you should all shut up, since that person was right about britney all allong, albeit he or she kinda messed up the execution.
i feel bad for th eharrasment he or she faced.
It was viral but not likely in a "good" or "nice" way, it was honestly hilarious, my take at the time was, bruh why do you care so much that you're literally having a breakdown about people talking shit about a celebrity.
Very easy to say when it's not your face being blasted everywhere in exclusively negative contexts
I would say so, yeah. When that "leave Britney alone" video came out, it was universally mocked. No one was like "man this person seems upset, maybe they're right", it was became an iconic cringe-meme blasted on every media source, be it comedy shows, shit like South Park, websites, diss channels.. all with the intent of laughing at the guy. It was like being canceled but not for doing anything wrong, just for being hilarious to make fun of.
Definitely not the good kind of viral
There was definitely a lot of people, especially in the queer community, who shared her video in total agreement that she hit the nail on the head.
H8rs gonna hate, but this video was a major success for her. And for Brittany.
Damn after all the legal cases, Cara was right!!! We should've listened! I remember thinking, holy shit yeah leave Brittney alone!
She looks good glad for her and after reading Britney Spears book. Yes we all owe her a apology.
You must have JUST watched timeline 2001, got reminded he existed, did research, and then found out he is now a she.
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.
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.
In this case, I tend to disagree; though I’ve never heard of either, to me the headline mentions a well known person, whose transition is still (mostly) unknown. In such cases, the text should then solely refer to the new name.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Otherwise you’re playing “Guess who’s trans!”
I'm just imagining the classic Hasbro game Guess Who except it's the most fucked up version there is.
I will second this. So much fun trying to figure out, "Are they a man child?" or "High school teacher who is burnt out from teaching?" or "Would you want to run into this person in a dark alleyway?"
Except that's not at all what's happening here. We're not talking about somebody we know personally with their permission or anything, we're talking about an actress who got into pornography after having an emotional video go viral many years ago. Her dead name has nothing to do with that, and if you had even left out the fact that she's trans, most people probably could've figured it out if they even bothered to go check out the original video. Abd if they didn't? It wouldn't make a difference in their knowledge of the subject. They'd still know that a woman who had an emotional video go viral years ago later became a porn actress. All her dead name adds to this is a possibly paparazzi style invasion of her privacy.
No fucking way that's true. Nobody learns these people's names. They were the Leave Britney Alone guy. That's all the name they were known by. Anyone who says they bothered to learn their name is a liar.
"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.
Well yes, that's why I referred to it as deadnaming. This is the one circumstance where its reasonable to do. Otherwise it leads to unwittingly deadnaming someone to others (or god forbid, to their face).
The one circumstance where it is okay is when you want to deadname someone?
The only interesting fact here is that someone transitioned into who they actually are.
Alright, there's no way we're actually opposed people here. How do you tell others that someone has transitioned?
I don't because it is not my place to tell.
That said: porn star Cara Cunningham was the star of the leave Britney alone meme.
Dude what are you talking about, yes it is. If they're publicly out, and you're not endangering them by doing so, and they havent asked you not to for some reason, it's absolutely your place to let people know. You're not stealing their thunder, you're sparing them from being deadnamed/misgendered by everyone in their social circles and them having to explain it over and over and over. I get where you're coming from, but have you had any close friends come out publicly as trans? It's fucking scary and emotionally exhausting, so anything you can do to take some of the load off is incredibly important.
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.
As I said, it could have been phrased better. But the take away I was trying to communicate is that they aren't intending to offend by including the deadname. It's just there for context and not something to be offended at.
It's technically not deadnaming, because OP got the fucking name wrong. Chris Crocker. And that was just a stage name.
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.
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.
Shit on people for what they do, not for what they are.
jonathan majors is (allegedly?) a domestic abusing piece of shit. Yet I didn't see a massive swarm of people insisting we need to start calling him the n-word.
Yet when a trans person is in the media (also I am not sure how Cara is an asshole in this situation, but I have not followed her in the slightest), everyone suddenly decides it is their civic duty to be as transphobic as possible.
Which mostly just says a lot about them.
