I will, if you have a specific book or reading that you would recommend?
Especially if it pertains to the matter at hand on this forum?
I will, if you have a specific book or reading that you would recommend?
It pertains directly to the understanding of gender that you present on this forum.
Start at Wikipedia, then googlesearch to check that WP is not presenting propaganda.
So there is not a specific writing by this David Reimer that you could recommend?
That’s a pity, since you indicated that it might have taught me something?
And as I stated, I am willing to learn.
If you meant that you think that I have an understanding of the concept of gender that misalignes with actual, factual and current biology, sports, etc., I will need more than just a reference to ‘do some googling or wikipedia’ing’ to adjust my current opinions.
I’m certainly not unwilling to learn and adept to new knowledge or insights, but I have learned to recognise and ignore ideas driven by emotions and ideologies.
Facts matter. Words matter.
If you name a person with worthwhile thoughts and ideas, you should be able to direct somebody to those words. Then those words can be read, digested, and possibly change the thoughts of men.
Else, it is only some vague reference without useful meaning.
Like stupid people wearing Che Guevara T-shirts.
There are words and agreed facts about David at Wikipedia. And a long list of books, documentaries and articles.
I believe you.
But I am not invested enough in this matter to do a lot of research.
If a specific book or writing can be recommended, I am willing to read it, but I am not going to do the research myself on what this David may have produced that may interest me or might pertain to what we are discussing in this thread.
If you don’t want to guard against me and/or WP steering you into a biased view then just read the WP article.
I would hope I am not guarding against anything (except stupidity), and I will read that wiki article.
Seems like it deserves more than a quick glance.
So, I’ll be back
i read the wiki page, found this
And if they remember me at all
Make them remember me
As more than a queer experiment
More than a diagram in their quarterly
Make them remember me
just felt like sharing
For a more recent example of why deadnaming without explicit consent is just plain unethical, the Daily Mail decided to stalk a trans athlete and her family, friends and former school colleagues:
I was going to consider this offtopic and not answer, but part of it isn’t, really, so:
@TrollDecker: I feel the clearly unethical thing there is the fact that they were clearly using the name (and all the rest of their actions) to incite backlash, rather than the name itself. An article that said “Laurel, who won X 10 years ago competing as ‘deadname’” without trying to color the fact would probably not be ideal (“Laurel, who won X 10 years ago competing as a man” would give pretty much the same information, and hopefully be less problematic?), but I don’t feel it would be unethical either. Clearly, if the information is considered relevant (and I think most would argue it is relevant), then it has to be mentioned in some way. IMO this is exactly the same case as with trans musicians and MusicBrainz. If they never had a career before transition, then there’s no reason we should store the deadname. I think we can all agree in this case, the name shouldn’t be in MusicBrainz? But if they did, then we just need to find the least problematic way to square up the factual credits from that previous career and artist intent. I also feel it’s not right for users who do not know the facts better to obscure the pre-transition data unless we know this is artist intent (so while I would clearly object to people adding an annotation emphasizing the old name, I also would object to treating it as clearly unwanted and to be hidden from old credited material unless we’ve seen some action from the artist that implies it).
Ignore the following if you don’t care about semi-OT, thanks
More off-topic here, and happy to take this to direct messaging if someone has the patience to help me figure this one out, but I do struggle with claims like “It is still a disappointingly common practice for newspapers to use the deadname of celebrities when they come out as trans or non-binary.” One thing would be to keep bringing up the deadname every time they talk about the person in the future (obviously unneeded, and if the difference is relevant, such as with the sportswoman above, it can probably be done better, as I mentioned earlier) but this seems to imply even saying “the person who you knew as (deadname) is now Elliot Page” or whatever when breaking up the news is unethical - but people do need to know who the person is so they can understand there’s going to be a change from then on. The media does not mention Lady Gaga’s birth name when writing about her, but I’m sure they’d mention her old name if they had an article “Lady Gaga to be known as Lady Go-Go from now on”, and probably for a few more articles after that until they knew people would know what they’re talking about. Maybe they only mean “they bring the deadname up every time” though, which I guess I haven’t seen because the BBC fairly consistently avoids it
In Page’s case, he does have notable films under his belt, so you could pass a headline like “Elliot Page, star of Juno, comes out as trans” and add that he starred alongside Michael Cera within the article as clarification*. Admittedly, that’s not the most abundantly clear way break the news, but for most people, even if it takes a while to click, they’ll get the gist soon enough, I would think.
*=The Umbrella Academy might be a better reference point, being more recent, but I honestly know next to nothing about it and I imagine anyone without access to Netflix would be any wiser.
If the transformation happened very recently, wouldn’t an imaginary headline be: “Ellen comes out as transgender”?
And if an article at a later date references him/her, then it should say “Elliot came out as transgender”?
Not if the aim is to avoid deadnaming. And Page gave everyone his new name and pronouns when he did come out.
Also, trans people don’t transform, we transition and come out. We’re not Autobots and Decepticons.
Well, I am not going to name names, but there are people I have know for many years as ‘he’, that at a certain moment informed ‘the world’ that they wanted to be known and addressed as ‘she’.
Are you saying that the fact that friends and family shared the information that John from then on was Jane is inappropriate?
We all should have said ‘Jane’ is now ‘Jane’?
That doesn’t make sense, does it?
That’s up to “Jane” to discuss with said friends and family. But we’re not talking about someone’s friends and family, we’re talking about the media aka complete strangers who feel the need to tell everyone about other people’s lives.
We’re in a thread about how to handle transgender artists. See, right there in the title. There’s not much scope for misinterpretation here, and besides, other countries aren’t Gensokyo.
You really shouldn’t be annoyed by a simple correction.
it is pretty annoying ngl. you gained nothing from that correction. nobody did.
now back to the darkness with me.
Erroneous and/or tragic?
Erroneous because others here did gain from the correction.
Tragic because you think you have knowledge of what everyone else here gains from.
i agree wholeheartedly with the first point, there is no reason to list deadnames for artists that never released work under a deadname
for artists that did release under a deadname, squaring up the historical credits gets complex
from a UX stand point, we want searchability
searchablility ensures someone who knows the artist by deadname only can still find the artist. without searchability we could end up with unaware editors adding releases under the deadname, or creating a new artist using the deadname. this should only be an issue with physical releases where the deadname is in ink, but could also be an issue if someone has old files from a digital release that has since been updated.
the problems become bigger with discoverability
discoverability means someone who does not know an artist’s deadname could stumble upon it.
i think imdb has the right idea here, ensuring accurate historical credits are in the DB as they were in the credtis roll, but keeping deadnames mostly out of sight. there’s still some discoverability, but it’s minimized
MB, however, is even worse than wiki about this. wiki at least uses “formerly” before listing Elliot’s deadname. while Elliot’s deadname is extremely discoverable via wiki, it is presented in context.
MB has pages listing deadnames only with no context.
i think that’s the first thing that needs to be addressed.
You refer to the alias page?
There is an end date on the former name and a start date on the new name, I guess.
I don’t know this example.
With a new alias type (Dead name)*, that would make those hidden in the alias page?
And a button to Show dead names, like we have for unofficial releases, that are hidden by default?
I am not yet suggesting anything. I just want to know what you thought as an enhancement.
* I wonder how dead name could be translated, though.
And not sure if dead name would even be the good term. Wikipedia dead name seems to say that dead name implies an intention of nuisance.