In Ten years this is gonna have a Mandela Effect on some people lol

I never knew there were a lot of people who got off on pics of Nelson Mandela's tootsies.

I didn't know this was a thing.

“They” has been used to refer to an unknown person (since the gender was not known), not a singular person. While an unknown person is a singular person, “unknown” and “singular” are not interchangeable.

Add me to the cringing-for-literacy camp, however I find the use of “they” more problematic on entirely different levels: the use of “they” has been used for a singular person of a unknown gender. Not an “ambiguous” gender. Not a “non-gender.” Not a “non-confirming” gender. An unknown gender. To me, it is more offensive to call a person’s gender “unknown” when a person deems that they (see ... unknown) have arrived at a comfortable or determined gender — presumably a deeply personal quest for a definite status. I know my opinion doesn’t matter on this, but I find it more demeaning to say “they.” You may as well be using “it” (which I agree is problematic as “it” denotes a thing, not a person) if you are going to use “they.” The goal is to find identity, but the use of those pronouns strips identity away.

You are confusing him with Bishop Desmond Toosties. (Which is funny, because he’s usually confused with Morgan Feetman.)

WWE play-by-play announcers are banned from using pronouns. They have to say the character name every time to build the name recognition.

Dalton Ross & Jessica Shaw did this story on their radio show. Basically the story was that Elliot Page had come out as trans. They mentioned that he was in The Umbrella Academy and maybe Juno too, but they never mentioned the name Ellen Page, so unless you already knew the story or could figure out they were talking about by the credits, you'd have no idea who they were talking about. Is there some reason they wouldn't talk about it being Ellen Page so that people might actually know who they were talking about?

There's a complicated history around the whole thing of "deadnaming" (which is, to say, referring to someone by their name assigned at birth, as opposed to their newer (legally changed or otherwise) name. On one side... it sucks to do it because it's seen as dismissive and denying their agency. But this aspect is very much about private people; in an office, or community, or friendships, etc. If you constantly refer to someone by their deadname, when they've asked you (the general you) not to, then that's a shitty thing to do.

However, I do think there's some... care (?) to be had when it comes to public figures such as the case here. Yes, people should go by the new name going forward, but there's a (no pun intended, honestly) transition period where it makes sense to... carefully ... choose a way to acknowledge the person's previous name/identity. There's a big difference between, for example, "Ellen Page says she's a boy; Call her Elliot!" vs. "Elliot Page, formerly known as Ellen, comes out as transgender." Now... a LOT of people will still take issue with even the second sentence, and I get that. It's not ideal for the person and/or the LGBT+ community if deadnaming goes on without some push-back. However, in the short time where it's a newsworthy thing... I think if the desire is to have people better understand the situation, it's best to give the audience some kind of information as to how this usually plays out. But more than anything... I think it's up to the person in question to -- not necessarily control but at least have a significant say in -- determine how to use the deadname, if at all, when writing/speaking about the news itself. I imagine, in this case, Elliot is not interested in starting his career over from scratch, but acknowledging the past art for what it is, while encouraging understanding and acceptance of the change that has been announced.
Much like the Wachowski's. They didn't go back and change their credits on all their films, but only on their work going forward. IMDB and other sites are likely updated accordingly, but there's nothing wrong with that and IMDB already has a mechanism for how people are credited in a film/show vs. their more common names. I can't think of another specific example, but it's similar to when people go by First Middle Last now, but originally as First Last. Their credits in IMDB usually say something like: Character - Played by First Middle Last (credited as First Last). The same could be used here, without much issue/complaint other than those looking for conflict, naturally.

IMDb has updated to an Elliot Page page, and all of his credits have been amended to indicate he was credited "as Ellen Page."

I remember the deadnaming being an issue of how to discuss Caitlyn Jenner's career as an Olympic athlete.
If Caitlyn Jenner is a female, then how do you talk about a female winning the Men's Decathalon without explaining that Caitlyn used to be a man named Bruce? And you can't erase from history all those Wheaties boxes with a picture of a man named Bruce Jenner on them.

Exactly as I expected.


