This is so shitty. I hate this world sometimes.
I am so in agreement. 
Yup, sometimes I am embarrassed to be a member of this species.
Or that you know they had their babies by artificial insemination by anonimous donor, rather than from their husband. In what culture would that be appropriate information to give, for anybody but the people directly involved?
Or that they were adopted.
Hey Darren Garrison, is that too much like 1984, demanding that the question of “was I adopted” be treated as a matter of confidence for those to whom it actually matters? Personally, I’d see it as a matter of common courtesy, but hey, if not outing someone as transgender and deadnaming them is too Orwellian for you, then this probably is too.
It’s really weird to me that showing respect for a person, and for their privacy, is seen as Orwellian. In this case, it is not only a matter of respect, but also recognizing that there are some potentially highly negative effects to deadnaming and outing someone.
It’s not denying history, or throwing anything into a memory hole. It’s respecting something that is none of your business, and realizing that it is not your place to spread around like a salacious piece of gossip. (generic you, there.)
Judging by my looks, I’m pretty sure I got a lot more than my 2% share of Neanderthal genes, so I don’t even have to worry about that. 
Any culture were artificial insemination by anonymous donor would be considered an immoral act to start with.
It is Orwellian in that it seems that people are expected to retcon the past. Going by famous examples, are we supposed to refer to Bruce Jenner’s Olympic performance,or Caitlyn Jenner’s Olympic performance? Bradley Manning stealing classified documents or Chealsea Manning stealing classified documents? Are we supposed to say that this is a video of Cher and Chastity Bono or Cher and Chaz Bono? If yes to all of those, that is absolutely like saying that we were always at war with Eastasia. It also reminds me of the photo editing from the USSR.
The thing is I don’t think what happened falls under the category of outing someone. Jane hasn’t made any attempt to conceal that she was once John. She stayed at the same company and kept all the same acquaintances. Now if Jane had relocated to another area, kept her past hidden, and the remark maker had snooped around in an amateur detective manner to find this information out and spread it that would be another thing. But in this case the information about Jane’s falls under the category of common community knowledge.
Do you have the same problem with people saying that Hillary Clinton was born in Chicago in 1947? Because she was Hillary Rodham at the time.
It’s a normal convention to refer to people by their current name even when discussing events that occurred in the part.
No, that isn’t the case here. As I said, most of the people in this group had first met Jane after her transition. They had never known her as John. And as far as I know, Jane has never brought the subject up in general conversations which I take as an indication she doesn’t want it to be general knowledge.
It’s not retconning. If you were giving formal testimony, no one expects to you deny knowledge of an event.
But perhaps you might err on the side of politeness in a social setting, and not say, “I’ve known Jimmy since he was in prison!” if you were unsure whether those around knew of Jimmy’s past.
And living with a body that is manifestly NOT the same gender as your mind is, I would argue, a fair parallel to prison . . . prison for a person wrongfully convicted, no less. The act of transition is personal enough that people may well deal with it in very different ways, and I can certainly imagine someone who proudly or defiantly shares their past, but that’s a decision for the transperson to make, not his or her acquaintances.
You don’t see a difference between retconning the past and just not saying things that are both private and personal? If the subject were whether someone was adopted, would you bring that up unsolicited in a group that didn’t all know? how about if if it were “I have known Jane since before she had that abortion,” or “since before she was in that abusive relationship?”
How is that “we have always been at war at Eastasia” when you bring up stuff that is not your story to tell for no reason at all?
I absolutely see it as outing. It is Jane’s business, and only Jane’s business, to divulge. There is a difference in having a private life and hiding a secret. Just because I know something about someone, I don’t have the right to tell all and sundry details of someone else’s history.
The whole “retcon” fallacy is clearly proven false by the fact that only those suffering from some sort of opposition-defiant disorder would go out of their way to accuse a married woman who changed her name of “retconning” if she preferred to be called by her married name when casually recounting past life events. Or a story about Elton John of being fraudulent if it referred to him like “when Elton entered high school…”
And the fact is that public records deal with name changes every single goddamn minute of the day. And yet, somehow, civilization has failed to crumble as predicted.
Where do you read that Jane hasn’t made any attempt to conceal? I read exactly the opposite, such as this quote:
The thought of forcing us back into the closet by forcing us to either go deep stealth, or else all bets are off, is cruel and senseless. Going deep stealth means you generally have lost your career, your family, your friends, your entire support system, everything. Just as women used to have to leave the city and vanish when they had an affair, an pregnany out of wedlock, an abortion, or married the wrong “type” of person. It was a paternalistic form of oppression which destroyed lives. Very similar to forcing us to give up everything just because some people in Jane’s life don’t have the common God damned decency not to be nosy little gossiping bitches.
That still wouldn’t make it any of your business. I find it immoral to cheat on one’s spouse, but that still doesn’t give me the right to know if an acquaintance is doing so.
And it sounded to me as if she were already presenting as Jane before getting this job, as “some” of her records were still under the name John. She didn’t “stay at the same company,” and as far as keeping the same acquaintances or not relocating - do you expect someone transitioning to completely cut everyone dead who has ever known? That sounds like it would make a hard position that much worse. I imagine that it is a necessary step - or feels to be - for some, but that is not her fault, and it shouldn’t be expected of her to do so.
This ridiculous hyperbole is making it impossible to take to your argument seriously.