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)

"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."

Psychologists beg to disagree in terms of humans ability to maintain stable personality characteristics throughout their lives. The fact that your personality 'flips around'/is unpredictable maybe one of those unchanging characteristics.

Personality characteristics being 'real' & measurable have long been accepted in psychology with The Big 5 Personality Traits (Agreeableness, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, Introversion /Extraversion & Openness) being measurable.

I thought you were are shark though RTB?

I am a shark. But only when I feel like it.

Personality is not relevant to considerations for safeguarding policy assessing the needs for single sex provisions.

No single sex toilet policy considers personalities as a point of segregation.

Single sex provisions are only based on whether a person’s body is formed around the production of large or small gametes, regardless of whether those gametes are being produced, have been or will be.

Single sex provisions are segregated not only for the safety of female people which is not limited to rape, sexual assault and violence, but any other harm that may result in the inclusion of male people above the age of about 8, and for privacy and dignity. None of these aspects of safeguarding can be dismissed.

🦈

Bruce is your friend. He won’t view you as food.

Psychologists think lots of things. Much of which can be contradictory.

They also recognise that identity isn't just a personal thing, and that much identity is relational rather than individual which trans identity believers totally neglect. For example one of the most important things in identity development is your close family relationships and your place within the family unit. Also see close social relationships.

Thus when someone decides to change their identity it disrupts the identity of those closest to them and is a form of psychological harm.

It also stands to reason that if harm is done to an individual in this area - say the trauma of a family breakup, this who potentially lead to a higher incidence of trans identification which probably needs therapy rather than hormones and harmful surgery.

And guess what the data shows!?

Who'd a thunk?

Still no.

Yes, female criminality is low, but again, without sex disaggregating the data in trans-identifying data set you can't quantify that.

You don't know how many of the trans group were male and how many were female - you're assuming it's the same proportion as for the non-trans-identifying.

if it's 90% male in the trans group, but 50% male for the other group, then that causes a skew.

Assumptions are a bad idea in stats. Sure, it feels like common sense what you're saying, but you absolutely cannot prove it, without knowing the male/female proportions of each group you're comparing.

Oh please. Isolated instances are not data. And you've been told this repeatedly

Gosh… when ‘isolated’ instances make up a large portion of the numbers of court cases in that period, how can they be dismissed?

Considering Allslop tried to leverage in completely unrelated and irrelevant political group examples to support what ended up being a false claim when you track the individual court cases, I am surprised at your continued reliance on his points.

And you keep posting that judges statements as if it shows the statistics are inaccurate. The judge didn’t say the prison statistics were inaccurate. They are accurate.

“You have no evidence & you know it.”

Nothing you have posted has actually shown the below to be false:

Male people with transgender identifies commit sex and violent crime at at least the same rate as the general UK male population."

You can try to wiggle all you like to dismiss this statement but in fact it is you who have “no evidence” to provide the data that shows that male people with transgender identities in the UK commit sex and violent crime at a rate the same or lower than female people in the UK. 🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪

If you have the evidence post it! And you then better make sure to publish it widely.

"Still no.
Yes, female criminality is low, but again, without sex disaggregating the data in trans-identifying data set you can't quantify that.
You don't know how many of the trans group were male and how many were female - you're assuming it's the same proportion as for the non-trans-identifying.
if it's 90% male in the trans group, but 50% male for the other group, then that causes a skew.
Assumptions are a bad idea in stats. Sure, it feels like common sense what you're saying, but you absolutely cannot prove it, without knowing the male/female proportions of each group you're comparing."

Yeah, nah. From the link:

Transgender People, Crime and Prisons – Trans Women & Trans Men
Another anomaly in the statistics is that while 96% of the cisgender prison population is male and 4% female, the trans prison population is 84% trans women and 16% trans men. The reasons likely include trans men suffering depression, anxiety, discrimination, unemployment issues, and, consequently, poverty. For safety reasons, trans men nearly always elect to be housed in the female estate. Likewise, as long as not convicted of any violent or threatening act against natal females, trans women should be housed according to the safety risk they face.