With a footnote/sidenote. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that, and as I already said, public figures are a bit of a gray area to begin with, because they have notable accomplishments that can be scrutinized by everyone (well-meaning, or not). I know not everyone agrees with my take on this (many are further in the "even notable accomplishments by public figures don't deserve deadnaming because the person is still the same person) and I don't disagree with that argument... I just think it's unrealistic to expect the average public to be savvy to that (for now).

But it takes 30 seconds to go from "How did someone named 'Caitlin' win the men's decathalon?" to wikipedia to "Oh, because Caitlin is transgender and came out in 2016 (or whenever it was), many years later."

edit: I should clarify. When I say public figures have "notable accomplishments" I just mean the type that are of interest the public in a significant way. And even still, many of those accomplishments don't necessarily need to be footnoted with "but this man was a woman at the time, or this woman was a man at the time," if the accomplishment has no correlation to their gender.

It still seems odd to do a news story about Elliot Page announcing his transition without mentioning Ellen Page at all. The average person might not know who is being discussed based on a few mentions of stuff that Ellen Page has been in. If I had not already heard the story was about Ellen Page, I wouldn't necessarily know who the heck Elliot Page from The Umbrella Academy is, since I've never watched the show. I would have just figured it was some actor I never heard of.

There is a huge amount about this issue to explore, and I don't think this is the place to do it or that I am qualified to speak to the subject with care and expertise.

My only area of interest is how we construct reality through the use of language.

Does a trans female named Caitlyn Jenner claim the accomplishments of a man named Bruce Jenner as part of her life biography? If so, that name and gender assignment should not be off-limits when discussing her life.

Same thing with Elliot Page because it is a matter of the historical record that a woman named Ellen Page was nominated for Best Actress.

That's the woke thing to do. You erase their previous identifiers (name and gender) from the conversation. And some people think it is even offensive to add the modifiers (trans man or trans woman) to the trans identification. Notice that Elliot did not say he is a trans man, just trans. And still, the language is not mainstream enough for most people to necessarily know what trans man and trans woman indicate.

Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of woke?

I am just someone who is very interested in language and rhetoric, so I am very attuned to listening to how public figures and the "media elites" communicate. And these days, language can really be a minefield, so from a bird's eye view, it is rather easy to spot what people are avoiding.
If Ellen Page got married and changed her name to Ellen Jones, nobody would give a shit about references to Ellen Page.
But Elliot Page is a statement of identity, and (for some people) any reference to Ellen Page is taken as a slight. Ellen Page is an identity that now only exists to people that want to deny Elliot's trans status, and to talk about Ellen Page is a slap in the face to him and the trans community as a whole.

I understand that going forward but it seems odd to me that a news article written specifically about a person, particularly a famous person, changing their name would not be able to write the former name.

Now, in a year if Elliot Page does something of note to be in the news again, I can totally understand not using the former name. To me that would be insulting. Using the former name in story specifically about a name/identity change is not.

I have noticed that also. The attempted complete redaction of all fragments of the former self is something I find problematically PC. One can respect and support the person's decision without ignoring the fact that, for 33 years until a couple of days ago, Elliot was known as Ellen.

I didn't know you were one of us freaks. Welcome to the fold.

She can do whatever she wants if it makes her happy. As long as she isn't hurting anyone. Good for her to be up front and unafraid.

Good thing this wasn’t a tweet that a lot of people could see.

I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it wasn’t made to be insulting. it’s a change we’re all still getting used to.

But also,

Sure. Just saying something like that would get ripped to shreds on there. Just the reality of how things go. Like someone mentioned about Deadline earlier.

Why?


edit to add - Honestly, I don't get it. Why is that a problem? I honestly think she should be able to live how she wants, love who she wants, and not be persecuted or harassed for it. If she's happy, that's great! Is calling her, "She," really wrong? She's still a woman biologically/anatomically/genetically. I don't understand how being a woman is somehow offensive. You are what you are. So what? I thought that we weren't supposed to tie people down to gender roles as much as in the past. If a woman wants to identify with a more masculine point of view, so what? There's nothing wrong with that. She's still a woman, but women don't have to be just one thing. They can love who they want, dress how they want, do any job they want. That's a good thing, isn't it?? So I don't get the problem. Honestly.