3 ms·

how many times has he been called "Kanye West" in headlines and news stories in the past couple weeks? nobody gives a shit about deadnaming him, because he's a

how many times has he been called "Kanye West" in headlines and news stories in the past couple weeks? nobody gives a shit about deadnaming him, because he's a Bad Guy Saying Bad Things, which proves that there actually is a political conditional on the supposed core moral value of "deadnaming is an utterly terrible thing to do, always, and there's never any excuse for it". I've tried repeatedly to bring this up online and nobody even attempts to explain this obvious moral contradiction away. I genuinely want to know how someone can hold both "deadnaming is reprehensible and should never be done ever" and "it's okay to just call him 'Kanye West' lol" in their head at the same time without imploding in a poof of self-contradiction.

cmh89 4y ago
Unless he's transgender, he can't be deadnamed. There isn't a moral contradiction to explain. The entire point of deadnaming someone is to cause them harm. Full stop. No one is trying to cause Ye harm by clarifying that he used to be called Kayne West. If you want a non-trans equivalent, old racists used to insist on calling Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Muhammad Ali by names they had rejected to make a point about how little they thought of them. Just like people deadname Elliot Page solely to hateful and offensive. Can you really not tell the difference?
- adamrezich 4y ago
  > If you want a non-trans equivalent, old racists used to insist on calling Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Muhammad Ali by names they had rejected to make a point about how little they thought of them. exactly, so how is this any different? a black man legally changes his name because he considers his old name to be his "slave name", and almost every headline about him refuses to acknowledge this change. how is this different from Muhammad Ali? > Unless he's transgender, he can't be deadnamed. this is the crux of my question: why is "right to not be deadnamed" exclusively a trans "right"? what would make you think that?
  - cmh89 4y ago
    >exactly, so how is this any different? a black man legally changes his name because he considers his old name to be his "slave name", and almost every headline about him refuses to acknowledge this change. how is this different from Muhammad Ali? I'm not sure what this paragraph is trying to convey. Are you under the impression that Ye changed his name because it was his 'slave name'? >this is the crux of my question: why is "right to not be deadnamed" exclusively a trans "right"? what would make you think that? I'm not sure why the word "right" is being used here, but I "think that' because words having meaning in the English language and deadnaming by definition is when you "call (a transgender person) by their birth name when they have changed their name as part of their gender transition." https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=deadname https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=deadnam...
    - adamrezich 4y ago
      a kid down the street from the house I grew up in moved to Hollywood to get involved in acting and changed his name but not his gender. he asked everyone to refer to him by his new name instead of his old one. how is this functionally different from someone changing their gender and their name at the same time, with regards to the name change? it doesn't matter why someone wants to change their name, they want to change their name, you should respect that. you don't have to, of course, you can do whatever you want. but the idea that trans people get a special when-I-change-my-name-you-have-to-respect-it privilege that people who don't want to change their gender don't get access to, is completely nonsensical. you should respect the right to identity self-determination innate to all people, for whatever reason they choose, or else your moral framework is not actually cohesive at all and in fact permits granting special privileges to certain classes of people over others, which is generally understood to be bigoted, by definition. every headline and social media post I see that contains the string "Kanye" or "Kanye West", outside of those who couch it in the context of some variation of "Ye, the artist formerly known as Kanye West", proves that, despite all pretenses to the contrary, there is in fact a brazen double standard when it comes to asserting one's own identity in terms of LEGALLY changing their name, and having everyone else respect it, such that trans people are supposed to get special consideration in this regard compared to everyone else, somehow. only extremely convoluted contemporary political pseudo-logic could explain how this actually makes perfect sense, how it's okay to call him Kanye West but it's not okay to call him Ellen Page, and how those two things are Actually Completely Different Situations instead of Exactly The Same Thing. > Are you under the impression that Ye changed his name because it was his 'slave name'? the man has openly said as much; does his own position on his own identity not have any value to you? is that not the entire idea behind the concept of "deadnaming" to begin with?
Comevius 4y ago
Not using a vanity name of a celebrity is not exactly the same as deadnaming. If Ye would have chosen John as his first name I could see it being similar, he obviously had a reason to change it, maybe he hates Kanye, but he choose Ye, because it sounds cool. People should still respect his decision, but it's still not the same.
- adamrezich 4y ago
  > Not using a vanity name of a celebrity is not exactly the same as deadnaming. If Ye would have chosen John as his first name I could see it being similar ok, so I don't have to respect trans peoples' "vanity" name changes if it's not something equivalent to "John", as per my own judgement? like I get to make my own internal judgement as to whether or not the name that someone asks to be referred to as is a "vanity" name or not?? or, I don't get to do this, because trans people are somehow special in this regard compared to everyone else??? you don't get to make rules like that. you can say, "if someone legally changes their name, then you should respect that and use their preferred, legal name." you can even extend that and say, "if someone wants to be referred to as some name other than their legal name, then this, too, should be respected, you should refer to them as their non-legal, yet still preferred name." that's fine too. but you don't get to claim that someone legally changing their name and asking everyone to use their new legal name and not use their old "slave name" (their own words), is just a "celebrity" with a "vanity name", and therefore "deadnaming" rules no longer apply, somehow! this destroys your entire moral framework about identity and the right to self-determination thereof.
- collegeburner 4y ago
  no, its his legal name.
mixmastamyk 4y ago
How about Prince, rarely called formerly any longer.

