• Chozo
    link
    fedilink
    1003 months ago

    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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        73 months ago

        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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      313 months ago

      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.