Kate Tempest

[eFestivals]

40 minutes ago, teamcampesinos! said:

Wow. When historical revisionism has primarily been used to sculpt and amplify narratives and structures that further marginalisation, I have no idea how comparing respecting someone's identity could be compared to historical revisionism. 

There is more than one identity to respect.

 

Quote

If you feel so strongly that 'dead names' should be preserved as historical evidence, the only person who needs to conduct some self-reflection is you. 

I would hate for a trans person to be browsing the thread only to discover that the forum's admin not only supports a culture of dead-naming that inevitably devalidates trans identity, but implies that it is immoral to make any effort to change our behaviours to be as inclusive as possible. 

 

Dead naming is when someone refuses to recognise a changed identity, not when they recognise the past just as Kae does.

To quote Kae: "I'm changing my pronouns. From Kate to Kae".

She They doesn't deny where she's they've come from, and this topic title doesn't deny where she is they are now.

Edited August 11, 2020 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS: i believe that Kae hasn't had the Kate Tempest release catalog deleted.

And I know that they're happy to use the Kate Tempest name to gain web traffic.

If Kae can recognise and not delete her past (and exploit for gain), then surely it's not disrespectful for others to also recognise the same history.

[stuartbert two hats]

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

PS: i believe that Kae hasn't had the Kate Tempest release catalog deleted.

And I know that they're happy to use the Kate Tempest name to gain web traffic.

If Kae can recognise and not delete her past (and exploit for gain), then surely it's not disrespectful for others to also recognise the same history.

It's a little disrespectful to get their pronouns wrong in a post after doing a cute strike through thing on the previous post.

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

It's a little disrespectful to get their pronouns wrong in a post after doing a cute strike through thing on the previous post.

apologies for my imperfections, i'm not the first to use the more-usual ways of addressing individuals in error.

And the 'cute strike through thing' was me recognising my error in the most-public way possible, and not editing history to hide my error.

I'll now go and correct my further error in the same way.

Edited August 11, 2020 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

apologies for my imperfections, i'm not the first to use the more-normal ways of addressing individuals in error.

And the 'cute strike through thing' was me recognising my error in the most-public way possible, and not editing history to hide my error.

I'll now go and correct my further error in the same way.

No, actually .... I've just realised I made no error (in the post you quoted).

In Kae's past, she was a she. I was referencing that past and addressing it correctly.

Edited August 11, 2020 by eFestivals

[teamcampesinos!]

Just now, eFestivals said:

No, actually .... I've just realised I made no error.

In Kae's past, she was a she. I was referencing that past and addressing it correctly.

Are you being wilfully ignorant, or are you just ignorant here? I feel why this is problematic was addressed perfectly well in this very thread.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, teamcampesinos! said:

Are you being wilfully ignorant, or are you just ignorant here? I feel why this is problematic was addressed perfectly well in this very thread.

Just like Kae, I'm not going to pretend that Kae doesn't have a history as Kate.

So please do lessen mine and Kae's ignorance, I'm always happy to learn (not sure about Kae).

[stuartbert two hats]

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

apologies for my imperfections, i'm not the first to use the more-usual ways of addressing individuals in error.

And the 'cute strike through thing' was me recognising my error in the most-public way possible, and not editing history to hide my error.

I'll now go and correct my further error in the same way.

Fair enough. It didn't come across that way, but thank you for the clarification and apologies for getting the wrong end of the stick.

EDIT: just read your followup.

Edited August 11, 2020 by stuartbert two hats

[Henrik]

On 8/8/2020 at 12:25 AM, CaledonianGonzo said:

Easier just to say 'they' than stress about it.

Only issue with this is how do you know if someone is talking about one person or a group of people? 

Surely that's important to know? 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Fair enough. It didn't come across that way, but thank you for the clarification and apologies for getting the wrong end of the stick.

EDIT: just read your followup.

 

I said "If Kae can recognise and not delete her past..."

Which is saying "If Kae can recognise and not delete Kate's past". Kate is 'her'. 

Edited August 11, 2020 by eFestivals

[stuartbert two hats]

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

No, actually .... I've just realised I made no error (in the post you quoted).

In Kae's past, she was a she. I was referencing that past and addressing it correctly.

I disagree.  It's their past, not her past.  As in, it's the past that belongs to Kae, even if the past is about Kate.  It's not Kate's past - Kate no longer exists, it's Kae's, theirs.

This is not withstanding the contentious position that my understanding is that the etiquette is that the name change should be retrospective.

[Gilgamesh69]

Cringe

[stuartbert two hats]

7 minutes ago, Henrik said:

Only issue with this is how do you know if someone is talking about one person or a group of people? 

Surely that's important to know? 

Turns out it's not normally ambiguous.  I believe there were attempts to use new, singular-only gender neutral pronouns, such as Ze or Hir, but they never really caught on.

[Quark]

6 minutes ago, Henrik said:

Only issue with this is how do you know if someone is talking about one person or a group of people? 

Surely that's important to know? 

