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.
I think the preferred way to arrange the headline would have been “TIL Cara Cunningham, formerly known as Chris Cocker…” The way it’s currently worded implies that “Chris Cocker” is their current and/or valid name. I’m sure that wasn’t OP’s intent at all and they were just leading with the more widely-recognized name, but I can also see where Blaze is coming from.
Except they aren’t particularly well known. I am not even sure how many people even remember “Leave Britney alone” anymore. Let alone the name of the person who was in the video (if they ever knew). If you were to look up whatever Scumbag Steve’s legal name was, I would stare at you and be confused. If you say “Scumbag Steve” I instantly remember that picture.
So, in this case, “Cara Cunningham went into pornography after her viral Leave Britney Alone” video would be the non-transphobic version of that headline. It conveys all the information required.
A good example is Elliot Page where things get murky and there often is a need to acknowledge he transitioned because, otherwise, it makes portrayals like Juno and Shadowcat and the like confusing. So the common phrase I hear, when it is relevant, is “Elliot Page, in work prior to his transition, portrayed a teenager who made the mistake of letting Michael Cera stick it in her…”
The way it’s currently worded implies that “Chris Cocker” is their current and/or valid name.
Calling bullshit here, the first sentence is informing everyone of the transition. "…who is now…"nare the next words after the name. This is the shite that bigots get to hold over progressive people, difficult and pedantic bullshit that creates a mindfield for people trying to do thenright thing.
Does it add any useful context, though? I don’t know either name but I do remember the “Leave Britney alone” video being a thing (and the fact that the person in the video turned out to be right all along when the truth about Britney’s situation came out years later), so the added context that she’s trans and what her dead name was is meaningless to me other than to say, “She used to be a man. She’s a woman now, but she was a man before. Did you know that? That she was once a man? Because she was. Here’s what her name was.”
As a trans woman, whose safety is so dependent on being able to go stealth in society, if I found out people were going around talking about me like this, I’d take a rusty icepick and make sure that they never think in words ever again. Lack of malicious intent doesn’t mean that no harm was caused. Your threat index is not universal.
This could have very easily been left at “Trans woman X got into porn after her viral video Y” and there would be all the context needed to figure out who they were and what video they were in without using their dead name. Hell, you probably wouldn’t even have to point out that she’s trans for people to figure it out. Cis people treat the privacy of trans people the same way that the paparazzi treats the privacy of celebrities.
A lobotomy with a rusty ice pick, at that. I don’t know of any situation in which torture could ever be conceived by anyone as an appropriate response, yet here we are
Did you miss the part about how my safety is dependent on going stealth? I moved somewhere where nobody knew me after transitioning for a reason. A stranger going around and telling random people my dead name would be like a stranger going around telling random people that a person is in witness protection and what their real name is. Again, your threat index isn’t universal.
The first rule of self-defense is that a battle not fought is a battle won. The second rule is if you have to hurt a man, you hurt him so bad that you need never fear his vengeance. If he can stand up, he can come right back at you.
So your response to feeling possibly in danger by someone calling you by the wrong name is to murder them? That’s totally normal and not at all unhinged.
The context that we’re talking about here isn’t somebody that you know personally and have permission from/are talking to mutual friends of. We’re talking about publicly announcing a stranger’s dead name to everybody who reads this post and the justification that it’s okay because they once had 15 minutes of internet fame from a video going viral before they transitioned. At best, it’s a paparazzi-esque invasion of privacy, and at worst, it’s straight up doxxing.
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.
I think the preferred way to arrange the headline would have been “TIL Cara Cunningham, formerly known as Chris Cocker…” The way it’s currently worded implies that “Chris Cocker” is their current and/or valid name. I’m sure that wasn’t OP’s intent at all and they were just leading with the more widely-recognized name, but I can also see where Blaze is coming from.
Here, naming the well-known person first helps clarify (though I’ve never heard of either).
Except they aren’t particularly well known. I am not even sure how many people even remember “Leave Britney alone” anymore. Let alone the name of the person who was in the video (if they ever knew). If you were to look up whatever Scumbag Steve’s legal name was, I would stare at you and be confused. If you say “Scumbag Steve” I instantly remember that picture.
So, in this case, “Cara Cunningham went into pornography after her viral Leave Britney Alone” video would be the non-transphobic version of that headline. It conveys all the information required.
A good example is Elliot Page where things get murky and there often is a need to acknowledge he transitioned because, otherwise, it makes portrayals like Juno and Shadowcat and the like confusing. So the common phrase I hear, when it is relevant, is “Elliot Page, in work prior to his transition, portrayed a teenager who made the mistake of letting Michael Cera stick it in her…”
But here? It adds nothing.
Calling bullshit here, the first sentence is informing everyone of the transition. "…who is now…"nare the next words after the name. This is the shite that bigots get to hold over progressive people, difficult and pedantic bullshit that creates a mindfield for people trying to do thenright thing.
deleted by creator
Does it add any useful context, though? I don’t know either name but I do remember the “Leave Britney alone” video being a thing (and the fact that the person in the video turned out to be right all along when the truth about Britney’s situation came out years later), so the added context that she’s trans and what her dead name was is meaningless to me other than to say, “She used to be a man. She’s a woman now, but she was a man before. Did you know that? That she was once a man? Because she was. Here’s what her name was.”
As a trans woman, whose safety is so dependent on being able to go stealth in society, if I found out people were going around talking about me like this, I’d take a rusty icepick and make sure that they never think in words ever again. Lack of malicious intent doesn’t mean that no harm was caused. Your threat index is not universal.
This could have very easily been left at “Trans woman X got into porn after her viral video Y” and there would be all the context needed to figure out who they were and what video they were in without using their dead name. Hell, you probably wouldn’t even have to point out that she’s trans for people to figure it out. Cis people treat the privacy of trans people the same way that the paparazzi treats the privacy of celebrities.
Wtf? You think a rusty icepick is a valid response if someone calls you by wrong name and gender? Y’all need Jesus or some shit like that. Damn…
A lobotomy with a rusty ice pick, at that. I don’t know of any situation in which torture could ever be conceived by anyone as an appropriate response, yet here we are
Did you miss the part about how my safety is dependent on going stealth? I moved somewhere where nobody knew me after transitioning for a reason. A stranger going around and telling random people my dead name would be like a stranger going around telling random people that a person is in witness protection and what their real name is. Again, your threat index isn’t universal.
The first rule of self-defense is that a battle not fought is a battle won. The second rule is if you have to hurt a man, you hurt him so bad that you need never fear his vengeance. If he can stand up, he can come right back at you.
Edgey AF
That seems like a perfectly appropriate reaction.
TIL the internet doesn’t understand hyperbole so long as it’s a trans person using it.
So your response to feeling possibly in danger by someone calling you by the wrong name is to murder them? That’s totally normal and not at all unhinged.
A. Hyperbole, look it up.
B. Why do you think it’s okay to dox people?
Please point out to me where I said it was okay to dox people. I’ll wait…
The context that we’re talking about here isn’t somebody that you know personally and have permission from/are talking to mutual friends of. We’re talking about publicly announcing a stranger’s dead name to everybody who reads this post and the justification that it’s okay because they once had 15 minutes of internet fame from a video going viral before they transitioned. At best, it’s a paparazzi-esque invasion of privacy, and at worst, it’s straight up doxxing.
Maybe you didn’t read my post correctly. Again, using quotes this time, what about my post says it is OK to dox people?