrible, otoh, does seem like a skewing of the issue to me.

This is why the trans organisations have sowed the seeds of their own destruction. Because they don't have any way to distance themselves from people like this. Their whole house of cards is extremely vulnerable to a puff of logic. And their non condemnation of people like JY drags the whole tawdry ideology, and the TRA disregard for women and decent behaviour into the sunlight.

The fact that your post gives no consideration to the trans people who aren't sex offenders and do find deadnaming a reminder of something horrible, otoh, does seem like a skewing of the issue to me.

Should we get rid of DBS checks, by the same logic? Not all people applying for jobs are sex offenders, after all. Should anyone who has reinvented themselves have the same right never to be reminded of the past?

The fact that your post gives no consideration to the trans people who aren't sex offenders and do find deadnaming a reminder of something horrible, otoh, does seem like a skewing of the issue to me.

Is there a "shrug; I don't care" emoji?

The direction in which the trans cult are heading means a DBS being waved by a trans person will come to mean they’re a predator looking to reoffend.
The general public will come to realise that trans people concerned about dead naming are bleating like wolves in sheeps clothing. The resultant backlash will not be pleasant.
The silent members of the trans cult need to speak out about the wrongs being carried out in their name. Not here, speaking out by derailing threads and repeating their hatred but by speaking the truth in all those government departments their cult has wheedled into over the last few decades.

Something that I find tedious about TRAs and their allies is the constant demands to satisfy their wants and needs: there is never any thought about anyone else's wants or needs. It is all "mememememe give me what I want. And then, when you do, I want more. And more. And more."

The narcissism is boundless.

It is all "mememememe give me what I want. And then, when you do, I want more. And more. And more."

The narcissism is boundless.

Neatly demonstrated by:

"The fact that your post gives no consideration to the trans people who aren't sex offenders and do find deadnaming a reminder of something horrible..."

But women and children who have actually been raped and beaten at the hands of men and found safety in a refuge who might find men demanding access a reminder of something horrible?

Bigots.

and do find deadnaming a reminder of something horrible,

Something horrible? The name they were born with? If that’s enough to cause someone pain then they should probably have some therapy. Because the problem is not with external reality.

External reality doesn’t bend to the wants of people. People fit into reality. Wanting to bend reality to fit your wants is misguided at best. Demanding people deny observable reality to validate your wants is abusive.

Should we get rid of DBS checks, by the same logic? Not all people applying for jobs are sex offenders, after all. Should anyone who has reinvented themselves have the same right never to be reminded of the past?

Exactly. This is safeguarding at its most basic. The fact that we are told some people’s feelings are more important than keeping women and children safe is just insane.

Is there a "shrug; I don't care" emoji?

Indeed. I don't know about anyone else, but I am long past prioritising male identity crises over the rights and safety of women.

But women and children who have actually been raped and beaten at the hands of men and found safety in a refuge who might find men demanding access a reminder of something horrible?

Bigots.

Absolutely this. You can see my shocked expression that Fox doesn't care.

My daughter doesn't get the luxury of not providing her former name, even though it was the name given to her by parents who were so unable to parent her and keep her safe that she was placed for adoption. She doesn't get any legal protection from people who know her birth name and might use it deliberately in a way that causes harm to her (or me, or DH, or DS, or indeed her birth family). And even though there are some situations in which I wish she didn't need to provide her birth name, overall it's right that she does have to - it's a part of her history, and it's part of checking that she is who she claims to be (and, in due course, whether there's any information that should rightly be made available to those who might employ her, or allow her to work with vulnerable sectors of the population)

Trans people do not need more rights than adopted people

The fact that your post gives no consideration to the trans people who aren't sex offenders and do find deadnaming a reminder of something horrible, otoh, does seem like a skewing of the issue to me.
Deadnaming in a persistent, harassing way is harassment. Deadnaming in a bullying way is bullying. Deadnaming can already be classified as a hate crime depending on how it is done. If I follow around a trans woman known as Julie and scream that she's really Christopher I'm going to get arrested. If I do it online I'm going to get banned from that platform. There are already protections in place against aggressive behaviour and harassment.

If there is any evidence that those arrests and bans dont happen and workplace discipline doesn't happen, and that trans people are therefore not protected by existing laws then that's a subject to discuss, because it suggests law enforcement, online platform providers and employers are transphobic. And there are discrimination laws in place to address that.
I'm not saying it never happens, but there is no reason for an additional law to be written to cover what is already covered.
Which means the real issue with deadnaming is to do with hiding one's past.

Should we get rid of DBS checks, by the same logic?

Given that DBS checks can be set up to cope with name changes I wouldn't call that logic. And more to the point, deadnaming is not forbidden in the DBS. Just as a gentle reminder, we're talking about Twitter here.

Something horrible? The name they were born with? If that’s enough to cause someone pain then they should probably have some therapy. Because the problem is not with external reality.

Are you talking in that way that to all traumatised people who no longer want to be known by their original name? No? And contrary to your assumption, I do care about them and they probably should have therapy, it's nothing to be ashamed of. The "external reality" is that name changes are legal, those are their real names, and "No what is your name, your real name, your name before you changed it" questions are usually dick moves.

Seeing the difficulties you have ignoring me I'm just going to go ahead and try to ignore your misleading, obfuscating, disingenuous, hypocritical, incredulous and thick posts and see if that helps you stop demanding I justify things I haven't actually said. And seeing as you claim you can only understand yourselves during our little adventures in comprehension but I can understand both you and me and so can the third parties who message me to marvel at you, unless you show evidence of being able to communicate with people who disagree with you I'm going to have to conclude you're either gaslighting, obtuse or have trouble with complex sentences.

We don’t make ‘dick move’ behaviour illegal unless it meets certain criteria and the side effects of criminalising are low/none.

Adultery is a dick move - it breaks up families and causes real emotional harm, but it’s not illegal. Why? Because the human rights implications of legislating who can shag who are immense.

Telling Babs your secretary that she’s actually bob is a dick move. But it’d be covered under workplace harassment laws.

The ability to find out that Babs embezzled their last company and is now trying to get it stricken from the record for no other reason than they are now Babs and bob doesn’t exist is valuable and cannot be banned.

Where would you like dick move behaviour banning to stop? Comedy? Does father ted upset nuns? Does the league of gentlemen upset people in local communities? Did the brittas empire lead to a spate of suicides in the owners of leisure centres?

Back in the Blair era, Blair tried to bring in a religious hatred law. Campaigners pointed out that this was bloody stupid and was effectively criminalising blasphemy. Rowan Atkinson pointed out that scenes in the vicar of dibley, that most gentle of comedies, would fall foul of the law.

We do not criminalise everything that upsets or pisses people off for very good reasons. The ability to speak truthfully, mockingly and to have an accurate record of the past is really important

Hear, hear, Bowl.

I think spending lots of time on a forum where you think the majority are terrible people, specifically so you can tell them that you think they're terrible, is a bit of a dick move, and yet not for a moment would I suggest that it should be illegal, because that's barmy.