another transgender surprise.

Beware of virue signalling.

"Transphobia" is sometimes used to rouse intant support from those who see themselves as staunch trans allies. But use some discretion: look into the individual and chain of events before pledging your support.

And then.. do so/crack on!

But you cant assume that the one shouting loudest about being victimised is always the victim by default.

The legal aspect is very vague:
"When a homophobic or transphobic hate incident becomes a criminal offence, it’s known as a hate crime. There are no specific homophobic or transphobic hate crimes. Any criminal offence can be a hate crime, if the offender targeted you because of their prejudice or hostility against LGBT people.

When someone is charged with a homophobic or transphobic hate crime, the judge can impose a tougher sentence on the offender under the Criminal Justice Act 2003."

I am not suggesting anyone is hiding a criminal past but that was one of the hypotheticals in the thread regarding name changes and I wanted to give my opinion on that. that is all.

I have changed my name but i am not insulted or upset if my old one is used. So I cannot relate to that. If someone else does then I can only think that currently people seem to find it very easy to find things unacceptable.
I have had to put up with a lot of unacceptable abuse as a wheelchair user but no-one is bothered about that! I have no legal rights to challenge what people say to me because I am disabled And the most common one is being called a wheelchair. Though I have heard much worse.

I have enjoyed joining in because there is a lot to think about on this topic.

Especialy, for example, if say the person made jokes elluding doing to people in that group what they had in the past done to others.

The primary motivation for sharing the conviction and therefore the context of the joke/threat, in the above hypothetical example, would be about warning/safety of the targets, not primarily to be malicous. So no REAL grounds to sue in cases like that

^ that is my general understanding of how it works re disclosure of spend convictions.

Am not legal so not 100% sure

*OK notanan.
But how and why can this kind of situation lead to threats of legal action?*

Because "deadnaming" is being labelled a transphobic hate crime by some.

Although the OP seems to refer to citing of past convictions, which is only grounds to sue if it can be proven that the PRIMARY intention of sharing it was malicous, and not for example shared as say a warning to a group being perhaps targeted by that person. For example

Trisher what about the damage and pain of telling a child that their own childhood and memories are suddenly taboo, how is that okay? Denying their lived reality is so so damaging.

Can you give an example of that notanan2 or is it once again a figment of your imagination?
Yes and no its not
It happened to one of the jenners who shared a memory from childhood involving her dad when he WAS her "dad"

It also could be the case that the child (who as they are posting on-line is presumably old enough to know what they are doing) is deliberately deadnaming to cause pain. Understandable but not necessarily defendable.

How can reminiscing about your OWN childhood be malicous??

Can you give an example of that notanan2 or is it once again a figment of your imagination?
I can see that someone would prefer not to have their old name used but I doubt the rest of the scenario. It also could be the case that the child (who as they are posting on-line is presumably old enough to know what they are doing) is deliberately deadnaming to cause pain. Understandable but not necessarily defendable.

OK notanan.
But how and why can this kind of situation lead to threats of legal action?

Trisher you are spectacularly missing my point re deadnaming.

I am saying it is okay to use someones current name from the point when they change it onwards. It is not okay to ask people to pretend the previous name never existed.

Eg from 0-15 a child was raised by bob and rose
Then bob became Jill

Child accused of "deadnaming" if they refer to having been raised by bob. And is told that bob was always Jill. And that they were raised by a lesbian couple, and had 2 mums all along not a mum and a dad

Child trolled online for wanting their own past to remain intact.

This happens. This is what villifying "deadnaming" does

I see no answer pinkquartz so avoid the question If name changing is permitted (and it is legally) then the right to find the old name unacceptable has to be applicable to all surely.
Who is hiding a criminal past?

It does seem as though the troll on MN wanted trouble and has decided that going after MN would suffice.
That is how I see this now.
It is a shame that they are dragging in other issues and it will not help anyone if they keep calling it transphobia.
Hiding a criminal past is not a good thing. I have no idea if it is legal?

Trisher you cannot alter reality because it does not suit you.
all this talk about if a child, father, name change, etc is nothing to do with the fact that some people want to hide a criminal past with a name change.

