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)

No sweetheart. When it comes to the claim that adding trans women to women's spaces is not going to increase the risk to women, the relevant standard is do they offend at the same rate and profile as women.

Enjoy sweetheart….

"Transgender People, Crime and Prisons – Prevalence
While there is a consistent stream of media attention concerning trans people involved in crime, statistics show cisgender people commit crimes more regularly than trans people. The makeup of the England & Wales (E&W) prison population shows this:
The E & W cisgender population is 59.6 million – the cisgender prison population is 87,900 = 0.15% of people in E & W are in prison.
The E & W trans population is 262,000 – the trans prison population is 268 = 0.1% of trans people in E & W are in prison.
From this statistic, we learn that cisgender people commit crimes at a 50% higher rate than trans people.
Evidence from the research conducted by Olga Suhomlinova and Saoirse Caitlin O’Shea using official statistics dating from 2021 revealed that while 0.5% of the population identify as transgender or non-binary, they represented just 0.2% of the prison population."

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Oh boy, did you misunderstand my post or what?

I love it when frothers project their own weird obsessions and think they have found a gotcha 😘

Firstly, that biased report has been widely debunked - please use the search function.
Secondly, the relevant comparator for female people as to whether introducing trans identifying males into female-only spaces is not "not as bad as other males", it is "no worse than females". Diluting our protections by less than you would if you included all men is still worse for women (original sex based meaning).

Firstly, show where the below data has been "debunked".

Secondly, the relevant comparator is CIS people v trans people no men verses women. The flaw in your comparator is to assume all reproductive bodied groups of men offend at the same rate when the evidence shows they don't. As in older men v young men, men of colour v white men, poor men V rich men et etc…

Transgender People, Crime and Prisons – Prevalence
While there is a consistent stream of media attention concerning trans people involved in crime, statistics show cisgender people commit crimes more regularly than trans people. The makeup of the England & Wales (E&W) prison population shows this:

The E & W cisgender population is 59.6 million – the cisgender prison population is 87,900 = 0.15% of people in E & W are in prison.
The E & W trans population is 262,000 – the trans prison population is 268 = 0.1% of trans people in E & W are in prison.
From this statistic, we learn that cisgender people commit crimes at a 50% higher rate than trans people.
Evidence from the research conducted by Olga Suhomlinova and Saoirse Caitlin O’Shea using official statistics dating from 2021 revealed that while 0.5% of the population identify as transgender or non-binary, they represented just 0.2% of the prison population.

But even if trans women did not pose any increased risk as all (a proposition that ahas already been falsified by the non zero number of additional attacks that trans women's inclusion have added to the risks women face), so what?
As a female person, I already appreciate many male people are not a risk to me. I still do not see an argument for one specific group of those male people to be given, on a self identfied basis, access to formerly female-only protections and opportunities when no others are.

Because our whole justice system is predicated on harm prevention so actual risk matters.

Because as I said, I'm happy to accept gender existing as someting different to sex. I simply do not see the logic by which you can claim on the one hand gender is different to sex, then on the other claim that the rights and protections that exist to mitigate sex-based risks and inequalities should somehow be treated as if gender was interchangeable with sex.
Seems very much like having your cake and eating it, no?
Gender is nothing to do with sex when making the argument that trans people want to be treated differently to their own sex, but is entirely interchangeable with sex when making the argument for trans people to just be grouped in with the sex they want to be seen as?

As I already said it all comes down to evidenced harm regarding rights & protections.

And finally, can you describe some of these "commonalities" are between trans women and female people such that female people would agree they are more significant than the differences, andf such that we do not equally see the same "commonalities" in other groups of men as well?

I imagine any number of inclinations & behaviours more common to CIS women. including but not limited by psychological traits more common to women such as Big 5 Personality traits of Agreeableness & Neuroticism, More feminine inclinations in presentation & behaviour, more interested in pursuits women are such as caring professions & relationships, consumerism etc.

Because for most female people - a perspective I realise you do not and can never have, but I hope you are intelligent enough to accept exists just as much as the perspecive of trans women exists - the most significant challenges, inequalities, risks and limitations we face as "women" are not the social ones that trans women may also opt into experiencing because of their gender presentation, but the ones that we cannot avoid because of our sex and how society reacts to it. So to me it is entirely justified that women (in the original sex based meaning) should have rights, protections and opportunities that are specific to our sex to mitigate the challenges we face because of our sex.

I agree that CIS women have different societal challenges & experiences to trans women that justifies specific catering for but I don't see private spaces like bathrooms qualifies.

Can you explain why, given that you agree that sex and gender are different and that trans women do not experience their "womanhood" (whatever that is to you) in the same way that women in the original sex-based meaning experience our sex, it is nevertheless so important to you that the trans woman's experience of "womahood" should be the only defining one, and that female people must fit ourselves somehow within that rather than having our own language to describe our own experiences, and our own rights to support us as we fight with our own sex-based challenges?

I never said a trans woman's experience should define woman hood. I said both experiences have associations to woman hood & both qualify as women.