See this has been my challenge with the pronoun thing. Nothing to do with choice, the grammar just confuses me as I've also always thought of they/them as a plural.

But then I thought, if someone says to me "someone from x called for you" my response would be "what did they want?".  If I didn't know a gender I wouldn't discover that before deciding how to address them, I'd just go with "them" or "they" until I knew.

So I've kind of got my head around it now.

[Henrik]

I think Ze or Hir would definitely work better.

If someone said to me they had seen Kae Tempest at Glastonbury and they were great. I would just assume they were talking about a group. 

[priest17]

I understand people struggling with some of these concepts but its been really well explained elsewhere in the thread. Kae hasn't changed their identity, they've realised they always had a different one. Its one thing not changing a thread name that was created years ago, and I kind of get it as I doubt the album names and that will be changed as in this instance its somewhat a brand, but continuing to use the wrong pronouns out of stubbornness is a bit off. They didn't used to be she/her, they've realised they were always they/their therefore its appropriate to refer to their past self accordingly.

 

I'm guessing someone else has already pointed that out in the time it took me to write that post, I must admit I had to reread and correct a few of the pronouns I'd got wrong out of habit.

[stuartbert two hats]

5 minutes ago, Henrik said:

I think Ze or Hir would definitely work better.

If someone said to me they had seen Kae Tempest at Glastonbury and they were great. I would just assume they were talking about a group. 

If it caught on, yeah. But if someone said they had seen Kae Tempest at Glastonbury and hit were great, you would wonder what the fuck they were talking about. 

Edit: autocorrect didn't even know what the fuck I was talking about and changed "hir" to "hit". Error left in for posterity.

Edited August 11, 2020 by stuartbert two hats

[Quark]

Just now, stuartbert two hats said:

If it caught on, yeah. But if someone said they had seen Kae Tempest at Glastonbury and hit were great, you would wonder what the fuck they were talking about. 

I'd just assume they were from Yorkshire

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I disagree.  It's their past, not her past.

You're correct - but only if you're making up my intentions in what I was meaning for me.  

Because... I should have better worded my clarification...

Quote

As in, it's the past that belongs to Kae, even if the past is about Kate.  It's not Kate's past - Kate no longer exists, it's Kae's, theirs.

I said "If Kae can recognise and not delete her past..."

Which is saying "If Kae can recognise and not delete the past of Kate as a she...". 

 

Quote

This is not withstanding the contentious position that my understanding is that the etiquette is that the name change should be retrospective.

Get back to me when Kae has had her back catalogue deleted and re-issued as Kae. 

Get back to me when Kae isn't still using the katetempest.co.uk domain name.

Get back to me when Kae isn't saying "I've loved Kate".

[Winslow Leach]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You're correct - but only if you're making up my intentions in what I was meaning for me.  

Because... I should have better worded my clarification...

I said "If Kae can recognise and not delete her past..."

Which is saying "If Kae can recognise and not delete the past of Kate as a she...". 

 

Get back to me when Kae has had her back catalogue deleted and re-issued as Kae. 

Get back to me when Kae isn't still using the katetempest.co.uk domain name.

Get back to me when Kae isn't saying "I've loved Kate".

Alright Brendan O’Neill 

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, priest17 said:

but continuing to use the wrong pronouns out of stubbornness is a bit off.

and inventing your own reasonings for others isn't?  

I'd just gone back on a previous post to clearly indicate the errors I'd made with that, and put proper thought into how I made references in the next post (tho perhaps not enough thought into the full wording of what I was actually getting at. Ho Hum).

 

13 minutes ago, priest17 said:

They didn't used to be she/her, they've realised they were always they/their therefore its appropriate to refer to their past self accordingly.

And I respect that view.

It doesn't alter the fact of a past as Kate, and everything which came with it. Kate was an identity too.

Edited August 11, 2020 by eFestivals

[Homer]

15 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

If it caught on, yeah. But if someone said they had seen Kae Tempest at Glastonbury and hit were great, you would wonder what the fuck they were talking about. 

I definitely would - having accidentally walked past them performing at Bestival years ago.

[Quark]

Ultimately the only person who can tell us whether the past view of Kate/Kae and associated references should be left as Kate/her/she or amended to Kae/them/they is Kae. Everything else is speculation based on what we do or don't know about it based on examples we've come across (either personally or from public figures).

Until or unless Kae comes out and says one or the other (or is asked and responds) there's no real telling who's got the correct position on this. There's no clear hard & fast rules on this; everyone who goes through this process will have their own perspective and position on it.

Edited August 11, 2020 by Quark
Whoops! So easy to get this wrong (or right depending on your interpretation :D )

[eFestivals]

Just now, Quark said:

Ultimately the only person who can tell us whether the past view of Kate and associated references should be left as Kate/her/she or amended to Kae/them/they is Kae.

I agree.

And as I pointed out, she's still allowing 'kate' to exist as a historical within the things fully within her control (domain name use, work published to date, and her statement).

That historical can be referenced in the manner as it was.

[Tuna]

mr efestivals in being confontational shocker. state of it.