A comment aimed at readers, authors, and commenters alike:
Please try not to misgender people, but also don’t assume ill intent if someone does; a correction is appreciated, but insinuations of ill intent are not. The post currently has correct pronouns, and we’re considering this topic closed in this case.
In this instance, the “formerly X” seems quite relevant because of Torres’s history in EA. If I was the OP, I wouldn’t immediately know how to unambiguously make the point that we’re talking about the person who made all these crazy bad-faith accusations against EA without something like “formerly X.” (Of course, I’d see no need to mention “formerly X” if Torres was entirely new to EA or didn’t have a public persona beforehand.)
If you know of a better way to handle this issue with previous EA involvement, maybe it would be helpful for others to post a suggestion.
The post currently includes a deadname. Deadnames are harmful and it’s completely unnecessary to include it here because the OP is literally quoting the source’s Twitter account. This is rationalizing bigotry.
Academia references people by their last names all of the time. A much more unambiguous way to reference this person would be a simply sentence providing the context (e.g., “the same tores who was notoriously banned from EA for slagging certain people off”). This isnt difficult. So not difficult, that the OP actually did include this context so that no one was confused.
Phil Torres is not currently a deadname. A deadname is a name that someone is no longer using in their public persona, but the name Phil is displayed prominently on their web page. Searching Amazon for Phil Torres finds their books, searching Amazon for Emile Torres does not.
Moreover, it’s basically impossible to understand what’s going on here without knowing that Phil and Emile are the same person, and asking the original poster to avoid mentioning the name-mapping is asking them to obfuscate.
Phil Torres is not currently a deadname...he name Phil is displayed prominently on their web page.
I do not think this is a fair characterization of what the page contains. His name is only displayed within an image of the cover of books he wrote beforehand, and in exact quotes. That said, even though I don’t think he actually has said his former name is upsetting or offensive to him, I think the norm of calling people what they request to be called, and not using their former name, is a reasonable one.
That’s completely fair—but as I said, “I don’t think he actually has said his former name is upsetting or offensive to him, I think the norm of calling people what they request to be called, and not using their former name, is a reasonable one.”
Thank you for educating people in this community about the harm caused by deadnames.
My personal impression is that no one here meant to cause harm by it and I’m pleased to see that the OP has updated the post twice. I do expect that there is a bit of defensiveness going on as a result of Émile’s (to my mind, extremely bad faith) attacks on the community and in reaction to accusations of ill intent that people believe are unfounded, but “rationalizing bigotry” seems to me an exaggeration. I think people can reasonably disagree on whether exaggerations, strong language etc are usually necessary to achieve justice, but I think people in this community generally think it’s very rare that that’s the most effective approach, so I think this sort of thing is why you’ve been getting a lot of downvotes.
I also admit that I was thinking “Surely sometimes it’s okay to mention a deadname to provide relevant clarification, but I don’t have enough understanding to know how to do it sensitively in this case yet” and now I think that something similar to your suggestion here would be a good solution. I expect you are feeling very hurt and angry as a result of the comments on this post, but if you feel up to engaging further, I’d be interested to know if you think the following phrasing might be okay:
“However, they did not disclose that Émile P. Torres (who used to go by a different first name) was a co-author on the article...”
I’m hoping that it might be okay (although of course I know I’m not asking Émile themself but it seems like you have a lot more knowledge about this sort of thing than others here) and also might be sufficiently clear who is being referred to.
You can actually use a deadname to reference people when it’s necessary, but because the OP put it all in context, no one needed the reference, everyone who cares knew who they were talking about. And generally in academic circles, especially self referencing ones like EA, using last names only is entirely acceptable.
The problem here is that the OP quite intentionally chose to use a deadname to begin with while they were quite clearly posting an otherwise maligning post about someone who also happened to be transgender. It’s incredibly suspect and the fact that the OP ignored me regarding the deadname just confirms the suspicion.