Transwomen as MALES, have no lived experience as the female sex. They were born with Male Privilege, male bodies and have no experience of growing from a girl into a woman. Risk is about male vs female. Not woman vs man dressed as woman who says he's a woman. The statistics are through and they are more than clear. Transwomen are far more dangerous than other males, as a cohort of males, they commit (due to Autogynephilia) sexual offences at greater rates. And no matter what these males call themselves, they are male. And a male in an intimate female space where a female is fleeing a male or having a miscarriage will traumatise a female.

I see the habit of posting links that really don’t support your claims continues.

Perhaps you can pull out of this article where the authors have stated that male people with transgender identities don’t have at least the same rate of committing male pattern crime as the general male population in the UK.

Your links never quite say what you think they say. Is that because you just ask AI a question and go to the source AI suggests?

I now think you don’t even read what you post.

Oh. But strange that you now accept those prison statistics that only days ago you tried to tell us were false.

Are you now trying to have it ‘both ways’?

“Transgender People, Crime and Prisons – Prevalence
While there is a consistent stream of media attention concerning trans people involved in crime, statistics show cisgender people commit crimes more regularly than trans people. The makeup of the England & Wales (E&W) prison population shows this:

The E & W cisgender population is 59.6 million – the cisgender prison population is 87,900 = 0.15% of people in E & W are in prison.
The E & W trans population is 262,000 – the trans prison population is 268 = 0.1% of trans people in E & W are in prison.
From this statistic, we learn that cisgender people commit crimes at a 50% higher rate than trans people.
Evidence from the research conducted by Olga Suhomlinova and Saoirse Caitlin O’Shea using official statistics dating from 2021 revealed that while 0.5% of the population identify as transgender or non-binary, they represented just 0.2% of the prison population.”

Why has this been posted as if it somehow relevant to safeguarding?

The correct comparison is indeed one sub group of male people compared to other male people.

The other comparison that we can legitimately make, despite all the attempts to deflect, is the % of sex crimes that have been committed by those male prisoners. And for safeguarding risk assessment, those statistics would have to be that a group has a long established trend of not committing and being convicted of sex and violent crimes at a greater rate compared to the general female population.

This comparison between people with and without transgender identities is not relevant to safeguarding discussions where people are segregated by sex
legitimately for protection. If you want to start campaigning that people with trangender identities are segregated from people without transgender identities for their protection, go and start that campaign.

Are you going to campaign to add another layer of segregation for safeguarding purposes to services and facilities? ie. that provisions are also segregated by whether someone has a transgender identity or not because two authors pointed out the discrepancy of prisoner statistics between people with and without transgender identities?

And we also know that there are male people committing serious crime yet not receiving custodial sentences thanks to your last attempt at discrediting prison statistics. Some who went on to commit further serious crimes again. Don’t you think this leniency that is being extended to this group also skews the prison numbers to be smaller than they would be if the person wasn’t given leniency?

(Or are you trying to have it both ways again?… in reference to what seems to be your favourite saying)

How they choose to identify is irrelevant to how I see them and who they appear to be to me. I can't change that and neither can they. It just is.

“I'm saying there are exceptions to female reproductive uniformity just like there are to gendered behaviour uniformity. Both are modes of sexual distinctions & both have exceptions.”

With modern technology all humans can be reliably categorised into a sex class that matches the formation of their body around the production of one gamete or the other regardless of whether that gamete is, was or ever will be produced by that person.

That is the level of ‘uniformity’ of the sexes. Within each sex there is a huge range of body variations.

Which is it? Are we to believe the prison stats are accurate and relevant as the book authors, or not as per Allslop?

Which is it? Are we to believe the prison stats are accurate and relevant as the book authors say, or not as per Allslop?

Correction. Had missed a word.

I'm the same but opposite. I have went with the short version of my name since leaving school ( think Josephine /Jo) and some people in my work call me Josephine . Being called Josephine tends to remind me of being taught by the nuns but what can you do? You can only say; " I prefer Jo". It's not a war crime and I'm not that important ffs.

"Perhaps you can pull out of this article where the authors have stated that male people with transgender identities don’t have at least the same rate of committing male pattern crime as the general male population in the UK."

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.

And given you are now making the claim that trans women commit crimes at the same rate as men then burden of proof is upon you. Where is your data? Where are is your research?

Here's mine:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

"Which is it? Are we to believe the prison stats are accurate and relevant as the book authors say, or not as per Allslop?"

Allslop is only making the claim that prison stats aren't necessarily reliable as smoking guns depending upon how they are presented.

How is this Massachusetts study relevant to the UK exactly?

Allslop does not successfully make the case that the prison statistics are unreliable at all. This has been pointed out to you at least once. And his points are usually based on falsehoods, or shall I go back and point to the trail of leniency being given to male people with transgender identities in both the UK and Australia which directly contradict a large part of Allslop’s work.

And then there is this confounding issue where you on one hand discredit those statistics but then post where two people authored an entire book using those same stats and a judge considered those statistics to be accurately measured to use in court.

You put a shit load of effort into attempting to discredit UK prison statistics when they are indeed a good measure as to whether males with transgender identities continue to commit sex and violent crime at at least the same rate as the general male UK population. You cannot make the argument at all that they do not in the light of the prisoner statistics.