Indeed.

I looked for this data two year ago and could not find it. Considering the conclusion that was published, I questioned it then and now.

I believe I also questioned also whether the numbers of people describing themselves as being transgender increased in the time
as well and again what were the specific numbers for each sex and the rate of increase for both.

Maybe you will start actually using the functions that MN provide so that you can keep up with the fuckwittery you are posting. Because the poster was referring to something else.

Oh please. Isolated instances are not data. And you've been told this repeatedly
Gosh… when ‘isolated’ instances make up a large portion of the numbers of court cases in that period, how can they be dismissed?

'A lot' doesn't qualify as statistically relevant.

Considering Allslop tried to leverage in completely unrelated and irrelevant political group examples to support what ended up being a false claim when you track the individual court cases, I am surprised at your continued reliance on his points.

"Examples do not need to be the exact same as the topic when they serve to support, illustrate, or expand on a broader concept rather than being a direct restatement. This happens when an example shows a specific case or instance of the main idea, provides a contrasting or comparative perspective, or serves as additional evidence to deepen understanding. The key is that the example clarifies the main point without being a mere repetition."

And you keep posting that judges statements as if it shows the statistics are inaccurate. The judge didn’t say the prison statistics were inaccurate. They are accurate.

Oh lord, we've done this & you know it that's why you're a bad faith interlocutor.
The judge clearly stated the numbers weren't of statistical significance IE too small to make a call. But he acknowledged that if a person was admitted to a prison unconditionally IE without a risk assessment (as is policy for all prisoners) then the odds were greater in risk.

“You have no evidence & you know it.”
Nothing you have posted has actually shown the below to be false:
Male people with transgender identifies commit sex and violent crime at at least the same rate as the general UK male population."
You can try to wiggle all you like to dismiss this statement but in fact it is you who have “no evidence” to provide the data that shows that male people with transgender identities in the UK commit sex and violent crime at a rate the same or lower than female people in the UK. 🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪

🥱 I provided mine repeatedly but still waiting for yours…..Maybe ask KStock 😂

And around we go.

Surely no unaided human could be quite this repetitive? Even the insults are repeated word for word. 🤖

"Deadnaming" has just become an issue in the Sandy Peggie case.

”A lot' doesn't qualify as statistically relevant.”

3/15 for Australia and 6/17 for the UK.

I would consider those proportions worthy of consideration

“Examples do not need to be the exact same as the topic when they serve to support, illustrate, or expand on a broader concept rather than being a direct restatement. This happens when an example shows a specific case or instance of the main idea, provides a contrasting or comparative perspective, or serves as additional evidence to deepen understanding. The key is that the example clarifies the main point without being a mere repetition."

They do have to be relevant though. There is no comparison between the discrimination experienced by indigenous communities as Allslop tried to leverage and the UK population of male people with transgender identities. It was a flawed comparison from the start.

Then looking at the cases where leniency was given, it directly contradicts Allslops point.

”Oh lord, we've done this & you know it that's why you're a bad faith interlocutor.”

Considering I have mostly mirrored your own tactics over these threads are you might be self aware enough to recognise the hypocrisy in that statement.

”The judge clearly stated the numbers weren't of statistical significance IE too small to make a call. But he acknowledged that if a person was admitted to a prison unconditionally IE without a risk assessment (as is policy for all prisoners) then the odds were greater in risk.”

And you might read that paragraph and understand the contradictions.

Why would the judge acknowledge greater risk if the statistics were not significant enough to consider?

And remember my initial point which you tried to use that judge to discredit was about the accuracy of the numbers.

Now, he didn’t say they were inaccurate, Dr Pearce didn’t even attempt to challenge the accuracy .. so those numbers have been accepted as being accurate in court and in parliament.

