When did "deadnaming" become a thing?

[Charabanc]

I've been pondering how it's become accepted that "deadnaming" someone is some kind of heinous crime, akin to literal genocide.

When did this come about? Was it via Stonewall? It's not a term I recall from years back, it seems quite recent.

Somehow they decided that it wasn't allowed, and all the DEI lot fell in with it. Like pronouns, I guess. I'm a bit fed up of having to follow their 'rules'.

(Thoughts inspired by SP's naming of Mr Weddell)

So… a review based in Massachusetts on laws is relevant to the UK situation how?

I already explained. Maybe go do a course on basic science research methodology.

Given women commit less crimes than men & trans people commit less crimes than CIS people that clearly points to a difference in criminality between men v trans women.

No it doesn't show anything of the sort - you're assuming trans is a homogenous mass, but they are split into male and female just as those without trans identities are - for example:

5 1litre containers of milk and 1 5 litre container of milk, the average amount of milk in a container is 1.7l

6 1.7l containers of milk - the average amount of milk in a container is 1.7l of milk

All you can say given your stat is that women commit fewer crimes than men, and trans identified fewer than those without the identity - you can't infer anything about the overlap between them.

No.

I have read the submission by Sfock et al.

You obviously haven’t because you missed the very significant section discussing MoJ figures. The ones you said were not included…..

Oh. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

No. That study is not relevant to the UK prison statistics. I have already read this study year ago.

It is about whether the introduction of particular laws saw an increase in convictions using that specific law in the USA. It also, if I remember correctly, didn’t define which ‘transgender people’ - male or female. I don’t recall where the conclusion separated the sexes. I distinctly recall searching for the data set because of that ambiguity.

I also cannot get access to the study. Did you? How?

It has no relevance on whether the UK prison statistics are accurate or not. And it has no relevance on whether female people should have female single sex spaces exclude all male people based on safeguarding principles which consider all male people to be at least the same risk of committing sex and violent crimes and on the need for female people to have these spaces excluding male people for privacy and dignity.

Your study is not relevant to this discussion.

Given women commit less crimes than men & trans people commit less crimes than CIS people that clearly points to a difference in criminality between men v trans women.
No it doesn't show anything of the sort - you're assuming trans is a homogenous mass, but they are split into male and female just as those without trans identities are - for example:
5 1litre containers of milk and 1 5 litre container of milk, the average amount of milk in a container is 1.7l
6 1.7l containers of milk - the average amount of milk in a container is 1.7l of milk
All you can say given your stat is that women commit fewer crimes than men, and trans identified fewer than those without the identity - you can't infer anything about the overlap between them.

Logic fail.

Yeah you can because the biological female criminality is so low in both cohorts. The lions share of criminality in each cohorts is CIS men & trans women with CIS men committing a shit load more than trans women. And there's a reason for why trans women commit more crimes than trans men that isn't because they are more inherently violents the data shows.

It has no relevance on whether the UK prison statistics are accurate or not.

The point is to prove more criminality remember? That the UK prison statistics are controversial because of confounding variables is irrelevant that's why Stock & co didn't use them.

And around we go.

So the risk of violence and sexual assaults and rape is just one aspect of the male abuse of female people.

Narrowing the risk to violence is not the only concern of safeguarding.

So you agree that trans women are male and have a higher degree of criminal behavior than women.

So, you can’t or won’t explain.
‘Feelings’ don’t count.

I am adding this for the benefit of readers:

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf

Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor Alice Sullivan [GRA2021]

2. Ministry of Justice 2020 Data The question of whether transwomen match male or female patterns of criminality is specifically addressed by the 2020 FOI referenced by Fair Play For Women (who have submitted evidence to the Committee). This is first time there has been official data to compare the rate of sex offending in 3 different groups. Men vs women vs transwomen. The hyperlinks below link to the FOI spreadsheet.

MOJ stats show 76 of the 129 male-born prisoners identifying as transgender (not counting any with GRCs) have at least 1 conviction of sexual offence. This includes 36 convictions for rape and 10 for attempted rape. These are clearly male type crimes (rape is defined as penetration with a penis).

Here is the number compared with figures for sex offending rates in men and women over the same period.

Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent official count of transgender prisoners):

76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812
women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison =16.8%

The submission by Dr Ruth Pearce did not challenge these statistics at all only the inferences of the Swedish study.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21023/html

I guess we are then to assume that because Ruth Pearce also didn't challenge the MoJ statistics, that they are considered accurate.

So you agree that trans women are male and have a higher degree of criminal behavior than women.

Lol….

No. My reading of the submission is my source. As I have done numerous times in the past.

Something you obviously didn't do.

The only way that makes with trans identities would be placed in a category with females isn’t if that category was for all females and some males. I doubt there is a single characteristic that would include all females and just some males. So, even if the word ‘woman’ was repurposed for this category, it would likely exclude lots of females and include lots of males without trans identities.

I am not sure what utility this category would have.

Oh. So, if all other posters just continued to point out your logical fails and your flawed evidence you would just disappear?

umm....

Read your own links.

This is another fail by you.

I don't know how many times it needs to be said, or by how many posters.

Single sex provisions are based on sex. Not gender.

For safeguarding policy to be created, risk needs to be considered for segregation. Male people have always posed a risk of harm to female people which is why they are all excluded once they reach the age of about 8 years old.