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

However you attempt to frame it, female people under the UK laws have the right to single sex spaces remaining single sex. That means no male people above the age of about 8 years old.

We can just keep on repeating this factual statement over and over. You can argue it all you want, anyone reading the threads you are sitting on trying to argue that some men can be women will simply keep seeing your rejection of material reality. So by all means, continue to post your repetition, we will just continue to point out that you don’t understand safeguarding, consent, and legitimate discrimination, nor do you understand female toilet usage at all.

You seem to have no idea about the clauses that restrict Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

But sure, you just plucked the tired old Massachusetts study off the internet as if it were relevant.

As always, female single sex spaces are not just about safeguarding, they are also about female people having privacy and dignity from male people.

The correct comparison is indeed one sub group of male people compared to other male people.

And so you don't waste your time, here's the 'evidence' Kathleen Stock & co provided to the UK parliament as their 'smoking gun:

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

And just who discredited it? Clue: The person who did the research 😂

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

I dont understand what your point is.

We have dissected the Swedish study numerous time on this board in the past. Many of us know it well enough. What is interesting is that Pearce and yourself have missed a couple of very relevant points.

Firstly that there is no expectation in the UK that male people with transgender identities are getting the mental health support that has been posed as the reason for the decrease in crime rates seen in the Swedish study. So what then is the relevance to the crime statistics? Then, Pearce didn’t address the UK prison statistics.

Care to address why what you posted is relevant to this discussion on why female people should have single sex spaces that exclude all male people?

"How is this Massachusetts study relevant to the UK exactly?"

I mean this takes the cake of science illiteracy. The phenomena being investigated doesn't need to be in the same jurisdiction to show a pattern if there's no confounding variables. If it did then that would invalidate much research.

"Allslop does not successfully make the case that the prison statistics are unreliable at all. This has been pointed out to you at least once. And his points are usually based on falsehoods,"

You have failed to demonstrate where. Not to mention he provides evidence to back up his claims one of which is the author of a study whose study is routinely misrepresented.

"or shall I go back and point to the trail of leniency being given to male people with transgender identities in both the UK and Australia which directly contradict a large part of Allslop’s work."

Oh please. Isolated instances are not data. And you've been told this repeatedly.
**
"And then there is this confounding issue where you on one hand discredit those statistics but then post where two people authored an entire book using those same stats and a judge considered those statistics to be accurately measured to use in court."

Like this one:

^https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/02/trans-women-with-sex-offence-convictions-in-female-jails-lawful-rules-judge^
😂
"You put a shit load of effort into attempting to discredit UK prison statistics when they are indeed a good measure as to whether males with transgender identities continue to commit sex and violent crime at at least the same rate as the general male UK population. You cannot make the argument at all that they do not in the light of the prisoner statistics.
Male people with transgender identifies commit sex and violent crime at at least the same rate as the general UK male population."

You have no evidence & you know it.

Of course, it is also timely to remind readers that the only commonality all women have is bodies that are formed around the production of large gametes regardless of whether those gametes are ever produced or not.

Being a woman is not based on any particular behaviour or cultural elements at all. It is a simple biological fact. Because woman =
adult human female.

It doesn’t matter what a dictionary has added as a definition due to political pressure.

“+I mean this takes the cake of science illiteracy. The phenomena being investigated doesn't need to be in the same jurisdiction to show a pattern if there's no confounding variables. If it did then that would invalidate much research.*”

Shall I use your jeering tone? keep up! The discussion was about UK prison statistics.

So yes. Do tell… how is this Massachusetts study relevant to UK prison statistics?

Firstly that there is no expectation in the UK that male people with transgender identities are getting the mental health support that has been posed as the reason for the decrease in crime rates seen in the Swedish study. So what then is the relevance to the crime statistics? Then, Pearce didn’t address the UK prison statistics.

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 study however you want to attempt to portray it doesn't show a uniform pattern of criminality over time.

The “evidence” is the UK prison statistics you are so keen to dismiss.

You cannot dismiss them and you cannot come up with valid arguments as to why they should not be used.

Hilariously, you relied on them by posting the book authors article while then denouncing them using Allslop.

Well done.

So yes. Do tell… how is this Massachusetts study relevant to UK prison statistics?

My god, it's very simple. Two identical jurisdictions, Two different sets of laws. No change in criminality. It doesn't matter where that is because criminality is supposed to be inherently male remember? If it were at all true that trans women are equally violent to men & they now had permission to be more alone with women you would expect an increase in crime reporting….which didn't happen.

Where's your evidence? Still waiting…

Read the link you posted!

Believe it or not, women on this board have read Stock et al’s submission

You really need to stop using AI to source stuff you don’t bother reading and analysing yourself.

Should I put more laughing emojis? I mean it is fucking hilarious really.

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

The “evidence” is the UK prison statistics you are so keen to dismiss.
You cannot dismiss them and you cannot come up with valid arguments as to why they should not be used.
Hilariously, you relied on them by posting the book authors article while then denouncing them using Allslop.
Well done.

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.

"Believe it or not, women on this board have read Stock et al’s submission"

I mean seriously "women on this board" is your source? 🤪