If you tell me to call you Lord Joseph, is it really so wrong for me to ask you for your credentials? If I refer to you as 'him,' not 'His Lordship,' am I really the one in the wrong?
Do you sincerely believe the two situations are comparable?
In other words, because you don't like the name "Lil Miss Hot Mess" (I assume because it is not as serious as "Joe" or "Torgo", as names go), is it OK to call anyone by whatever name you prefer, and refuse to acknowledge them as anything else? Whether I think "Lil Miss Hot Mess" is a ridiculous name or not doesn't alter the reality that facebook daily "disappears" people's accounts whose names aren't up to their standards. This change in policy gives people a week to protest that disappearance, but it doesn't change facebook's level of control. They still decide who you can be online (at least on facebook).
The thing is that I don't know where to draw that line on what is "too ridiculous", and I don't think anyone else really does, either. So, given that names are arbitrary (even when enforcing a "real names" policy, there are people who have ridiculous names), and given that enforcing a real names policy harms countless people, and given that not enforcing real names has very little negative result except to facebook's bottom line (and even that is negligible), I just don't see it as defensible.
The argument that it prevents abuse and bullying is shown to be a lie by the fact that this policy has been used, since facebook's inception, to bully people, and facebook has for all that time remained complicit, and even an active participant, in that bullying. You can't claim to want to prevent bullying if you're the one holding the victim down while someone else punches them.
No one can make you call Lil Miss Hot Mess by her chosen name, but, ethically, I don't think anyone can tell her not to go by that name, and I don't believe it is ethical to demand she "prove" that's the name she wants to go by, either. If she says it's the name she prefers...well, who would know better what she wants?
FB: "Our policy has never been to require everyone on Facebook to use their legal name. The spirit of our policy is that everyone on Facebook uses the authentic name they use in real life. For Sister Roma, that's Sister Roma. For Lil Miss Hot Mess, that's Lil Miss Hot Mess."
Not using someone's preferred name / gender pronouns is plain and simple being an asshole. Nobody really gives a shit about your opinions on being trans or whatever -- we've literally heard every argument you could possibly make many, many times. Just don't be an asshole so my day isn't ruined and I can pretend your outdated views don't exist.
It's not a joke: it's a serious example. You are not (I assume) nobility in any recognised peerage; a man who believes he is a woman is not in any recognisable sense actually a woman.
Or maybe you are actually a peer, or maybe she really is a woman. In which cases yes, I'd like to see proof which outweighs the evidence to the contrary.
> And, I've mentioned that many trans folks find that kind of response hurtful.
It may be hurtful to the theoretical you-of-the-example to note that you are a commoner; it may be hurtful to a man who believes himself a woman to note that he is a man. But, y'know, you are and he is.
It's hurtful to me when folks point out my errors and mistakes, but I can't change reality to match what I think it is or want it to be.
> Do you sincerely believe the two situations are comparable?
Yes, they are exact analogues from my point of view, for the reason that neither noble titles nor sex are subjective: they are objective reality.
You'll need to back that up with some citations. My understanding of the relevant science, from many angles (biology and psychology, in particular) says otherwise. The science says that sex and gender are much more complex than merely "either/or" and that trying to put a binary onto something that complex isn't useful and potentially even dangerous for those most at risk.
And, my personal interactions with people who suffer from gender dysphoria, among other issues, tells me that it causes harm when I refuse to respect their desire to be called by their preferred name and gender. I don't want to cause harm, particularly when it costs me literally nothing to respect my friends' wishes.
You are talking about someone whose biological sex at birth was male, and whose gender is female. In other words, you're confusing biological characteristics with gender.
Gender refers to self-identity, cultural behavior, and presentation. The World Health Organization[1] and the Oxford English Dictionary[2] have accepted this definition.
On Facebook, users may fill a freeform gender field (not a dropdown) and select a preferred prounoun. Users are not required to substantiate gender, nor would there be a way to. Notably, Facebook never asks anyone to give medical info about their biological sex. Neither should you.
[1] http://apps.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_eng...
If you tell me to call you "Lord Joseph", I'll say sure, and oblige, as I would for "foobar", "zeveb", or any reasonably pronounceable nickname without obviously undesirable connotations. Which kinds of credentials would be relevant for me to accept to call you the way you want to be called?
> If I refer to you as 'him,' not 'His Lordship,' am I really the one in the wrong?
"His Lordship" would arguably be quite a mouthful... But certainly, for the much less convoluted case of people asking to be called by their favorite single-syllable gender or genderless pronoun, I would think that it would not be courteous to use one that you don't like. How exactly would my perception of your gender be more relevant than your own?
Legally, the State, who go so far as to issue official documents indicating one's legal name.
In some jurisdictions it is perfectly legal to assume additional names, of course.
All they care about is what you are called.
This is a tautology, since a "legal name" essentially means the name the government has for you. They will generally (though not necessarily reliably) provide credentials that a name applies to you. This does not mean that they make the decision about all names that apply to you.
Calling someone by their preferred name is kindergarten-level etiquette. It is your right to break from that simple etiquette, but the rest of us have the right to dismiss you as an oaf.