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/

loophole = failure. Always.

And it's always the ones who are actually vulnerable who are harmed, often by the same people pretending vulnerabilities.

Oh... and loads of people message me to say that fox is thick (their word for Bowl, not mine) and their arguments are stupid and facile.

They don't, but see how easily that lie is posted?

If Fox thinks Bowl is thick then Fox has more to worry about than us.

I want to know if Nick Griffiths would chuck me out of his bathroom.

Well, quite Erish, but I fear it suits their narrative to posit scientists as thick, because they are a threat to their ridiculous world view.

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

No, I'm sorry, Datun, unless you can give me at least a feeble indication that you understand what I'm talking about I'm not going further on that. Especially when what I'm talking about is you not understanding what I'm talking about.

And yes, I've called you (plural) repulsive and thick both directly and indirectly, as you have me, but I would never talk of viscous twunts with anything but appreciation.

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?

No, I don't. My issue is that none of these things are an issue or as big of an issue for you until trans women do them. That's the point I stop being amused by you,

Melanippe That wasn't specifically aimed at Bowl, it was a plural you, notwithstanding your individualities and complexities etc of course.

So your frustration is that nobody here understand you, and you suspect it's because we are all (including scientists, lawyers, teachers, academics, senior women in all sorts of industries, public and private) just too thick to get what you're on about? all of us?

It's one possible explanation, but is it the most likely one?

No, I don't. My issue is that none of these things are an issue or as big of an issue for you until trans women do them. That's the point I stop being amused by you

Um, dead naming isn't a thing for anyone other than trans people, though. Neither is misgendering. Neither is access to women's prisons.

No one other than trans people are trying to make it illegal.

No, I'm sorry, Datun, unless you can give me at least a feeble indication that you understand what I'm talking about I'm not going further on that. Especially when what I'm talking about is you not understanding what I'm talking about.

Ok. As I said, you're not the best communicator.

The difference is that you have to invoke a whole bunch people who agree with you - lesbians, friends (who think you're mad to talk about this, but nonetheless entirely agree with you!), other posters secretly PM-ing you, in order to bolster your argument, etc.

You could line up a 1000 people to agree with you, and I would still be able to refute them. Without recourse to mythical backup teams.

Just musing here, as I cant' yet work out the best search terms to try to put some more flesh on the bones...

It occurs to me that, according to the press reporting of certain transwomen criminals, some are serial name changers. Before they change their name to a female name, they have already changed their name to something other than the one that they were given at birth. Often both surname AND first name

For example, Ian Huntley changed his name to Ian Nixon to facilitate his move to Soham (and now, allegedly, he has changed it to Lian or Nicola Huntley)

Peter Syme became Andrew McWilliam before then changing his name to Jacqui McWilliam

I wonder if there's a whole re-invention thing going on, with transitioning appearing to offer a more complete route to becoming someone new?

Also on name changing... It's been mentioned before, but it's striking looking at the names of trans prisoners convicted of sexual crimes how many of them have more, um, unlikely names for a woman of their age. Eg Skye, Krsytle, Melody Maelstrom, Tiffany Aching.... It's like the worst game of "find out your porn star name from your first pet and the place you lived when you were five"

It was haxxor , erish (now banned as so many have been in targeted attacks.) her analogy with systems design and Swiss cheese was excellent.

You’ll notice I haven’t called you thick, nonexistantfox. However you can call me what you like, it doesn’t bother me and I don’t feel the need to request people be banned from platforms, or censored, or deleted for annoying me or disagreeing with me. (Hmmm... maybe I should go sign up at KF..?)

I would find anyone attempting to conceal their criminal past a problem. The point here is that i can’t think of another example of anything that would allow such widespread use of a loophole/process/ideology to allow people to delete their past. can you?

That wasn't specifically aimed at Bowl, it was a plural you, notwithstanding your individualities and complexities etc of course.

Of course it wasn't. It was merely part of a reply to Bowl. I completely believe you.

You could line up a 1000 people to agree with you, and I would still be able to refute them. Without recourse to mythical backup teams.

Yeah, not without recourse to actually understanding what any of us is saying, though.

And no, SophoclesTheFox, I don't think it's anything to do with plain stupidity.

Of course it wasn't. It was merely part of a reply to Bowl. I completely believe you.

The "yourselves" in there might help.

Yeah, not without recourse to actually understanding what any of us is saying, though.

Which is? Not seen any point made yet beyond "ur so mean".

what other movement or ideology seeks to criminalise deadnaming? No other common name change does.

If someone changes their name on marriage they dont ban any mention of their maiden name. Rather the opposite; I see plenty of ‘Jane Smith née jones’ On Facebook, as well as women double barrelling, or having a maiden name as a middle name.

There isn’t another group of people trying g to do this that I can think of.

Given that deadnaming's not actually a crime it can't be what Linehan's getting sued for, can it?

Given that deadnaming's not actually a crime it can't be what Linehan's getting sued for, can it?

Lawsuits aren't usually about criminal offences...

Beat me to it Vicky

I must have had half a dozen Christmas cards addressed to Mrs (DH’s initial and surname). I’m not even Mrs!
But thankfully I’ve managed to struggle through the pain it elicits and get over it.

Ah but you're just a 'Cis-woman' so have no rights or feelings.

How can it be right that a 'person' with penis can have their birth certificate canged to 'female' and a new name? I haven't really felt the risk of 1984 before, but now I do.

I don't think it's anything to do with plain stupidity

What's with the name-calling, then? Why don't you stop making up invisible supporters, stop being disingenuous and comparing feminists to Nick Griffin, stop pretending you find all of this so frightfully amusing, and articulate your position clearly, using words as they are commonly understood?

Surely it can't be that hard as you're so much the intellectual heavyweight round these parts?

Lawsuits aren't usually about criminal offences...

OK, then why are you all talking about criminalisation? I'm going to relax with Indiana Jones now, you'll have to amuse yourselves.

Cake to ice? I think the point is that lawsuits are ge really brought in such cases to intimidate, threaten or punish an individual or to have a ‘chilling’ effect on a group or wider society.

Especially when what I'm talking about is you not understanding what I'm talking about.

Yeah, not without recourse to actually understanding what any of us
is saying, though.

So you on your own, we can't understand it?
You and an implied 1000 other people, and we can't understand it?
And yet you think the problem is us?
You know the simplest answer is probably the right answer.

And yet you think the problem is us?
You know the simplest answer is probably the right answer.

I do consider that possibility, which is the reason why I refer back to third parties when you pull this tactic.