4 ms·

How is "deadnaming" an attack on free speech? It's always been considered discourteous to refer to people by a name they don't go by.

by djur 3y ago

indy 3y ago
"deadnaming" someone is enough to get you banned from a number of social media sites, or to have stories about the "deadnamed" censored from news sites.
- djur 3y ago
  It's always been common for online communities to ban people for being intentionally rude. I think we're still in the process of figuring out the preferred etiquette for historical references to people who changed their names, but that will settle before long.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    So you call social media censorship "etiquette" now. That's one way to make it sound nicer. Here is a novel concept: You don't have to follow people you don't like on social media. Your "etiquette" seems to be just an attempt to legitimize censorship.
    - djur 3y ago
      Online communities are well within their rights to limit their membership to people willing to follow their rules of conduct. That's freedom of association, which is as fundamental a right as freedom of speech.
      - cubefox 3y ago
        A social networking site is not an online community. As I said, you select whom you follow. Basically you chose your own "community" out of a countless number of possible communities. There is no need for censorship, since you chose yourself whom to follow.
cubefox 3y ago
In Norway misgendering may already be illegal. See e.g. https://nypost.com/2022/12/15/tonje-gjevjon-faces-up-to-3-years-in-prison-for-saying-men-cannot-be-lesbians/amp/ https://nypost.com/2022/12/15/tonje-gjevjon-faces-up-to-3-ye...
satisfice 3y ago
I’ve been alive a long time and I never went to a meeting where this was discussed or decided. I’ve never heard of such a meeting. And it doesn’t make sense. If you spend part of your life in a certain identity, and you interact with people under that identity, and they know you that way, banning people from talking about you in that identity is discourteous to THEM. You are laying a claim on other people’s minds that you have no right to make. It’s not just about names, it’s about policing memory and attempting to manufacture a personal brand through social coercion. It’s immoral. I remember being a kid when a man named Bruce was on Wheaties boxes. Now some would say I am not permitted to discuss my own life in relation to that experience. Yes that is a curtailment of speech. (Not in a constitutional sense, though, since the government isn’t restricting it.)
- djur 3y ago
  OK, so if someone got married and changed their last name, you would feel OK continuing to refer to them by their maiden name? Even if they no longer used that name and asked you to use their new name? You wouldn't expect any kind of social consequences for that?
  - satisfice 3y ago
    That’s not the argument I made, is it? You aren’t making much effort to understand people who struggle with the “deadnaming” thing, are you?
- kaba0 3y ago
  So if you tell people that you prefer John to Johnny, and they continue calling you Johnny, they are not scumbags? That’s such a trivial, no effort courtesy on another human being’s part that I fail to see all this talk about it. Just.. fucking call people by the name they ask you to. Also, no sane person would get angry at the occasional fuck up in naming them if your intentions are good. Just be a decent person.
  - satisfice 3y ago
    You are committing a worse version of that scumbaggery right now. I told you my argument and you reply as if I said something different. I am not talking about the fact that my sister converted to Hinduism and now, instead of Kristelle, she likes to be called Gauri. We call her Gauri to her face. But her siblings, when discussing events with her in our past, still refer to her as Kristelle amongst each other. That was her identity then. Doing this is not being a jerk.

How is "deadnaming" an attack on free speech? It's always been considered discourteous to refer to people by a name they don't go by.

by djur 3y ago

How is "deadnaming" an attack on free speech? It's always been considered discourteous to refer to people by a name they don't go by.

indy 3y ago

"deadnaming" someone is enough to get you banned from a number of social media sites, or to have stories about the "deadnamed" censored from news sites.

djur 3y ago
It's always been common for online communities to ban people for being intentionally rude. I think we're still in the process of figuring out the preferred etiquette for historical references to people who changed their names, but that will settle before long.
- cubefox 3y ago
  So you call social media censorship "etiquette" now. That's one way to make it sound nicer. Here is a novel concept: You don't have to follow people you don't like on social media. Your "etiquette" seems to be just an attempt to legitimize censorship.
  - djur 3y ago
    Online communities are well within their rights to limit their membership to people willing to follow their rules of conduct. That's freedom of association, which is as fundamental a right as freedom of speech.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      A social networking site is not an online community. As I said, you select whom you follow. Basically you chose your own "community" out of a countless number of possible communities. There is no need for censorship, since you chose yourself whom to follow.

cubefox 3y ago

In Norway misgendering may already be illegal. See e.g. https://nypost.com/2022/12/15/tonje-gjevjon-faces-up-to-3-years-in-prison-for-saying-men-cannot-be-lesbians/amp/ https://nypost.com/2022/12/15/tonje-gjevjon-faces-up-to-3-ye...

satisfice 3y ago

I’ve been alive a long time and I never went to a meeting where this was discussed or decided. I’ve never heard of such a meeting. And it doesn’t make sense. If you spend part of your life in a certain identity, and you interact with people under that identity, and they know you that way, banning people from talking about you in that identity is discourteous to THEM. You are laying a claim on other people’s minds that you have no right to make. It’s not just about names, it’s about policing memory and attempting to manufacture a personal brand through social coercion. It’s immoral. I remember being a kid when a man named Bruce was on Wheaties boxes. Now some would say I am not permitted to discuss my own life in relation to that experience. Yes that is a curtailment of speech. (Not in a constitutional sense, though, since the government isn’t restricting it.)

djur 3y ago
OK, so if someone got married and changed their last name, you would feel OK continuing to refer to them by their maiden name? Even if they no longer used that name and asked you to use their new name? You wouldn't expect any kind of social consequences for that?
- satisfice 3y ago
  That’s not the argument I made, is it? You aren’t making much effort to understand people who struggle with the “deadnaming” thing, are you?
kaba0 3y ago
So if you tell people that you prefer John to Johnny, and they continue calling you Johnny, they are not scumbags? That’s such a trivial, no effort courtesy on another human being’s part that I fail to see all this talk about it. Just.. fucking call people by the name they ask you to. Also, no sane person would get angry at the occasional fuck up in naming them if your intentions are good. Just be a decent person.
- satisfice 3y ago
  You are committing a worse version of that scumbaggery right now. I told you my argument and you reply as if I said something different. I am not talking about the fact that my sister converted to Hinduism and now, instead of Kristelle, she likes to be called Gauri. We call her Gauri to her face. But her siblings, when discussing events with her in our past, still refer to her as Kristelle amongst each other. That was her identity then. Doing this is not being a jerk.