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)

When you deadname someone, you're telling them that you don't see them as their true self.
There is no True Self. There's how a person perceives herself and there's how others perceived her. Neither is a true self, both are just perspectives.
For example, I may see myself as an elegant woman of means, a polymath and the epitome of class while you may see me as a skint, deluded dingbat with delusions of grandeur.
Lia may see a coquettish young woman and sporting champion in the mirror, while I see that he's a mediocre cheating bloke called William.
True Self is a quasi religious concept that has no relevance in reality.

Like gender criticals may see reproductive characteristics as the defining feature of women & others don't?

Whilst one can argue 'it's just all perspectives', one of human's main concerns/organising principles is survival, & within that capacity to survive. IE harm matters.

So Florence Foster Jenkins identifies as a woman with a beautiful voice. She really believes it.
Her audience, to a wo/man, begs leave to differ. They wish they'd brought earplugs.
What is her "authentic self" - the woman with the beautiful voice or the woman who is agony on the ears?
Should the journalist who attended the concert be allowed to write a review based on his lived experience, or would that be too "harmful"?

deadnaming is a cruel outdated practice.

** or other resident TRAs
What is your view on someone who is gender critical using "they" or other neutral third party pronouns rather than preferred pronouns?

Look, I'm sympathetic to gender criticals retaining the right to have their own opinion on what characteristics qualify an individual as a woman or man. But here's the thing, by that standard so too do others & I don't believe respecting someone's choice of how they wish to be addressed is the same as being forced to believe the justifications for that choice. 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.

In other words, its a no from me but an individual trans person may not mind.

This has nothing to do with opinion so therefore the rest of your argument is meaningless.

This has nothing to do with opinion so therefore the rest of your argument is meaningless.

Oh yes it does. As I said up thread, there's more to women than their reproductive bits that legitimised feminism & that you think there isn't is just your patriarchal opinion.

Until someone can adequately explain what defining characteristics of men and women change when a man takes a new name and wants female pronouns, then it’s all just nonsense.

Ok, give us an example of a defining female characteristic that Bruce Jenner had that necessitated the need to change his name to Caitlyn, or developed when he changed his name to Caitlyn.

And a fascination with teenage girls’ underwear doesn’t count, just as a starter.

I get the feeling it’s got something to do with “essence” or “soul”.

Until someone can adequately explain what defining characteristics of men and women change when a man takes a new name and wants female pronouns, then it’s all just nonsense.

Nothing changes in terms of characteristics, rather the individual acknowledges they posses the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex & wants to be socially known as that gender.

gender
1 of 3
noun
gen·der ˈjen-dər
2
a
: SEX sense 1a
the feminine gender
b
: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Ok, give us an example of a defining female characteristic that Bruce Jenner had that necessitated the need to change his name to Caitlyn, or developed when he changed his name to Caitlyn.
And a fascination with teenage girls’ underwear doesn’t count, just as a starter.
I get the feeling it’s got something to do with “essence” or “soul”.

You would have to ask Caitlyn what behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with females she has, I don't speak for her.

It would appear, yet again, that the manner of defining men and women boils down to gender stereotypes, Which is what feminists have been fighting against. The TRA 's just don't want to acknowledge their reductive stance

There are people who embrace the concept of gender and experience it as liberating.

There are people who reject the concept of gender and believe it to be reductionist and limiting.

A balanced approach to this would be for those who embrace it to define themselves in this way and those who reject it not to. Using someone’s chosen name neither affirms nor rejects the concept of gender so it is reasonable to expect people to use these. Preferred pronouns do affirmative the concept of gender so this isn’t a reasonable ask.

TRAs maintain that a trans identity is real and valid. If this is how a trans person feels, then their identity is real and valid to them. The fact that it isn’t real or valid to others reflects diversity

It would appear, yet again, that the manner of defining men and women boils down to gender stereotypes, Which is what feminists have been fighting against. The TRA 's just don't want to acknowledge their reductive stance

A bit like claiming 'all men are dangerous violent predators that women require closeting from'?

Can't have it both ways…

Oh dear, you are now making things up as you go along!
The vast majority of men are stronger than the vast majority of women, sexual and violent offences against women and girls are perpetrated by men, thus men are a greater danger to women than women are. Men cannot become women and therefore maintain the same level of risk to women and girls as all other men. I do hope that clears things up for you.

Oh dear, you are now making things up as you go along!
The vast majority of men are stronger than the vast majority of women, sexual and violent offences against women and girls are perpetrated by men, thus men are a greater danger to women than women are. Men cannot become women and therefore maintain the same level of risk to women and girls as all other men. I do hope that clears things up for you.