Sacrificing concern for harm brought to others in pursuit of rational purity over some petty drama post about the inconsequential politics of EA intrigue is not a serious altruistic argument. I’m sorry, I can never take that seriously.
A comment aimed at readers, authors, and commenters alike:
Please try not to misgender people, but also don’t assume ill intent if someone does; a correction is appreciated, but insinuations of ill intent are not. The post currently has correct pronouns, and we’re considering this topic closed in this case.
On deadnames, I currently agree with Lukas Gloor’s comment:
The post currently includes a deadname. Deadnames are harmful and it’s completely unnecessary to include it here because the OP is literally quoting the source’s Twitter account. This is rationalizing bigotry.
Academia references people by their last names all of the time. A much more unambiguous way to reference this person would be a simply sentence providing the context (e.g., “the same tores who was notoriously banned from EA for slagging certain people off”). This isnt difficult. So not difficult, that the OP actually did include this context so that no one was confused.
Phil Torres is not currently a deadname. A deadname is a name that someone is no longer using in their public persona, but the name Phil is displayed prominently on their web page. Searching Amazon for Phil Torres finds their books, searching Amazon for Emile Torres does not.
Moreover, it’s basically impossible to understand what’s going on here without knowing that Phil and Emile are the same person, and asking the original poster to avoid mentioning the name-mapping is asking them to obfuscate.
I do not think this is a fair characterization of what the page contains. His name is only displayed within an image of the cover of books he wrote beforehand, and in exact quotes. That said, even though I don’t think he actually has said his former name is upsetting or offensive to him, I think the norm of calling people what they request to be called, and not using their former name, is a reasonable one.
No, in addition to the 12 places you mention it is also at the bottom of every page:
and elsewhere on the website, in much the same usage as this post:
That’s completely fair—but as I said, “I don’t think he actually has said his former name is upsetting or offensive to him, I think the norm of calling people what they request to be called, and not using their former name, is a reasonable one.”
Thank you for educating people in this community about the harm caused by deadnames.
My personal impression is that no one here meant to cause harm by it and I’m pleased to see that the OP has updated the post twice. I do expect that there is a bit of defensiveness going on as a result of Émile’s (to my mind, extremely bad faith) attacks on the community and in reaction to accusations of ill intent that people believe are unfounded, but “rationalizing bigotry” seems to me an exaggeration. I think people can reasonably disagree on whether exaggerations, strong language etc are usually necessary to achieve justice, but I think people in this community generally think it’s very rare that that’s the most effective approach, so I think this sort of thing is why you’ve been getting a lot of downvotes.
I also admit that I was thinking “Surely sometimes it’s okay to mention a deadname to provide relevant clarification, but I don’t have enough understanding to know how to do it sensitively in this case yet” and now I think that something similar to your suggestion here would be a good solution. I expect you are feeling very hurt and angry as a result of the comments on this post, but if you feel up to engaging further, I’d be interested to know if you think the following phrasing might be okay:
“However, they did not disclose that Émile P. Torres (who used to go by a different first name) was a co-author on the article...”
I’m hoping that it might be okay (although of course I know I’m not asking Émile themself but it seems like you have a lot more knowledge about this sort of thing than others here) and also might be sufficiently clear who is being referred to.
You can actually use a deadname to reference people when it’s necessary, but because the OP put it all in context, no one needed the reference, everyone who cares knew who they were talking about. And generally in academic circles, especially self referencing ones like EA, using last names only is entirely acceptable.
The problem here is that the OP quite intentionally chose to use a deadname to begin with while they were quite clearly posting an otherwise maligning post about someone who also happened to be transgender. It’s incredibly suspect and the fact that the OP ignored me regarding the deadname just confirms the suspicion.
Sacrificing concern for harm brought to others in pursuit of rational purity over some petty drama post about the inconsequential politics of EA intrigue is not a serious altruistic argument. I’m sorry, I can never take that seriously.
What do you consider to be the etiquette when the person refers to themselves as ‘formerly X’, or something to that effect?