Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

In defence of deadnaming

606 replies

welshgendercrit · 28/11/2018 14:43

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/

OP posts:
hackmum · 21/12/2018 09:09

The irony, as we have pointed out many times before, is that TRAs apparently think it's fine to say things like "Die, Terf cunt" or "I hope all TERFS die in a fire" or "TERFS can choke on my girl dick" but think that "deadnaming" or "misgendering" should be illegal.

Either they are genuinely too thick to see that if you outlaw giving offence, it has to work both ways - in which case there's no point in arguing with them. Or they don't believe for one moment that deadnaming is really offensive, but are pretending it is as part of their ongoing war on women - in which case there is still no point in arguing with them.

They are literally (and I'm using this word in its correct sense) beyond reason.

Helmetbymidnight · 21/12/2018 09:11

You're kidding, right?

Oof that’s veering towards the very hurtful. My finger is hovering over my speed dial to the police....

Bowlofbabelfish · 21/12/2018 09:35

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

Hurt feelings ? No.
Actual incitement to harm is already illegal

You’d make all comedy illegal for starters, and Puritanism never ends well for anyone. Locking people up for saying offensive things is what totalitarian societies do

Datun · 21/12/2018 10:29

That Canadian creep who is suing the beauticians and has taken an interest in 10-year-old's menstruation, calls disagreement hate speech. Amd women talking about their rights, hate rallies.

The individual is proud to have got Megan Murphy banned from Twitter. The individual, due to the law, is able to get backing, legally.

So no, I will not only promote my own personal right to offend people, I will also promote theirs. I will push back, to the deliberate point of offence. To yes, prove my fucking point.

I have just seen a term being coined, which is deadly in its accuracy.

Hate facts.

OlennasWimple · 21/12/2018 12:33

I've said something similar elsewhere, so apologies if I'm needlessly repeating myself. But it's possible to say completely truthful things but still harass someone.

Say I take against my neighbour. She is overweight. If I send her notes saying "Why are you so fat?", I am not using abusive language or lies, but it's not very nice and anyone would agree that it could be upsetting.

If I then start posting on her Facebook page "Why are you so fat?"; deluge her email inbox with the same question; plant some lovely summer flowers in my garden (visible from her garden) that spell out the word "FAT"; wear a t-shirt saying "Why are you so fat?" when I am out in my garden; and hire a plane to fly over the neighbourhood with a banner saying "Why are you so fat?" - I would hope that the police would knock on my door and tell me to give it a break. And if I persisted, I should expect more than a word in my shell-like

But this is about how things are said, not just what is said

Bowlofbabelfish · 21/12/2018 13:31

Yes absolutely oleanna.

Now if your neighbour insisted that you stand up in public and tell the world she was slim, and that you’d be arrested if you didn’t - that’s analogous to what’s happening here. Compelled speech with a threat behind it.

Datun · 21/12/2018 13:48

OlennasWimple

Well exactly. And this is why the argument needs to be picked apart. As bowl says people aren't pointing out dead names to be mean. It's because not pointing it out has negative results.

It's the same with any part of the ideology. Not being able to name men as men has severe ramifications. It's not done to be mean.

DisrespectfulAdultFemale · 21/12/2018 14:53

It's the same old same old.

TRAs make demands and when women don't immediately capitulate, the former become abusive and cry victimhood.

bluescreen · 21/12/2018 21:55

Datun

I have just seen a term being coined, which is deadly in its accuracy.

Hate facts.

Hate facts. That is brilliant! Who coined it? It's going to be very useful.

ScottCheggJnr · 21/12/2018 22:20

I think it can go a bit far (changing gender/pronouns daily depending on mood etc) but to not respect it at all is a bit like using somebody's previous married name against their wishes as the above user said.

Imagine if you kept referring to a colleague as 'fat' and refused to desist on the basis that you were telling the truth...

Qcng · 21/12/2018 22:22

People who hate facts?

Qcng · 21/12/2018 22:24

A doctor could be committing serious negligence if they desisted from telling a diabetic patient they were overweight.