So you you admit there are behaviours more typically associated to males & females? Progress!

The fact that men commit the vast majority of sexual and violent crime isn’t a gender stereotype.

The fact that the male sex class is stronger than the female sex class isn’t a gender stereotype.

Hey, I would love a world where male-bodied people are not statistically far more likely to physically and sexually abuse female people than vice versa.

I do not believe men are a lost cause. I think they can and should do better, and as a Feminist I'm 100% happy to work with you to get there by challenging the sexist stereotypes that cause a statistically significant number of men to behave like that.

Just like as a Feminist I see that many women are held back by their own and society's beliefs in sexist sterotypes, I see the same for men. Gender harms all of us.

So I'm not going to argue with you about whether the "real" meaning of "Woman" should be based on sex or gender, or whether the group of male people who hurt female people should have the name "man" while they do it or not, because that's pointless. Names are just variables pointing to concepts.

What matters is that these two concepts, sex and gender, are clearly different things, and just because you reassign the name "Woman" to label a group of mixed-sex people with the same feeling of gender, it does not mean the group of people who have the sex of female in common stop existing, nor does it mean they stop having sex-specific experiences and needs or stop facing sex-specific social risks and disadvantages.

So regardless of who you persoanlly consider to be a "woman", until we get to the point where a man (in the original sex-based meaning) is no more likely to pose a sexual, physical or social threat to a women than another woman, we will continue need sex-specific protections for women (woman and women also in the original sex-based meaning obviously).

The fact that men commit the vast majority of sexual and violent crime isn’t a gender stereotype.
The fact that the male sex class is stronger than the female sex class isn’t a gender stereotype.

Are you suggesting that the vast majority of women don't have behavioural, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with females or this only applies to men?

What matters is that these two concepts, sex and gender, are clearly different things, and just because you reassign the name "Woman" to label a group of mixed-sex people with the same feeling of gender, it does not mean the group of people who have the sex of female in common stop existing, nor does it mean they stop having sex-specific experiences and needs or stop facing sex-specific social risks and disadvantages.

No one is suggesting that trans women that have the behavioural, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with females are the same as reproductive females. Rather they both qualify as women given their commonalities.

So regardless of who you persoanlly consider to be a "woman", until we get to the point where a man (in the original sex-based meaning) is no more likely to pose a sexual, physical or social threat to a women than another woman, we will continue need sex-specific protections for women (woman and women also in the original sex-based meaning obviously).

Trans women don't offend at the same rate as men.

https://translucent.org.uk/transgender-people-crime-and-prisons/

Like gender criticals may see reproductive characteristics as the defining feature of women & others don't

That's deliberately skewing our definition @Howseitgoin.

Disingenuous of you to claim we reduce women to their reproductive characteristics. That's like saying knowing a woman's shoe size reduces her to a foot.

We view sex as the dividing line between women and men. Those two words refer to the sex categories for humans - like jack and jenny are for donkeys, dog and vixen for foxes, cock and hen for poultry, tom and queen for cats. It is what they mean. It is a binary like On and Off, you can be one or the other but not both or neither.

A woman is a million other things as well as her sex. The single thing that unites every woman throughout time is her female body. That's it.

"Reproductive characteristics" veers dangerously close to "reproductive capacity" and the stupid, ill-informed view that one needs to be able to bear children to be a woman. Gender Critical feminists absolutely don't hold with that nonsense.

We aren't just our reproductive characteristics in the slightest. But development along the male or female pathways result in significant physical differences. In a patriarchy, those differences are used to advantage men and disadvantage women. Gender is significant way of doing that, by imposing restrictions, expectations and roles to do the two sexes.

Meh. Many many women who choose to take on a different name on marriage - either husband's name or double barrelled will find that people will for a while get their name wrong.

It's unlikely that they're doing it maliciously - they might just be getting used to the change.

It's also true that people are called different things in different social situations - I have a different name at work, at home, amongst family and another in a particular hobby that I do.

If people get my name 'wrong' I am able to shrug this off rather than decide that they are trying to harm me.

The single thing that unites every woman throughout time is her female body.

False. Diversity exists in morphology, chromosomes & hormones not to mention function.

Yes diversity in biology is 'real'.

Trans women don't offend at the same rate as men.

Oh, so you know how many transwomen there are in the UK, do you? Because without that data, your statement is worthless.

Oh, so you know how many transwomen there are in the UK, do you? Because without that data, your statement is worthless.

The 'data' is linked.

Oh. Did you also link to the data from prisons as to the proportion of transwomen who are there for sexual crimes? Plot spoiler: it's pretty high.