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/

Foxy do they have lady dicks rather than penises?

It is rather difficult to get my mind off dicks and the dicks that own that own them at the moment, when they’re merrily invading women’s spaces.

Btw I don’t give tuppence about what you object to.

None of my lesbian friends have penises or AFAIK prefer them to vaginas, nor do I, but they object profoundly to transphobes, especially straight ones, dictating the terms of lesbian sexuality to them. And if you were able to get your mind off dick for a fucking second you might have understood that.

THIS lesbian, her lesbian partner and all their many lesbian friends object extremely strongly to men claiming to be lesbians and straight people of either sex believing they have any fucking say in what constitutes a lesbian.

No. None of my lesbian friends have penises or AFAIK prefer them to vaginas, nor do I, but they object profoundly to transphobes, especially straight ones, dictating the terms of lesbian sexuality to them.

Your vagina loving vagina-havers get upset because penis loving vagina-havers think that vagina loving vagina-havers have the right to say no to vagina loving penis-havers.

Gosh, what meanies they are eh?

someone is arguing they shouldn’t be prosecuted for a crime because the person who did it ‘no longer exists'

Well that sounds undeniably loopy, I'll have a Google after kiddie bedtime.

And, well, if noone's asking for it to be a blanket rule then what's the problem? Presumably we all agree that there are situations where dead naming someone would be entirely gratuitous, unnecessary and motivated only by causing upset and asserting ideological authority. If a couple of court cases where this is the case are won, isn't this a good thing? That's not an acceptable practice for the press or any other authority to be engaging in. It doesn't stop a former name being acknowledged when it demonstrably IS necessary.

Oh, and did I walk in on some weird pile-on on Fox? Because it looks remarkably homophobic from where I'm standing, given that her sexual orientation appears to be in some way pertinent to the goings on, and she has said herself she's one for preferring a vagina.

it looks remarkably homophobic from where I'm standing

Really? Who's been "homophobic"?

Not my specialism I'm afraid Vicky, it just makes me twitch when a lone lesbian poster gets multiple less than friendly posts from straight posters because they're not "lesbianing" right.

A poster called daimbars used to be subject to it all the time. She even posted her civil partnership to marriage conversion certificate once to try to defend herself as a "proper" lesbian.

The whole thing was remarkably uncomfortable. I mean I'm straight (I suppose, historically) and no-one ever brings up my sexual orientation to me in light of my views of transgenderism.

I don't know, perhaps I'm just harking back to bad experiences with daimbars, and some of the posts here are deleted now anyway, it's tough to know what's going on.

Oh, and did I walk in on some weird pile-on on Fox?

No. You didn't.

No. You didn't

Gosh, some posters must be pretty feeble communicators then because that's how it read.

it just makes me twitch when a lone lesbian poster gets multiple less than friendly posts from straight posters because they're not "lesbianing" right.

Which ones are the "straight" ones in this "pile on" you describe?

The lesbian question isn't just about lesbians. It's about sexual orientation, and is wholly contingent on whether you believe someone can change sex.

No one believes that. No one.

So it's a belief system, or more accurately, a bullying tactic. And whereas it might be used, largely, to bully lesbians, the principle remains that it can be used to bully anyone.

I, a heterosexual, can be just as easily bullied into a situation where I'm supposed to be attracted to a man with a vagina. It's unlikely, because men with vaginas, i.e. women, don't generally go about bullying people into sex.

Which is ironic, because the fact that I am unlikely to be bullied, relies entirely on the sex of the person who could do it.

So yes, I will continue to call it out for the domineering nonsense it is.

As several pp have said, Fox, many of us have lesbian friends who object profoundly to MTF trans people and their allies "dictating the terms of lesbian sexuality to them".

So that's an impasse, isn't it?

No, look, nobody should be telling anyone else who to fuck. Everyone is entitled to exclude whatever they like for themselves, sexually. But no trans person and no cross-dressing man has condemned me when I've refused them as sexual partners or even tried to persuade me to change my mind. They aren't Riley Dennises, IME, they are very self-effacing, even the young ones.

The lesbians I know who try to impose their own criteria on other lesbians are quite often people who took 30 or 40 years to realise they were lesbians, i.e. they did not, contrary to people's insistence on here, "know whether they [were] lesbian, straight or bi". They are now trying to dictate the terms of the thing to, frankly, often more experienced people, with the zeal and/or insecurity of a convert and very little evidence in their pockets other than the nadirs of Tumblr and so on. How many of your friends have been personally cotton-ceilinged?

No, look, nobody should be telling anyone else who to fuck. Everyone is entitled to exclude whatever they like for themselves, sexually. But no trans person and no cross-dressing man has condemned me when I've refused them as sexual partners or even tried to persuade me to change my mind. They aren't Riley Dennises, IME, they are very self-effacing, even the young ones.

Well that's great. But anecdotes and personal experience mean fuck all if you are arguing for a concept that undermines them.

No Rat, although clearly your comprehension skills are ‘pretty feeble’.
Read the whole thread, understand what is actually going on and take a step back from projecting.

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.

This.

wanting to turn politeness into sanctioned and compelled behaviour never ends well

What exactly is the point of the term 'lesbian' if it can mean two men who identify as women having anal sex with each other?

I just don't get it. I am sure those arguing the point can explain it.

What does this have to do with deadnaming, which is the topic of this thread?

Good point beagador

And on point as the thread is about deadnaming

Oh shit i am so slow at typing!!!

Plus i was struggling with beagadors name

I am sure those arguing the point can explain it

They dont want to explain...they just dont want to talk about deadnaming

No Rat, although clearly your comprehension skills are ‘pretty feeble’.
Read the whole thread, understand what is actually going on and take a step back from projecting.

Ah same old same old, must be a thicko, how ever did I make it this far in life?

Fwiw I did skim the thread and all I can really ascertain is that despite no-one actually saying they want to make dead naming illegal you're all completely sure it's what trans people want, and that they're taking subversive and underhand steps to achieve it. Despite not actually saying it. Because then the game would be "up", right?

Which, what with my sub-par reading comprehension and all, sounds like bonkers tin-foil hattery to me.

Which, what with my sub-par reading comprehension and all

That's why we put plenty of line breaks in: to help you out. Don't be an ingrate now, Rat, it's the festive season!

ou're all completely sure it's what trans people want

Ive obviously missed where the poll was taken and everyone on the thread said they were sure its what trans people want

I am not going to say it definitely didnt happen cos i do miss the odd (loads) post

The video of the raging transwoman in the toy shop is a demonstration of what happens if you hand legislation (or protocols) out willy nilly.

It's horrific. The individual absolutely lost it in a violently inappropriate way. The victims of their rage were cowed.

Making deadnaming (or misgendering) illegal is madness. But making it unacceptable is also just giving any bully on the planet more weaponry.

They dont want to explain...they just dont want to talk about deadnaming

I want to talk about dead naming!

Where exactly is anyone saying they want a universal ban on deadnaming? IS anyone saying this?? In what context?

Everyone here knows that when you get a GRC your original birth record isn't altered, right? So if the police or anyone else have reason to do a search the previous name and record isn't hidden and crimes are linked?

It's just I've seen that be a concern before and I'm sure anyone worrying about it will be pleased to hear it's unfounded.

Don't be an ingrate now, Rat, it's the festive season!

Meh, I'm totally over it :( You can all have my share of festive cheer.