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/

But again we don’t criminalise all poor behaviour.

So you're basically arguing vehemently for the right to act like a prick. Is that what gets you lot out of bed in the mornings?

No, I’m arguing that making deadnaming a crime has serious implications for safeguarding as well as being a fairly authoritarian thing to do.

Also, saying something shouldn’t be a crime isn’t the same as joyfully promoting it and telling people to engage in that behaviour. It’s simply pointing out that it doesn’t warrant criminalisation.

Oh dear, what if accusing someone of acting like a prick is hate speech?

I wondered that.

So you're basically arguing vehemently for the right to act like a prick. Is that what gets you lot out of bed in the mornings?

I’m saying that we might not like what someone says to us, but we should keep their right to say it.

I’m an atheist, I don’t believe in any god or gods. But I dont demand no one else does either - I support people’s right to believe what they want, in a secular society. And I think, and the law agrees with me, that their right to belief ends at the point they would compel me to say I believe too. and vice versa. I can argue for my atheism. I can argue against religion, i can criticise it strongly. What I cannot do is force anyone to believe what I (don’t) believe or harm them for saying what they believe.

We cannot criminalise rudeness.
We cannot criminalise opinion
We cannot criminalise factual objective reality or scientific fact.
We cannot criminalise blasphemy
We cannot compel speech
We cannot erase the past.

@candipeel but we'd do that to get a panel that wasn't all white.

It's amazing how different the push for transgender "rights" differ from previous civil rights movements.

Previously groups had to prove they were oppressed and use that proof as a means of gaining allies. Now, I guess the deal is present a bunch of narcissistic statements followed by fumbled stats and scream really loudly.

How DARE you act like a PRICK to me! I want to PUNCH you!

Is accusi someone of acting like a prick misgenitaling them?

So you're basically arguing vehemently for the right to act like a prick

That’s free speech for you. Tolerating other people acting like pricks and having views you find offensive, stupid, idiotic or wrong.

You cannot legislate offense- why? Because anyone can SAY they’re offended by anything at all. And if anyone can be offended by anything then it’s meankngless, but all anyone has to do to get you locked up up is say you offended them.

The only sane way is offence secularism - you have the right to offend me and I have the right to offend you. I don’t have the right to harm you, and you don’t have the right to harm me.

Offence is not harm. Ideas are not harmful. Speech is not hateful unless it’s directly inciting harm. One really dangerous idea that’s being put in people’s heads at the moment is this idea of literal violence Where ideas can hurt. Where words can hurt. This is where the idea of no platforming comes from. But when students etc are told exposure to ideas that they find uncomfortable can actually harm them this is the logical result.

A hundred years ago people of 19,20, 21 were dying in trenches for their country. Today we are whining about pronouns. We’ve lost our grit and we are sitting ducks for whatever controlling, totalitarian crap anyone wants to push on us.

Grow up. Being offended doesn’t hurt you.

All the ‘you’ in that post is the generic you. Speaking to the world at large. We need to stop crying like toddlers over perceived offence and deal with actual, physical real world harm.

We need to get Cheryl tweedy on board.

Has she ever not been dead-named?

Being offended doesn’t hurt you.

Of course it does.

Courage? Well, one of the definitions these days seems to be grown men believing they can become women and hiding from other men in women’s spaces whilst silencing women’s dissent. So brave and stunning, so courageous.

It doesn’t bear - being offended is not the same as being harmed, or harassed, or someone being cruel to you personally.

None of those things are offense. Offense is generic, ones sensibility and/opinion/view is offended.
Being offended is not harmful. If someone finds being offended harmful to them they may have a fragile sense of self. Being offended is not the same as targeted harassment, harm or damage.

Someone might sit through a comedian’s show and be offended by it - no harm is directed at them. If the comedian gets everyone in the audience to laugh at the person to the point they are so upset they leave, that’s directed. Offense, by nature, is not. It’s generic

Part of living in a free society is listening to stuff we find not to our tastes or views.

Who polices what’s offensive? It’s opinion. What’s offensive to me might be something you believe in strongly or vice versa. Some people find homosexuality offensive. I don’t. Whose opinion forms the law? Some people find nudity offensive. Some people find swearing offensive. Whose opinion forms the law? Ok now say some people find eating meat offensive - whose opinion forms the law?

The idea of offense causing literal harm is being aggressively weaponised to shit down legitimate free speech. Offend me all you like - it doesn’t harm me.

Shut down. Naughty autocorrect

Sticks and stones may break my bones
But names will never hurt me.

Sometimes a bit hard, but an important lesson to be learned.

Deadnaming is usually known as 'formerly known as' and is perfectly acceptable for most people.

There was also 'The Artist Formerly Known As Prince' when he reduced his name to a Ankh-like symbol

AIUI, the criminal offence regarding "dead naming" (or less dramatically, disclosing an individual's previous identity without their consent) is limited to those who know about the former name through their work. So if I work in HR and process the DBS checks for new starters, and thus know that Babs Smith used to be Bob Smith, it would be an offence for me to gossip about that round the water cooler with my colleagues.

Which I agree is appropriate in most situations - there are lots of private details that some people will become privy to in a professional setting that are not appropriate to share more widely without good reason, such as medical information.

It isn't, however, a crime for those colleagues that I gossiped with to go and tell other people that Babs used to be Bob. Or if someone used to work with Bob and recognises them as Babs, they aren't committing an offence to say "Hey, you know that new team member on Floor 5? They're called Babs now, but when I was working in accounting I used to see them every Monday but they were Bob back then"

As an aside, Noteven, I believe that Caitlyn Jenner is very clear that Bruce Jenner won the decathlon gold, and has made no attempt to have the record books changed. This is at least convenient, as it avoids the issue that no woman has ever won the decathlon at the Olympics, as it doesn't exist as a competition (women compete in the heptathlon)

DP and I have been together 25 years, but we are not married and have our own names. Approximately 2/3 of the Christmas cards we've received this year have been addressed to us in his name (e.g. "Mr and Mrs J Smith" or "John and Jane Smith").

I find it very mildly annoying. But I don't get worked up about it. This is because I am not a self-absorbed, narcissistic, overgrown toddler who thinks everyone else should be forced by law to respect my feelings.

If only the same could be said for our TRA friends.

Of course deadnaming can't be illegal.

I could change my name every month and prosecute everyone, over and over.

People get dead named all the time.

Unless, of course, it's just illegal for trans people..

Sticks and stones may break my bones
But names will never hurt me.

I assume none of you would seek to criminalise abusive catcalling of women then? I would, in a heartbeat. Or does that come under allowable free speech too?

If something is being said with the intention of causing hurt and distress, or will blatantly have that effect, then I think there's absolutely a conversation to be had about whether it should be unlawful.

You want to criminalise dead-naming? Are you having a laugh?

You keep on conflating being harassed with being offended thedancingbear.

The way it goes is that someone who is harassed might also be offended but if someone is offended it doesn't mean they're being harassed.

It's really not that difficult.

If something is being said with the intention of causing hurt and distress,

You're kidding, right? That means no one could ever have an argument, a spat, a row.

My sister and her best friend frequently go at it like knives. You want them arrested. Nonsense.

And no-one is suggesting everyone goes around deadnaming trans people out of a sense of spite.

It's so people, mostly men, can't obscure past crimes. And that we can accurately identify risk.

Interesting how you are more than happy to forego both those things, though. Why is that?