That is a totally different issue. Also hiding a criminal past has nothing to do with changing gender.

Mixing the two up might cause distress for a lot of people.

notanan2 your post as regards children and the name of the father is interesting but not only connected with trans-gender issues. Suppose a child is given one name at birth but has little contact with the birth father and decides to use another name when they reach adulthood. Would you then expect that person to be addressed by the former name or the one they have chosen? And would you not accept that they might find the use of a name they have chosen to reject not just unacceptable but actually painful and damaging? And if the father chose to reestablish contact what name should he be expected to use?

notanan2 Yes, you are correct with the Mumsnet timeline.
The banned poster came on to a support thread for Caroline Farrow and posted in an unconstructive manner.
They also consistently broke the strict posting guidelines and were treated as any other transgressor. They accused Mumsnet of banning them due to transphobia.
Then as they say, the stuff hit the fan.

Be what or who you want to be but just don't expect everyone else to go along with your view of who you are.

What is clear to me, is that having seen a video clip of this person, there is no question as to gender.

So .... quite a lot responsibility put on to others ... goodness what happened to good natured tolerance, acceptance & perhaps a touch of lightheartedness that everyone may not be up to speed with the desired & or correct terminologies

If there was a poster on here who say had a history of financial abuse and fraud. And was befriending vulnerable posters and meeting them in RL, offering "help" with finances, in a similar pattern to how they had accessed victims in the past.

And you had a link to local papers reporting their history of fraud.

Would you send the posters the link?

Would you chose differently if there had been a name change in the interim? Should you?

(^all made up am aware of no such poster^)

Well.. there may be lots of reasons for deadnaming.

Sometimes it is important that people know exactly who they are dealing with, and the patterns of their past behaviours. Dont you think?

There is a difference of course between using a change of name to hide a criminal past, and I don't think there has been any suggestion that this was the case, and using a past name to deliberately hurt or harm someone, and I don't think it can in anyway be claimed that using the name in this case was meant to do anything but cause distress and to prove some point.
I do wish posts weren't deleted so quickly I always wonder why and what was said and I always think it was probably really interesting or at least amusing

Can we also talk about the effect of making deadnaming a crime on wives and children who are expected to re write their own histories?

If MrNot became Paul Brown tomorrow, I would call him Paul Brown from tomorrow onwards (I might slip up oncs or twice initially but I would adjust)
However I would NOT say "at my wedding to Paul". Because I did not wed Paul Brown. I wed MrNot. Why should I rewrite that history or agree to never speak of it?

I would also not expect the children to also pretend that their dad was always called Paul. They were raised by MrNot, who later became Paul.

Is that last sentance really a hate crime??

Gosh I’ve peeped at this thread a couple of times and (a) I can’t believe there are over 220 posts and (b) I probably only understand about 20 of them! This is way over my head.
?
It’s a whole new world out there.
I didn’t even know such opinions existed.

So back to generic right/wrong of "deadnaming"

Say my MIL insisted on continuously calling me MissMaidenname even though I took DHs name (she doesnt), thats nasty bullying, no question.

However: say my ex employer was asked for a reference and asked "are you aware of any serious professional missconduct carried out by notnan in this or a similar role" and the ex employer knew I had done something very serious, which made me ethically unsuitable for the new role I applied for..... BUT! The serious event happened when I used my maiden name!

Is my professional history wiped clean because of a name change? Does the ex employer have to let me get that new job knowing I have form for put people at risk for fear of "deadnaming" me?

Are peoples patterns of past behaviour never relevant?

(I have no serious misconduct charges by any name, all hypothetical)

I really dont want to risk commenting on the particular case / person too much but that follow-up article seems missleading.

I read on MN that the claiment being banned preceeded the persons request for a posters details.

The article makes it sound like the claiment was banned BECAUSE of the case.

I can not personally confirm the timeline either way, but I read on MN that the banning came first in the timeline of events. I do not know how true that is

(I hope that is phrased in a "safe" way....legally. we clearly have to take care when discussing this case/person)

I read that post. There was nothing "personal" or non factually correct in it??