There’s actually been some discussion of this over in the Social Media Controls the World thread.
That posted link is a deeply problematical take on the issues at hand. Whenever you are reading something where an author feels the needs to call a trans woman “him” for the entire article and makes a point of deadnaming in the first sentence, you can be sure you are reading something by someone with serious biases against trans individuals.
I understand linking to it if that’s the only source handy that would explain the issues, but warning to everyone else. There are better sources on Aimee Challenor.
Yes I found the dead naming and mis gendering problematic as well but didn’t realize it was a biased source. Thanks for pointing that out and I should put the disclaimer ahead of the link once I’m off mobile later.
I have other links I’ve crawled down beyond the anti-trans initial link I shared above I should have included.
Bad judgments, associations with people with bad judgments and 1 (pretty awful) crime she likely has little connection to, and very weird kinks makes her unsuited for a PR job, sure. But unless there’s more, the TERFs coming out of the woodwork are far worse.
Using the name a transperson was assigned before choosing a new name to reflect their true self. One of myriad casual, unnecessarily hurtful ways to showcase disrespect for their person and experiences.
That’s a very good definition and I have nothing to add to it. What really weirds me out about it is that I find it so bizarre and childish a behavior. Deliberately and repeatedly calling someone a name that the speaker knows for sure is upsetting is a seven year old thing to do, not a thing for an adult to do.
I have a little bit of sympathy for anyone writing about past events. At times it can be important to deadname to connect historical documents or comments that refer to person X when the rest of the article is referring to person Y. But that means you might mention it once to make the connection if you have to and then use their desired name!
When it comes to dead-naming, the title of the article certainly qualifies. Is the opening sentence also considered offensive in that regard, or would that usage (ignoring all the other context and pronoun issues) be theoretically acceptable and relevant in establishing their identity?
Aimee (nee Ashton) Challenor is a 23-year-old trans-identified…
My general understanding is that many trans rights groups call for zero usage of a trans individual’s deadname, even in explanatory journalistic contexts. There’s substantial thought and context there that I’m not gonna be able to provide on my phone, as I realize it’s a fairly strict standard that can potentially cause confusion for readers (eg the current coverage of Elliot Page). One of those issues where, in short, looking out for the historically marginalized group, for whom these continuous instances of disrespect are a significant contributor to trauma and high suicide rates, should generally override the journalistic considerations, essentially.
It doesn’t serve any purpose in the article. An opening sentence without the deadname wouldn’t have impacted the information content of the piece in any way, so it was just an offensive usage of deadnaming. I don’t know the history of this author so I can’t say if it’s out of spite or ignorance, but judging by the one of the piece I’m leaning towards malice.
I hope you don’t feel like any of the pushback was directed at you personally. That piece was offensive, but speaking just for myself I’m upset at the author for writing it that way . I’m not in any way directing any blame at you for innocently trying to start a conversation about a confusing online kerfuffle.