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'm not sure why fox gets so angry with the women on here (you're all repulsive, thick, viscous, etc), but that kind of ire backing up a move to obscure crime, is worrying.

Also you know what's really a massive dick move? Using the threat of suicide to try to manipulate people.

If it was illegal every TRA would be in prison.

Given that DBS checks can be set up to cope with name changes I wouldn't call that logic

It's exactly the same logic. It's an analogy. Why so evasive?

Great post Bowl.

And YY AAK. The hallmark of a controlling abuser. I've been a victim of it myself and the tactics TRAs use feel very similar.

so can the third parties who message me to marvel at you

LOL. Well I bet I get more PMs about you

so can the third parties who message me to marvel at you

The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

so can the third parties who message me to marvel at you

So many people agree with me. They are legion. But I can't tell you who they are because it's top secret.

You're not the only one to go for this manoeuvre on here, Fox!

It’s a classic move: “all these people agree with me, but you’re just so hateful they can’t even tell you you’re an arsehole themselves”

Why would I care what someone who hasn’t the guts to tell me what they think, thinks? I value the opinions of courageous people. I do not value the opinions of gossips and backbiters.

What is so frightening about expressing your opinion on an anonymous forum?

so can the third parties who message me to marvel at you

That's the playground tactic of one whose argument is dead in the water.

Yeah, it seems to happen a lot on here, pro-TRA posters insisting they're getting loads of lovely supportive PMs from posters too delicate to post on the boards themselves

It's exactly the same logic. It's an analogy. Why so evasive?

I'm not sure why fox gets so angry with the women on here (you're all repulsive, thick, viscous, etc), but that kind of ire backing up a move to obscure crime, is worrying.

The only evasion I can see is that changing your name from Bob to Babs affords you no more protection from a criminal record than changing your name from Bob to Bert and if Twitter was the place to go to elucidate crime we'd have banged up the poor McCanns. So prohibiting deadnaming on Twitter isn't going to "obscure crime" and you're only bothered because it's a trans issue. It's a really tenuous excuse.

I haven't called anyone either viscous or vicious, I certainly wouldn't dream of calling anyone on a feminist board a "twunt", and as I've said before the real moral problem for me is that you provide me with more entertainment than rage.

Yeah, it seems to happen a lot on here, pro-TRA posters insisting they're getting loads of lovely supportive PMs from posters too delicate to post on the boards themselves

Oh dear. It's not that they support me but that they don't have trouble understanding what I'm saying. If you can only communicate successfully with people who agree with you but other people can understand all of us it's a bit of a red flag for your comprehension skills.

What is so frightening about expressing your opinion on an anonymous forum?

They're not frightened, it's a Nick Griffin on Question Time sort of compunction. I'm not prepared to beg my friends to support my bad habit of feeding you, I don't need the help and in your realm of unfalsifiability you'd just assume they were my sock puppets or relatives anyway.

Well, I don't care if they're sock puppets or friends or one-inch spaceships from Gu as long as they don't chuck me out of their bathrooms.

They're not frightened, it's a Nick Griffin on Question Time sort of compunction.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Approaching Godwin in 4, 3, 2, 1...

It's a 'criminal offence' not to declare all your previous names when applying for a DBS. Of course, that offence can only be invoked if someone discovers that you have previously gone under a different name - and the DBS process will not of itself show such names.

There's a special 'ring us up and tell us so that you don't have to declare it on the online form' category for trans people. Which, of course, would be no more likely to be used by anyone with something to hide (remind ourselves that it was Huntley's crimes which ushered in CRB checks in the first place) than would the online form itself.

I keep hearing - whenever we raise the criminal possibilities that self id, allowing anyone who fancies it access to women's spaces, etc. - 'Ah, but that would be a crime!', as if that in itself stops people committing crimes.

The point is that making it easier for predators to commit their crimes by lowering safeguarding methods is not a good idea.

fox

It's no good backtracking now. You regularly call feminists repulsive, or repellent, whatever it is. You've just said that you find women talking about their rights, entertaining.

You have this faux angst about your own 'bad habits' of 'feeding' feminists. As though it's an odd addiction that you just can't seem to shake, despite all your friends trying to help you.

Your contempt for women is blatant.

I couldn't care less if people are PM-ing you or not. But invoking a PM, indicates a weakness of argument.

Of course, it's absolutely no surprise whatsoever that people might agree with you via PM but be unable to post a coherent argument.

You're mean/I'm right and all my friends think so, doesn't really cut it.

Godwin's not a fallacy but an observation but regardless I'm perfectly happy to stick at comparing you with bufonic nobodies like Griffin.

fox perhaps, you can just cut to the chase, and agree, or not, that making dead naming illegal would obscure crimes.

I'm thinking of a certain figure out who is quite public, suing people for misgendering them, because those people were digging up financial irregularities in their old name.

I assume you think they are wrong to sue?

That's the playground tactic of one whose argument is dead in the water.

Isn't it just. Desperate.

and the DBS process will not of itself show such names.

This in itself is a serious issue. You can’t rely on people disclosing when you’re checking them as a disclosure! It’s creating a loophole that doesn’t need to be there (which is a bit of a theme...)

The lack of a population registry or ID numbers in the UK is an issue here. It shouldn’t be possible to not disclose on a DBS check - ideally you’d have an ID number from birth that linked to the registry, like many other EU countries do.

Basic rule of creating secure systems: don’t create loopholes that don’t need to be there (see also: case by case transfer of men into women’s jails.) loophole = failure. Always.

I haven't called anyone either viscous or vicious

Another desperate tactic is nitpicking spelling and grammar. It's ok, it's clear you don't have any decent argument, no need to ram it home.

I'm absolutely certain I could work a justification into using the word viscous. Given time.

Basic rule of creating secure systems: don’t create loopholes that don’t need to be there (see also: case by case transfer of men into women’s jails.) loophole = failure. Always.

This this this. There was a good analogy someone made about Swiss cheese layers with holes on another thread. Every time you remove a layer there is more likelihood of the holes being open.

She described it much better than me!

I didn't understand until (the other) fox's second post that in her analogy we are Nick Griffin

It makes much more sense that her penpals by PM are Nick Griffin - if they came on here, the flimsiness of their position would be exposed for all to see. Sub in their misogyny for his sweaty racism and it actually works pretty well. Nice one, fox.

How nice for you that you find women articulating their discomfort amusing. I don't think it speaks much to your character, does it? Thankfully, I am all but sure it's not true, and actually, what we say here worries you very much indeed becuase you a) can't control it and b) know that it undermines some very carefully crafted manipulation by trans activists.