They aren't saying it to be rude they're saying it because for safeguarding / lifesaving reasons.

ScottCheggJnr · 21/12/2018 22:28

A doctor could be committing serious negligence if they desisted from telling a diabetic patient they were overweight.

Yes, but that's not the same as saying "my colleague, Sarah....the fat one who sits by the window."

The above could be a perfectly factual statement yet would be considered very innapropriate.

Qcng · 21/12/2018 22:31

The point is it shouldn't be illegal to deadname or misgender anyone because for starters, it could be an accident.

After your point has been made so you've said so-and-so was previously sue-and-sue, you're being a dick if you carry on misgendering and deadnaming that person and that's not cool. But it's extremely important to be able make the initial statement that a change in name and sex has occurred because it's rarely irrelevant.

ScottCheggJnr · 21/12/2018 22:35

I agree. However, there are plenty on here who intend to ignore pronouns and address TW as men.

ClaraMatilda · 21/12/2018 22:40

The comparison to weight really doesn't work. The equivalent isn't calling your colleague fat. It's having a colleague who is genuinely, factually obese, but who insists that everyone refer to her as slim. Maybe it's rude to say she's fat, but being compelled to say that she's slim, against the evidence of your own eyes, is far worse.

ChewyLouie · 21/12/2018 22:46

As above and to top it off she insists everyone says she’s as slim as you and squeezes into your size clothes. Looks ridiculous but no one is allowed to comment for fear of hate speech.
Btw I’m on the larger side myself so know how ridiculous I would look insisting I’m the same as size 8s and preening in their size clothes.

ScottCheggJnr · 21/12/2018 23:01

But plenty of fat women do insist on calling themselves 'curvy'.

Marilyn Monroe/Kelly Brook are curvy. Something that resembles a beach ball isn't.

ChewyLouie · 21/12/2018 23:06

Having never seen a human shaped like a beach ball, what point are you failing to make?

ScottCheggJnr · 21/12/2018 23:09

That most fat woman expect not to be called 'fat' - they just never have to enforce this as people tend to comply.

KindOfAGeek · 21/12/2018 23:13

But this is about how things are said, not just what is said

Like, say going to a public park to film an event? That was one of the excuses Tara gave for hitting Maria MacLachlan - the camera was a means to deadname.

Or the subject of this thread - a the person with two names - one male, one female - on his public twitter feed who threatens to sue anyone who uses the publicly disclosed male name.

Deadnames is quite often not just how it is said, but about how the other party perceives it. And how the other party perceives it is quite often irrational to the rest of the world.

Bowlofbabelfish · 21/12/2018 23:21

Imagine if you kept referring to a colleague as 'fat' and refused to desist on the basis that you were telling the truth...

But that isnt the point I’m making, my point is that deadnaming isn’t analogous to not saying someone is fat because it's rude. Its analogous to if you were forced to say you believed the person was slim in public under pain of prosecution

One is rudeness that at the extreme could be construed as harassment. The victim is our fat oerson. The other is compelled speech against reality - the aggressor is the fat person,

Deadnaming flips victim and aggressor. It’s clasdic darvo and it’s abusive

ScottCheggJnr · 21/12/2018 23:31

I'm not sure it should be a criminal offence, granted, but it being fact isn't a sole justification for doing it. That's what I meant.

Qcng · 21/12/2018 23:47

Yeah, totally. You shouldn't point at a transperson and shout rude misgendering deadnaming words all day or constantly refer to them by the wrong pronouns online. You should absolutely be able to discreetly where relevant, or accidentally misgender or deadname a transperson without it being a banning, or worse, a criminal offense.

ChewyLouie · 22/12/2018 00:04

Why does it have to be discreet or accidental?? A man wanting to present as a female should do so without any shame attached to the fact he is biologically male. Deadnaming= being ashamed of biological reality. Pointless.
Scott , yr statement doesn’t stand re plus size females as I’d say plenty wouldn’t give a fig about someone saying they are fat.

Swipe left for the next trending thread