Now, on the topic of the conversation in question: it seems at least for music re-released under a changed name, some of the suggestions made here seem like good starting points: using the current name on release groups and recordings, and marking the old releases as superseded in some way.
The proposed “withdrawn” status seems like an option, and would probably work fine, although it would need defining clearly what qualifies as “withdrawn”, including in the specific transgender artist situation (if the artist had put out physical releases, would we want to consider those withdrawn too?).
A second option would be to have a “X was superseded by Y” relationship, kinda like what we do with pseudo-releases. That would have the benefit of letting data users know not only that the old release was withdrawn but what to replace it with if they so want - but the drawback that the release would be linked from the newer version with the new name, which I guess would make the old data more visible. It seems to currently link them without the artist credit, at least, though. It should only be used in a 1:1 equivalence situation, I guess, so “this is literally the same release, but with a change” - while a new release with a different barcode or whatnot should probably not use such a relationship.
Other than those changes, I’m right now not sure what could be future, larger changes that would combine all the needs of our users + artists. I think it’s likely MusicBrainz will never be able to fully avoid deadnaming (even if just because, as mentioned earlier in the thread, some people will have an old version of a release that they will probably expect to be able to find under the name they have), but we should probably try and follow artist intent better in the way we present the information and make it clear that it is not considered current (which will also allow those people who have the old version to make the change that follows the artist intent if they so decide). Having a specific alias type or artist credit mechanism for this could help and it is probably doable from the technical point of view, although it might be argued that it helps make the whole issue more visible, rather than less so.
A last situation (this time guideline- rather than schema-related) that would need to be looked into is how to ensure we are following artist intent, once it is possible - I guess the main idea would be “if the artist specifically replaces the old releases with the new name, then we assume they want to get rid of the old name, if not, we assume they do not unless expressed elsewhere”, but I’m not familiar enough with how transition usually goes to be sure