8 ms·

Using a person's name from before they come out as transgender is called deadnaming and is a tactic favored among abusive people. The polite thing to do, regar

Using a person's name from before they come out as transgender is called deadnaming and is a tactic favored among abusive people. The polite thing to do, regardless of personal politics, is to simply reassociate the person with the name Chelsea Manning and move on with your life.

ataturk 9y ago
Oh what the fuck ever. People can ask to be called whatever they want. That doesn't mean anyone has to abide by that request.
throwaway9063 9y ago
"Hi, I know this is a thread about someone's passing, and I'm gonna let you finish, but unless you adopt my preferred method of reasoning on this tangential, hot-button topic that I haven't even given you a chance to properly discuss, you're an abusive person. The polite thing to do is to think and talk the way I'm telling you to and move on with your life, because otherwise, you're a monster."
- groby_b 9y ago
  Indeed. I can't go and punch people in the face because I'm sad about somebody passing, either. You do not get to abuse others just because you're grieving. And no, it's not a "hot button issue", it's about basic respect. And you know it, too, or you wouldn't have created a throwaway account. But troll on, merry soldier.
- CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
  > unless you adopt my preferred method of reasoning on this tangential, hot-button topic that I haven't even given you a chance to properly discuss, you're an abusive person. You're literally putting words in my mouth there. I said that was a tactic favored among abusive people. That's not an accusation, that's an observable fact about how abusive people behave. I choose my words carefully, y'know.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Oh come come, we all know you intended the implication.
    - CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
      "This is something that bad people do" isn't an accusation of being bad, regardless of how much it offends you. People replicate the behaviors of terrible people either by accident or by mimicry all the time. My aim is to inform, not to condemn.
      - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        You're strictly right, of course. It amused me, which is why I parodied it in my response -- but whilst it is not a direct accusation everyone using such a turn of phrase in straight prose intends to create a loose identification between their subject and those "bad people" whilst leaving open the door to make such claims as you are now. Your objection above lacks credence.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    You know who else does that? Abusive people. I'm not saying you're an abusive person, but that is definitely behavior shared by abusive people. It's just an observable fact. I chose these words very carefully so you know I am not accusing you of being abusive, just associating you with abusive behavior.
    - CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
      > You know who else does that? Who else does what, exactly? I can't follow what "that" is supposed to refer to.
      - ameister14 9y ago
        It can be applied to any behavior. I was using it to illustrate that your previous statement was associating a person with something extremely negative and you defended it by saying something to the effect of 'I never said he was x' You kinda did, though. It's weaselly language.
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Um, OK and rewriting history is a tactic favoured by fascists. Now, where did that get us, nowhere. There was no person of that public identity in existence at the time, doesn't that make it impossible for such a person to have done something. Suppose Chelsea Manning were now to revert to calling himself Bradley (a situation not without precedent), or choose a further name - why should that change how we report factual information about the past? I don't really understand why objective information gets changed at the behest of personal preference in this way. Shouldn't it be "Bradley Manning (now called Chelsea)"? I prefer objective to polite.
- CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
  > Um, OK and rewriting history is a tactic favoured by fascists. We're not rewriting history. Allowing a transgendered person to choose a new name doesn't change the basic facts about what happened. It's just an act of compassion towards someone who would otherwise be suffering from feelings neither you nor I personally experience, but are well documented by scientists. > Shouldn't it be "Bradley Manning (now called Chelsea)"? You could say "Chelsea Manning (at the time, 'Bradley')" if you really wanted to refresh people's memories, so long as you consistently refer to her as Chelsea through the rest of the comment/essay/etc. > I prefer objective to polite. This is a false dichotomy. You can be both. https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Marshall-Rosenberg/dp/1892005034 https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Mar...
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    You can't always raise objective facts and remain polite. I disagree. Someone changing their name and identifying as the opposite sex after being arrested (the next day I think?) in a major political scandal makes that pertinent to the history of the situation. Hiding that by pretending the person always was identified as they currently are hides facts about the situation -- are they pertinent, maybe not to the primary issue, but the contemporaneous nature suggests something of interest (in social history if nothing else).
    - 9y ago

ataturk 9y ago

Oh what the fuck ever. People can ask to be called whatever they want. That doesn't mean anyone has to abide by that request.