Stock et al DID submit them to parliament and they are not challenged. And the member for Reigate submitted fresh ones early this year into Hansard in Parliament and they were not challenged for accuracy.

How many more authorities accepting the statistics as accurate records will it take to convince someone who cannot accept that the figures are accurate numbers.

“I provided mine repeatedly but still waiting for yours”

The MoJ figures have already been presented by different posters. I am very happy to paste them yet again. I have produced them before on threads you were active in.

It is now your turn to post the data that shows that male people with transgender identities in the UK commit sex and violent crime at a rate the same or lower than female people in the UK.

I look forward to it.

The posts are a mix of jeering when the reality is that the poster has likely got confused as to what people have posted about or has posted irrelevant links, and just fuckwittery tactics.

The constant deflection about personalities and behaviours being some kind of commonality that should allow a group of male people to be called women, and then the deflection about how much protection that group need so it again means that group of male people should be accepted as female is more fuckwittery.

Also the false narrowing of safeguarding to be only about sexual violence and general violence. When it only a major part, but only a part, of the reasons for female single sex provisions.

It is just wheedling and obtuse efforts to bully female people into accepting male people as female people and removing single sex provisions.

#justusethemens

Considering I have mostly mirrored your own tactics over these threads are you might be self aware enough to recognise the hypocrisy in that statement.

should be

Considering I have mostly mirrored your own tactics over these threads you might be self aware enough to recognise the hypocrisy in that statement.

Is the current TRA tactic to bring up shite, debunked arguments from their 2018 cheat sheet until we all drop off threads from sheer exasperation?

Put another record on, pal.

”A lot' doesn't qualify as statistically relevant.”
3/15 for Australia and 6/17 for the UK.
I would consider those proportions worthy of consideration

Good for you but they need to be considered as statistically relevant by a statistician or in a court of law.

“Examples do not need to be the exact same as the topic when they serve to support, illustrate, or expand on a broader concept rather than being a direct restatement. This happens when an example shows a specific case or instance of the main idea, provides a contrasting or comparative perspective, or serves as additional evidence to deepen understanding. The key is that the example clarifies the main point without being a mere repetition."

They do have to be relevant though. There is no comparison between the discrimination experienced by indigenous communities as Allslop tried to leverage and the UK population of male people with transgender identities. It was a flawed comparison from the start.

The relevancy was the data was misrepresented in both cases to achieve a false narrative.

Then looking at the cases where leniency was given, it directly contradicts Allslops point.

Again no statistical data just isolated cases
”
Oh lord, we've done this & you know it that's why you're a bad faith interlocutor.”
Considering I have mostly mirrored your own tactics over these threads are you might be self aware enough to recognise the hypocrisy in that statement.

No, I use statistical data you use assumptions based on 'feels'.

”The judge clearly stated the numbers weren't of statistical significance IE too small to make a call. But he acknowledged that if a person was admitted to a prison unconditionally IE without a risk assessment (as is policy for all prisoners) then the odds were greater in risk.”
And you might read that paragraph and understand the contradictions.
Why would the judge acknowledge greater risk if the statistics were not significant enough to consider?
And remember my initial point which you tried to use that judge to discredit was about the accuracy of the numbers.

What part of "UNCONDITIONAL" do you not understand? In any prison housing arrangement whether it be men with men or women with women if there's an unconditional admission IE NO RISK ASSESSMENT for violence the chances of risk to other prisoners are higher. Cant believe I need to explain this but here we are…

"Now, he didn’t say they were inaccurate, Dr Pearce didn’t even attempt to challenge the accuracy .. so those numbers have been accepted as being accurate in court and in parliament."

Stock et al DID submit them to parliament and they are not challenged. And the member for Reigate submitted fresh ones early this year into Hansard in Parliament and they were not challenged for accuracy.
How many more authorities accepting the statistics as accurate records will it take to convince someone who cannot accept that the figures are accurate numbers.

