Serious question here. If someone was well known as a previous name and sex, is it still deadnaming to refer to them that was in a historical context? They’re a perfect example here. If looking for historical information on their racing history and articles, you have to refer to them as Bruce.
IMO, best practice is still to use the current name/pronouns. I think it’s OK to say something like “Caitlyn, formerly known as Bruce” if clarity is needed and then proceed with current name going forward. In this instance, everyone knew who we were talking about so it was unnecessary.
My personal take: If I’m synthesizing historical information and recounting it in the current day, I would use their current name and pronouns. The person they are today (or died as) still did those things. It also gives space to recognize that, although they might not gave had the opportunity to be out as a trans person during those achievements, doesn’t mean they didn’t feel trans back then.
Serious question here. If someone was well known as a previous name and sex, is it still deadnaming to refer to them that was in a historical context? They’re a perfect example here. If looking for historical information on their racing history and articles, you have to refer to them as Bruce.
IMO, best practice is still to use the current name/pronouns. I think it’s OK to say something like “Caitlyn, formerly known as Bruce” if clarity is needed and then proceed with current name going forward. In this instance, everyone knew who we were talking about so it was unnecessary.
My personal take: If I’m synthesizing historical information and recounting it in the current day, I would use their current name and pronouns. The person they are today (or died as) still did those things. It also gives space to recognize that, although they might not gave had the opportunity to be out as a trans person during those achievements, doesn’t mean they didn’t feel trans back then.