Talk:Deadnaming

Popular culture and Chelsea Manning

I'm not sure that the contents of the Popular culture are due. Ideally, we should look at the general literature about deadnaming in reliable sources and highlight the examples that they do. As currently written, Manning comes off as a cherrypicked example based on opinion pieces in response to news coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, good points. It seemed like a prominent instance of the issue - I suppose that is what I thought was significant about it. Would you recommend removing it entirely or simply reducing the length? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

This article may wish to include criticism of the concept of deadnaming, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:F407:7852:2567:3653:94E:EF9F (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It rather seems it is written from the POV of criticism. "Deadnaming is the use use of the birth or other former name [..] of a transgender or non-binary person without their consent." Using a birth name or other former name of binary and non-transgender persons is quite common, sometimes with consent, sometimes without (cf e.g. WP:Article titles#Name changes). Deadnaming is to my understanding a new term, created to criticise the practice, when it comes to transgender people that have changed their name in the context of changing official gender.

I suppose it is quite unusual on Wikipedia to have articles on derogatory terms like this one, and I find it odd that we discuss it from the transgender POV only. While I personally think people's gender identity should be honoured, my opinion, and the opinion of the transgender community, should not be the standpoint of Wikipedia. Instead Wikipedia should make clear this is a derogatory term expressing the standpoint of a community and of many supportive of that community. We can discuss all the points raised by that community, but we should not present them as those of the encyclopaedia.

–LPfi (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It appears that, for whatever reason, no one replied to the above comments. It does seem problematic that the birth name of Sophie (musician), who is indeed now dead, keeps being removed from the article about Sophie. That's simply unencyclopedic, and unacceptable in light of the fact that many readers will expect to find this information in the article. Sophie's feelings can't be hurt since Sophie is deceased. (Note: I did not include any pronouns in this comment because Sophie preferred that people not use them when referring to Sophie.) 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Contentious Content

This page contains opinion and introduces a term that is not widely accepted. It should be wholly rewritten to remove its current inherent bias. I get that people were angry when they wrote it, but retributive terms such as this need more context if they are notable enough to be included on wikipedia at all.2601:182:4381:E60:A826:7026:8F1F:45B5 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

How is a deadname different than someones name before they legally change it?

I.e. birth name, former name, prior name, etc? 85.148.213.144 (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It's different in that the word is not used in that way in notable sources. If your question is regarding why that is.. WP:NOTFORUM - not for us to decide or discuss. Feel free to ask the folks over at the Reference Desk.  Aar  ►  22:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

If it is not used for that, then what do you call it then? I honestly want to know the word for it. 184.54.154.146 (talk)

Reed/Lavery

@Crossroads, my thought is that including Lavery and Reed/Castiglia's pieces, especially to the extent they are represented now, places heavy undue weight on an unrepresentative and extreme stance on deadnaming. There's a lot of debate on how, say, old bylines ought to be handled, whether it makes sense to avoid all mentions of pre-transition names in articles on history (e.g. more suitable sources might be found in sources on the Hypatia transracialism controversy, or the Times byline brouhaha) and that's generally reflected in the secondary RS; we don't need to contentiously cherry-pick opinion pieces to write about what the prominent viewpoints are. Reed's is a tiny minority view. When 72 scholars in fairly niche fields like queer studies write up a letter to say these ideas are nonsense within just 2 days of its publication (!), we should certainly not be presenting this as a case where Reed and Lavery's views are on equal footing, much less be using it as a representative example of disputes in the queer community. These views sit notably outside the debate presented in secondary RS; they encompass a very odd straw-postmodernist questioning of the idea people can ethically assert any preferences about what other people call them. Per Reed's "axioms":

The English language is rich in non-gendered – or humorously gendered – possibilities for pronouns. Consider the 19th-century term “thon” (a contraction of “the one”), or the more recent “herm” (from the trickster god Hermes, this term referred to the artificial phalluses used by the ancient Greek to mark boundaries and bring good luck). We could play with these. [...] The only ethical conclusion to the statement that begins “My pronouns are” may be “I and me.”

I'd like to think we can agree a source which mulls whether people's resistance to being called "herm" or "thon" may be...uh, unethical? may not be the best choice to argue a pro-deadname POV. Is there any pressing need to keep this material rather than just substituting a better pro-deadnaming one? It can't be that hard to find. —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

We certainly can modify how it is presented, but it sounds to me like if 72 scholars commented on it, the incident is noteworthy just by virtue of that. So I think it would be better to try to keep the coverage of this incident, even if tweaks are made to how it is stated or attributed. I wasn't really aware of this incident before this explanation and reverted the removal because the reason didn't seem to justify it. I get your concerns better now but still feel we should cover it somehow. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The matter of pronoun selection is not the same as the title of this article, "deadnaming". It is related in some cases, but that is not something to discuss as part of this article. Pete unseth (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Birth certificate changes

I have heard of people wanting to change their names (sometimes their gender, also) on their birth certificates. Since a birth certificate is a record of what happened and was decided and recorded in the past, it seems to contradict the purpose of a birth cetificate. Is the topic of brth certificates something that should be included in this article? Pete unseth (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pete unseth: As a human who has received a new birth certificate after adoption, I can attest, legally the past can change. I have other stories about the mailable historical truth from diplomacy too. We live in a strange world. —¿philoserf? (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Does "deadnaming" apply only to transgender people, or also to others?

For instance, is it "deadnaming" to refer to John Wayne as "Marion Robert Morrison" (as his wiki does)? --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.37.199.202 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

No. There is no change of gender in that case, hence no denial of the gender by using it. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Deadnaming is the use of the birth or other former name (i.e., a name that is "dead") of a transgender or non-binary person without their consent.
Why can't it be generalized to anyone instead of only transgender people? The term "deadnaming" in itself sounds pretty general. MorbidFlorist (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)