Just providing numbers aren't a smoking gun because as the HC Judge determined to draw any meaningful patterns requires large numbers. It's the same reason why much Gender Care research is consider low quality because the observed groups are always small in number as a consequence of the trans population being so miniscule.

“I provided mine repeatedly but still waiting for yours”
The MoJ figures have already been presented by different posters. I am very happy to paste them yet again. I have produced them before on threads you were active in.

Ah yes the bogus graph Allsop 'clarified'…

It is now your turn to post the data that shows that male people with transgender identities in the UK commit sex and violent crime at a rate the same or lower than female people in the UK.
I look forward to it.

As has already been made clear to you, evidence doesn't have to be UK specific to be relevant to the UK & I have provided that.

And in any case, the onus for the burden of proof is on the claimant to provide. GC's claim trans woman are a risk to women therefore it's up to them to provide the evidence.

Still waiting…

yeah? Nah!

You have not provided that male people in the UK at any stage of transition have the same risk profile as the general female population of the UK or lower.

And yes, we are discussing UK laws so UK data is what is expected. Because we are also discussing the specific environment in the UK for women and those male people with transgender identities.

In any case, you have not even posted data from another country either that shows the same level of risk of committing sex or violent crime as female people or lower.

Besides which, it is actually irrelevant to the reasons that we have safeguarding policy where sex is segregated because violent and sexual crime is only part of it.

It is you who keeps asserting that some male people should be accessing female single sex provisions and you can’t support it in either logic or data. Nothing you post supports your claims.

You are not a good faith poster. It is laughable to call other’s bad faith in comparison.

I and others have already provided the accepted prisoner statistics which will be the same source of statistics to feed into a UK safeguarding decision model to create risk profiles for a group in society

So, still waiting for you to support that male people with transgender identities in the UK commit sex and violent crime at a rate the same or lower than female people in the UK.

Good luck.

The thread has drifted a long way from dead naming!

trans women should be housed according to the safety risk they face

I find it absolutely typical of this poster that he only cares about the risk a transwoman might face, and not the slightest interest in the safety risk to all actual women when incarcerated with a convicted male offender.

Given that transwomen have sexually assaulted and attacked women in UK prisons, you'd think that would be something worth considering.

Anyway, back to names and pronouns - someone's wish to be seen as the delicate and feminine Beth doesn't override my perception of him as manipulative and bullying Teddy. 'True Self' be damned.

Yes, I notice that the judge has said his previous name is to be redacted. How convenient to detach this case from that name. If he chose to go back to that name, then no court files will be found in that name.

Of course, the only reason "dead names", pronouns etc are an issue in the first place is because of the weird Genderist insistence that the language originally used for sex has to be now used for gender even though sex and gender are manfestly and obviously different things.

Just imagine if trans activists had truly had the courage of their convictions and invented a new language for this-thing-that-is-not-sex instead of appropriating language and names that had existing established meanings in society, law and culture!

No stupid toilet threads because there'd be no confusion or misrepresentation about what is meant by "man" or "woman"!

No stupid pronoun arguments. No trans people feeling hurt and unseen because of other people's use of sex-based language.

No women faced with the impossible choice of respecting trans people's identty but in doing do accepting for themselves a version of "womahood" that in reality is nothing to do with their lives as female people, or being true to their own self-knowledge but hurting trans feelings.

No male (original sex based meaning) people in women's sports or taking the opportunities intended to help women rise above the contraints of a culturally and structurally sexist society simply because of a coincidence of name.

What a wonderful, freeing world that would have been for all of us. What a goddamn shame so much energy has gone into doing the exact opposite.

Noting the tumbleweed about identity being more than individual.

For anyone who wants to know what should be considered for evaluating risk of this sub group of males to show that they have a risk level not less than any other male in the UK of committing sex crime, have a read through the statistics for males who have transgender identities who commit sex crimes in the UK. There is nothing in these statistics that show that this group have a risk profile that is the same as female people or lower than female people in the general female population of the UK.

