@Freyja
> In any case, it is very dangerous for trans people to have their private information (the fact that they are trans and their deadnames are private information according to French law) exposed on the internet.
How is it dangerous? Is it worse than showing someone's date of birth?
@mjambon @Freyja It's different to showing someone's date of birth (which also needs some care).
Not every post-transition trans person is publicly out as being trans. Especially if they transitioned before they became notable. The Conservative parties' moral panic over trans people has caused many trans people to experience death threats, harassment and someone violence merely for existing. As a result, "outing" notable figures as trans is dangerous.
@mjambon @Freyja we're not entitled to know the deadname of someone who transitioned before they became notable. If they're not public about it, it's not acceptable to put it into a public encyclopaedia while they're alive. This is also true of cis folk who change their name before they become notable. It is easier for many cis people to volunteer their former name (because it's usually less traumatic) and therefore more common.
@jarich @Freyja I'm learning that the poll was about "personne transgenre qui a acquis sous cette ancienne identité une notoriété suffisante [...]" (transgender person who, under this former identity, acquired sufficient notoriety [...]). This is not for people who were not famous before their transition. 🤔
@mjambon @Freyja I agree that in some cases, publishing someone's deadname helps with understanding continuity, for example when an already established artist/actor transitions, they're still the person who was part of their earlier work. Just as any other time artists/actors change their names they are still "formerly known as".
However, care needs to be taken with folk just getting established, because edge lords and AHs - upon learning of a deadname - often use the deadname exclusively.