Harms include:

Rape and sexual assault.
Violence.
Sexual abuse that is not rape or sexual assault.
Sexual abuse that also includes solo sexual acts or using the experience in future sexual acts.
Any other abuse that may include verbal abuse, intimidation in any way etc.
A male person's presence where female people need privacy and dignity.
A male person's presence where female people need to feel safe from any male person's presence (over the age of about 8 years old).
Female people self-excluding knowing that there may be a male person accessing that provision.

Safeguarding of female people is not limited to potential sex crimes or violent crimes, it includes a wide range of abusive behaviour and actions. It also covers the fact that female people need privacy and dignity.

Arguing about crime rates does not change the full range of considerations at all.

If a sub-group of male people require their own special safeguarding policies, they need to address this themselves. It was never acceptable for that group of male people to access female provisions because of the harm it causes to female people.

So, we ended up up with:

"Pearce doesn't have to address the UK prison statistics because Stock & co's evidence doesn't (you might want to ask your self why that is) instead they hang their hat on a misrepresentation of a study."

and

"That's why Stock & co didn't use them? 😂
This is exactly why I don't engage with you & others like you. You aren't capable of conceding even what even your movement 'leaders' do."

and

"The point is to prove more criminality remember? That the UK prison statistics are controversial because of confounding variables is irrelevant that's why Stock & co didn't use them."

Gosh... Imagine doubling down like this declaring you knew what you posted, when you very obviously did not .

It is a bit like posting an article that drew strong conclusions from the amazing respondent numbers of 369 trans people vs 435 061 people who who didn’t identify as transgender. Yet.... apparently posters here need to do courses on methodology. ... oh... have you got the numbers of the transgender people in the Massachusetts study broken down by sex by the way?

All while jeering and belittling women on a board who seem to have a deeper understanding of the issues being discussed than you .

As other posters have also pointed out, for robust safeguarding policies, if they were only based on excluding male people because of sex and violent crimes that might be committed, the risk would have to be accessed at the same level or lower than the general female population.

To demand inclusion of a group with a risk profile being any higher than the general female population is a failure in safeguarding. And it simply is not logical or defensible.

Of course, safeguarding policy for female single sex provisions is not only based on the potential of female people being physically attacked. Any person with any understanding of safeguarding would know this.

As with all things it can be used as a form of bullying.
I worked years ago ( 12) with a male to female trans. I also had the misfortune to work with a homophobic arse who repeatedly used her old male name until threatened with disciplinary.

Yes, they've had to withdraw it:

Notice

26 March 2025
We have completed further quality work to provide more detailed information on the uncertainty associated with the Census 2021 gender identity estimates and guidance on their appropriate use. Please see our Census 2021 gender identity estimates for England and Wales, additional guidance on uncertainty and appropriate use article.

12 September 2024
On 5 September 2024, Emma Rourke, Deputy National Statistician, wrote to Ed Humpherson, Head of the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR), to request that the gender identity estimates from Census 2021 are no longer accredited official statistics and are classified as official statistics in development. The change in designation was confirmed by OSR on 12 September 2024. To reflect this change in designation, the accredited official statistics logo has been removed from this bulletin.

Gender identity, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

This is the new guidance, and goes into it in more depth:

There is uncertainty related to all census statistics including, for example, people not responding, which stands at 6.00% for this voluntary question. However, the potential misinterpretation of the gender identity question adds extra uncertainty. This is particularly important here because the group we are interested in (the trans population) is small. This means that a very small percentage of inaccurate responses can have a relatively large impact on the estimates of trans people.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/genderidentity/articles/census2021genderidentityestimatesforenglandandwalesadditionalguidanceonuncertaintyandappropriateuse/2025-03-26

I disagree.

I just think it's tough shit, like a lot of things in life.

In terms of 'true authentic self', I think the whole concept is a con. I remember going through a long phase of 'trying to find myself' and coming to the conclusion that there are many different versions of me - one for various different situations and friendship circles.

It's a reason I didn't actually want a big wedding and to mix various groups together, because it just didn't work for me and put pressure on me to conform somehow.

All these different parts of me are still me. I can be a complex character and can flip from being laid back, chill and really quite quiet to full on mad as a box of frogs life and soul of the party.

This true authentic self is fucking nonsense and it's chasing the wind. Bollocks to that.

Transactivists have fucked it up for the trans community in so many ways, haven't they?

“So in the interests of the benefits of social cohesion & harm reduction there's no reason not to maintain politeness in social etiquette where preferred pronouns comes in as with all prefereed nomenclature.”

Harm reduction only goes one way with using demanded pronouns. So too does social cohesion.

Like all these arguments, only the person making the demands that people act as if they share that philosophical belief about gender identity are considered.

Using demanded pronouns not only potentially harms the individual, it harms female people collectively.

If someone ‘true authentic self’ is built on concepts that are not based in materially reality, how can that be ‘true’ or ‘authentic’. Sure someone might ‘truly’ believes something about themselves that is false. It only makes the belief true not the fact.

It is a contradictory phrase when it comes to describing a group of people who demand that they are treated as though they are female when they are male.

I'm living my authentic life as a person who does not believe that people can change sex, and that there are only two sexes. I must be allowed to express my truth.