Most posters on FWR know these statistics.

Firstly, This was a question answered earlier this year:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-12-16/20298.

Question from Rebecca Paul (MP Reigate): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the HMPPS Offender Equalities Annual Report 2023-2024, published on 28 November 2024, how many of the 50 transgender prisoners who reported their legal gender as female were convicted of a sexual offence.

Answer from Sir Richard Dakin (MP Scunthorpe): 23 December 2024
Of the 245 transgender prisoners who reported their legal gender as male (i.e. those who now identify as women, non-binary or gender-fluid) on 31 March 2024, 151 were convicted of a sexual offence. This includes both contact and non-contact sexual offences. Offence data was not available for 1 individual.

Of the 50 transgender prisoners who reported their legal gender as female on 31 March 2024, the number convicted of a sexual offence is five or fewer. We do not provide exact data for such small sample sizes as it risks identification of individuals. This approach is in line with our standards on data disclosure.

To put this into perspective with what we already knew from FOI information. I posted the information to a regular poster from FWR on another thread, who did not acknowledge the information at all, so it seems sticking the info here is appropriate:

Here is data from the MoJ

Here is an FOI request from 30 April 2024

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/populationoftransgenderoffend/response/2641337/attach/html/7/FOI%20240322022%20Annex%20A.xlsx.html
Up to the 31st March 2023, the MoJ stated that of the 88 male transgender prisoners with one or more sexual offences.
The breakdown was
48 rapes,
0 attempted rapes,
10 Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault,
13 causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity,
0 indecent assault or gross indecency
6 sexual activity with a child under 16
0 other

77 listed here.... BUT there is a total of 88 in the total so there is 11 crimes not noted.

Possessing or making indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of child has not been recorded in this FOI.

However, there is are further discrepancies in the data of the following when you look at TOTAL NUMBER OF TRANSGENDER PRISONERS SENTENCED FOR A PRINCIPAL SEXUAL OFFENCE.
1 causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity
3 rapes
2 sexual activity with a child under 16
3 Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault,
This equals 9 additional... however the sum for TOTAL NUMBER OF TRANSGENDER PRISONERS SENTENCED FOR A PRINCIPAL SEXUAL OFFENCE is 99.
Therefore 2 more sex crimes have been hidden from this data.

There were 203 males who were declared as transgender in the prison at the time.

There were 24 NB who were not segregated into male and female. What is key here, is that THIS IS NON-GRC HOLDERS. And we all know that males holding GRCs have increased and they are excluded from this data. NO female people with transgender identities were sentenced to a principal sexual offence. There were 41 female people with transgender identities in UK prisons at that time.

As a comparison, I have stats that say as of April 2019 that the general male MoJ data for male sex offenders was just 16.8% of the male prison population.

And there were 3.3% of female people in UK prisons were sex offenders.

I will leave you to do your own sums. But... even using the figure of 88/203 is 43.3%. (And that doesn't include making or possessing indecent photographs of a child remember.)

By the way this exercise was done in 2021. And I checked this data myself from the data source and it was correct at the time. So, it will give some back ground to the above.

The ones that say that in the March/April 2021 data collection period, the MoJ stated that of the 97 transgender prisoners with one or more sexual offences.
The breakdown was

40 rapes,
8 attempted rapes,
31 possessing or making indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of child,
32 Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault,
20 causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity,
10 indecent assault or gross indecency
9 sexual activity with a child under 16
27 other

The 97 sex offender transgender prisons collected 177 sentences between them.

And that according to that FOI 197 prisoners are transgender.

The data remains consistently high for this demographic of UK prisoners.

This is why NO SUB GROUP OF MALE PEOPLE SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM RISK ASSESSMENT. This group of male people still retain the same male pattern of committing sex and violent crime.