throwaway9063 9y ago

"Hi, I know this is a thread about someone's passing, and I'm gonna let you finish, but unless you adopt my preferred method of reasoning on this tangential, hot-button topic that I haven't even given you a chance to properly discuss, you're an abusive person. The polite thing to do is to think and talk the way I'm telling you to and move on with your life, because otherwise, you're a monster."

groby_b 9y ago
Indeed. I can't go and punch people in the face because I'm sad about somebody passing, either. You do not get to abuse others just because you're grieving. And no, it's not a "hot button issue", it's about basic respect. And you know it, too, or you wouldn't have created a throwaway account. But troll on, merry soldier.
CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
> unless you adopt my preferred method of reasoning on this tangential, hot-button topic that I haven't even given you a chance to properly discuss, you're an abusive person. You're literally putting words in my mouth there. I said that was a tactic favored among abusive people. That's not an accusation, that's an observable fact about how abusive people behave. I choose my words carefully, y'know.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Oh come come, we all know you intended the implication.
  - CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
    "This is something that bad people do" isn't an accusation of being bad, regardless of how much it offends you. People replicate the behaviors of terrible people either by accident or by mimicry all the time. My aim is to inform, not to condemn.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      You're strictly right, of course. It amused me, which is why I parodied it in my response -- but whilst it is not a direct accusation everyone using such a turn of phrase in straight prose intends to create a loose identification between their subject and those "bad people" whilst leaving open the door to make such claims as you are now. Your objection above lacks credence.
- ameister14 9y ago
  You know who else does that? Abusive people. I'm not saying you're an abusive person, but that is definitely behavior shared by abusive people. It's just an observable fact. I chose these words very carefully so you know I am not accusing you of being abusive, just associating you with abusive behavior.
  - CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
    > You know who else does that? Who else does what, exactly? I can't follow what "that" is supposed to refer to.
    - ameister14 9y ago
      It can be applied to any behavior. I was using it to illustrate that your previous statement was associating a person with something extremely negative and you defended it by saying something to the effect of 'I never said he was x' You kinda did, though. It's weaselly language.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

Um, OK and rewriting history is a tactic favoured by fascists. Now, where did that get us, nowhere. There was no person of that public identity in existence at the time, doesn't that make it impossible for such a person to have done something. Suppose Chelsea Manning were now to revert to calling himself Bradley (a situation not without precedent), or choose a further name - why should that change how we report factual information about the past? I don't really understand why objective information gets changed at the behest of personal preference in this way. Shouldn't it be "Bradley Manning (now called Chelsea)"? I prefer objective to polite.

CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
> Um, OK and rewriting history is a tactic favoured by fascists. We're not rewriting history. Allowing a transgendered person to choose a new name doesn't change the basic facts about what happened. It's just an act of compassion towards someone who would otherwise be suffering from feelings neither you nor I personally experience, but are well documented by scientists. > Shouldn't it be "Bradley Manning (now called Chelsea)"? You could say "Chelsea Manning (at the time, 'Bradley')" if you really wanted to refresh people's memories, so long as you consistently refer to her as Chelsea through the rest of the comment/essay/etc. > I prefer objective to polite. This is a false dichotomy. You can be both. https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Marshall-Rosenberg/dp/1892005034 https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Mar...
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  You can't always raise objective facts and remain polite. I disagree. Someone changing their name and identifying as the opposite sex after being arrested (the next day I think?) in a major political scandal makes that pertinent to the history of the situation. Hiding that by pretending the person always was identified as they currently are hides facts about the situation -- are they pertinent, maybe not to the primary issue, but the contemporaneous nature suggests something of interest (in social history if nothing else).
  - 9y ago