cmh89 4y ago

Unless he's transgender, he can't be deadnamed. There isn't a moral contradiction to explain. The entire point of deadnaming someone is to cause them harm. Full stop. No one is trying to cause Ye harm by clarifying that he used to be called Kayne West. If you want a non-trans equivalent, old racists used to insist on calling Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Muhammad Ali by names they had rejected to make a point about how little they thought of them. Just like people deadname Elliot Page solely to hateful and offensive. Can you really not tell the difference?

adamrezich 4y ago
> If you want a non-trans equivalent, old racists used to insist on calling Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Muhammad Ali by names they had rejected to make a point about how little they thought of them. exactly, so how is this any different? a black man legally changes his name because he considers his old name to be his "slave name", and almost every headline about him refuses to acknowledge this change. how is this different from Muhammad Ali? > Unless he's transgender, he can't be deadnamed. this is the crux of my question: why is "right to not be deadnamed" exclusively a trans "right"? what would make you think that?
- cmh89 4y ago
  >exactly, so how is this any different? a black man legally changes his name because he considers his old name to be his "slave name", and almost every headline about him refuses to acknowledge this change. how is this different from Muhammad Ali? I'm not sure what this paragraph is trying to convey. Are you under the impression that Ye changed his name because it was his 'slave name'? >this is the crux of my question: why is "right to not be deadnamed" exclusively a trans "right"? what would make you think that? I'm not sure why the word "right" is being used here, but I "think that' because words having meaning in the English language and deadnaming by definition is when you "call (a transgender person) by their birth name when they have changed their name as part of their gender transition." https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=deadname https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=deadnam...
  - adamrezich 4y ago
    a kid down the street from the house I grew up in moved to Hollywood to get involved in acting and changed his name but not his gender. he asked everyone to refer to him by his new name instead of his old one. how is this functionally different from someone changing their gender and their name at the same time, with regards to the name change? it doesn't matter why someone wants to change their name, they want to change their name, you should respect that. you don't have to, of course, you can do whatever you want. but the idea that trans people get a special when-I-change-my-name-you-have-to-respect-it privilege that people who don't want to change their gender don't get access to, is completely nonsensical. you should respect the right to identity self-determination innate to all people, for whatever reason they choose, or else your moral framework is not actually cohesive at all and in fact permits granting special privileges to certain classes of people over others, which is generally understood to be bigoted, by definition. every headline and social media post I see that contains the string "Kanye" or "Kanye West", outside of those who couch it in the context of some variation of "Ye, the artist formerly known as Kanye West", proves that, despite all pretenses to the contrary, there is in fact a brazen double standard when it comes to asserting one's own identity in terms of LEGALLY changing their name, and having everyone else respect it, such that trans people are supposed to get special consideration in this regard compared to everyone else, somehow. only extremely convoluted contemporary political pseudo-logic could explain how this actually makes perfect sense, how it's okay to call him Kanye West but it's not okay to call him Ellen Page, and how those two things are Actually Completely Different Situations instead of Exactly The Same Thing. > Are you under the impression that Ye changed his name because it was his 'slave name'? the man has openly said as much; does his own position on his own identity not have any value to you? is that not the entire idea behind the concept of "deadnaming" to begin with?

Comevius 4y ago

Not using a vanity name of a celebrity is not exactly the same as deadnaming. If Ye would have chosen John as his first name I could see it being similar, he obviously had a reason to change it, maybe he hates Kanye, but he choose Ye, because it sounds cool. People should still respect his decision, but it's still not the same.

adamrezich 4y ago
> Not using a vanity name of a celebrity is not exactly the same as deadnaming. If Ye would have chosen John as his first name I could see it being similar ok, so I don't have to respect trans peoples' "vanity" name changes if it's not something equivalent to "John", as per my own judgement? like I get to make my own internal judgement as to whether or not the name that someone asks to be referred to as is a "vanity" name or not?? or, I don't get to do this, because trans people are somehow special in this regard compared to everyone else??? you don't get to make rules like that. you can say, "if someone legally changes their name, then you should respect that and use their preferred, legal name." you can even extend that and say, "if someone wants to be referred to as some name other than their legal name, then this, too, should be respected, you should refer to them as their non-legal, yet still preferred name." that's fine too. but you don't get to claim that someone legally changing their name and asking everyone to use their new legal name and not use their old "slave name" (their own words), is just a "celebrity" with a "vanity name", and therefore "deadnaming" rules no longer apply, somehow! this destroys your entire moral framework about identity and the right to self-determination thereof.
collegeburner 4y ago
no, its his legal name.

mixmastamyk 4y ago

How about Prince, rarely called formerly any longer.