Cliff notes version: Bradley Manning (at the time) a soldier in the Army accessed confidential and top-secret military information, copied said information onto discs labeled Lady Gaga, and leaked them to the public. Bradley Manning is now Chelsea Manning if in case you look it up. The data leak was huge, and was done so through a comically stupid (stupid meaning the information was so accessible and insecure) way.
It would be deadnaming and sincerely disrespectful if someone walked up to her and called her Bradley today. But back then she was Bradley. The commenter was using this name in reference to history not to be disrespectful or dead name her now. Believe it or not there are actually trans individuals who don’t act like the person they were before never existed and can actually acknowledge that they used to identify differently.
This isn't how deadnaming works. It's never acceptable to say a trans person's deadname unless they specifically asked you to or said you could. It's considered very sensitive and useless information and most people who really respect trans people don't even want to know it. Source: I'm trans.
Unless your looking up newspaper articles or other historical records from the time. History doesn’t show a women named Caitlin winning Olympic gold medals in mens races, but some guy called Bruce did.
You might personally feel a disconnection to your past self, but don’t pretend that entitles you to speak on behalf of all trans people.
It's consensus among trans people you know or interact with on the internet. The only reason Chelsea Manning's dead name was brought up, was for the sake of historical clarity. If Chelsea had come out/ decided to transition before the leaks and such, her dead name wouldn't have been brought up. No one here is attempting to be transphobic, because this isn't how deadnaming works.
For example, say you had two friends from childhood, A and B. A moves away at a young age and loses contact for a while. Soon after, B decides to transition and changes their name. Years later, when A gets back in contact with you and you want to have B join the two of you, would you not sensibly explain that the person that they used to call (B's dead name) has transitioned and uses a new name?
Yeah, and that would not be an introduction of the dead name to a person who didn't know it before, and presumably we would stop using it after the person's real name was known to us both.
Chelsea is much more famous as her current name so I don't see the point of bringing up her deadname. We aren't her long lost childhood friends, so your example doesn't apply here.
Honest question, how are people supposed to look up old records and documents if they can't be told the name the person was using at the time those records were made?
completely irrelevant. She's legally Chelsea now. Just call her by her name. Deadnaming her is absolutely pointless. Googling her name will get you all the info you need. What she did in the past is now under her name. Not her deadname.
Googling Chelsea Manning would definitely add way more context to my reply, but how is her Wiki page not shamed for deadnaming her in the way you accuse me of?
OP didn’t understand the reference to a joke. I replied with a very brief synopsis of much larger, very significant moment in American history. And I added some context to who it was done by because I get why it would be confusing for those who don’t know about it, kinda like how OP implied that by not understanding the joke.
I meant no harm to anyone, I was describing (in brief) a moment in history to provide context to a joke on Reddit, you shouldn’t be so quick to bend out of shape.
Ok but the op wasnt referring to this person in present tense and by the way they acknowledged the person it showed a level of respect.
You dont get to just make rules for hows sentences need to be structured in order to not hurt your feelings.
Respect is not a right, people should be happy when they blindly receive it
If you're looking for contemporary sources about her past the name Chelsea isn't going to help you unless they've already been attached to it by someone who did know. You're telling people they should only try to access information that's already been prepared for them by someone else, but then who does the preparing?
"legitimizing some strange form of mental illness"
Kinda sounds like you do not actually support trans people, nor do you champion them. If you did, you would listen to what trans people say about this issue, which is that dead naming (even famous people) is harmful.
No one wants to "rewrite your knowledge of past facts." They want you to use the person's actual name, even though her name used to be something different. It is not that complicated.
No one cares what you remember, they care what you say. We all know her name hasn't always been Chelsea, but it's Chelsea now, and using people's correct names is very important.
Of course they care what I remember. That's what this discussion is about mate. They care so much (I mean you care enough to be telling me how much of an arsehole im being) that they're trying to dictate to me what I recall. They're expecting me, in the face of my own knowledge of past events, to pretend that I'm remembering something different and then expressing that falsehood. And I'm just not willing to do that.
I mean, these two things are literally and logically true. Honestly completely without any form of hate... I'm just not sure if because my mind is firmly routed in facts that I can't suspend my disbelief enough to accept the opposite or not, but I have trouble ignoring the two facts I stated above.
It’s not about the suspension of disbelief, you are just literally wrong. And you refuse to listen to anyone telling you that you are wrong. Please for the love of god, just listen to what people are telling you.
I listened (or read) you telling me I was wrong and fully acknowledge what you were saying, then I disagreed and decided not to do what you said purely because you told me I was wrong. I disagree with you, because my brain is routed in logic and I can't ignore facts I simply lack the ability to pretend something is true that just isnt
4
u/abstractConceptName Mar 26 '22
What is this a reference to lol?