It’s a bit difficult in a case like this, as it does add context and acknowledges their new identity so as to link what was a well known video to an existing person. I’d struggle to know who this was otherwise. I don’t think there’s any malintent here.
It’s completely fine to deadname people in the case that you’re telling someone that a trans person goes by a new name. Otherwise you’re playing “Guess who’s trans!” for a painfully awkward five minutes while they list anecdotes about people that you weren’t actually present to witness.
“It’s completely fine” by who? Most trans people do not want to be referred to by their deadname - especially in the way this title phrases it. Most people wouldn’t know the deadname anyway, everyone just knew her from the “Leave Britney alone” video. To clarify, the title could easily have mentioned she’s trans but to just throw out the deadname especially phrased in such a way is just ignorant and harmful, regardless of intent.
It was there for context. No one knows Cara, so it wouldn’t have made sense without knowing their former name. Maybe it could’ve been phrased better, but it is relevant information for context.
Deadnaming her would be calling her “Chris Cocker” and ignoring her new name. They are just saying what her identity was before she became Cara Cunningham. Makes it easier to understand the story.
It’s funny how it seems totally acceptable to be a complete asshole towards other people, especially on social media, but we’re somehow supposed to accept deadnaming as being off the limits.
I think criticizing people for what they do (eg: calling some politicians “murderers” because they allow genocide) is different than calling names just to hurt, which is what dead naming usually is.
I don’t think anyone should be okay with racism or that kind of attacks, even on people they hate. Kim Jong Un may be a piece of shit (or not), but calling him a racial slur is unproductive and definitely crossing the line.
Here, the deadnaming comes from ignorance, not hate; and it’s true that it might help clarify who someone is, but in this case everybody knows her for being the “leave Britney alone” person, not for her deadname. So it’s really unnecessary.
Sure, but I was mostly highlighting the naivety of coming to an online forum and effectively saying “please be nice and considerate of other people’s feelings” as if that’s going to achieve anything else but to make them look like a virtue signaling fool. It’s the internet we’re talking about after all. I agree with the intention, but see it as a wasted effort. Deadnaming is not going to become the next n-word.
Please don’t deadname people
It’s a bit difficult in a case like this, as it does add context and acknowledges their new identity so as to link what was a well known video to an existing person. I’d struggle to know who this was otherwise. I don’t think there’s any malintent here.
It’s completely fine to deadname people in the case that you’re telling someone that a trans person goes by a new name. Otherwise you’re playing “Guess who’s trans!” for a painfully awkward five minutes while they list anecdotes about people that you weren’t actually present to witness.
I’m just imagining the classic Hasbro game Guess Who except it’s the most fucked up version there is.
Vibes based guess who is actually a blast.
“Does your person have a penis?”
“Uhh…”
“It’s completely fine” by who? Most trans people do not want to be referred to by their deadname - especially in the way this title phrases it. Most people wouldn’t know the deadname anyway, everyone just knew her from the “Leave Britney alone” video. To clarify, the title could easily have mentioned she’s trans but to just throw out the deadname especially phrased in such a way is just ignorant and harmful, regardless of intent.
It was there for context. No one knows Cara, so it wouldn’t have made sense without knowing their former name. Maybe it could’ve been phrased better, but it is relevant information for context.
That’s not what deadnaming is.
Deadnaming her would be calling her “Chris Cocker” and ignoring her new name. They are just saying what her identity was before she became Cara Cunningham. Makes it easier to understand the story.
So brave
It’s funny how it seems totally acceptable to be a complete asshole towards other people, especially on social media, but we’re somehow supposed to accept deadnaming as being off the limits.
Is it acceptable? In 4chan maybe
It’s a daily occurance on Lemmy as well. It just flies under the radar because for the most part it’s directed at people we don’t like to begin with.
I think criticizing people for what they do (eg: calling some politicians “murderers” because they allow genocide) is different than calling names just to hurt, which is what dead naming usually is.
I don’t think anyone should be okay with racism or that kind of attacks, even on people they hate. Kim Jong Un may be a piece of shit (or not), but calling him a racial slur is unproductive and definitely crossing the line.
Here, the deadnaming comes from ignorance, not hate; and it’s true that it might help clarify who someone is, but in this case everybody knows her for being the “leave Britney alone” person, not for her deadname. So it’s really unnecessary.
Sure, but I was mostly highlighting the naivety of coming to an online forum and effectively saying “please be nice and considerate of other people’s feelings” as if that’s going to achieve anything else but to make them look like a virtue signaling fool. It’s the internet we’re talking about after all. I agree with the intention, but see it as a wasted effort. Deadnaming is not going to become the next n-word.
Being an asshole doesn’t put you at a disadvantage though. You can not be an ass and also not deadname people. Theres not a contradiction here.
Are you arguing that assholes dead name? If so then we are in total agreement.