I think it is respectful to address someone by the name they go by. I have a friend who's named William and would get annoyed if someone kept calling him Willy, and goes by Bill. People also get married, and it's respectful and customary to address them by their new name.

At the end of the day, I wouldn't want someone making what is probably a tough situation more difficult and hassling me about a name change if I were in that position. I have a really long name, and I'd be annoyed after a while if someone kept addressing me by that name, rather than the shorter name I choose to go by as an adult.

None of this is political, it's just being a polite southerner. You treat folks how you want to be treated.

Whatever it says on your employee ID and internal directory is fine, or you have to ask to have it changed.

Whatever your employment contract says is what goes into the employee directory, and should be consistent with the tax office.

If you’re referring to pronouns then I don’t have a good answer honestly. I have a personal opinion that pronouns are not important. If you want to call me mister or miss or Mzzz then that’s not going to cause pain, unless you do it with malicious intent.

"I have a personal opinion that pronouns are not important."

The point of respect is that your personal opinions are not important; the opinions of the person on the other end of your communications are.

Not sure, status quo in the office has always been that people passing as male are he/him, people passing as female are she/her and everyone else is they/them (including groups of people homogeneous and heterogeneous alike)

That we’ve managed to conduct our society so far without using alternative pronouns such as “xi/xir” is a strong indication that it’s a neo-political construct and, while I might be sympathetic to the person who prefers to be called by those terms, I will not go out of my way to force everyone in the company to - they’re also usually referential (without the person present) and I will get them wrong myself too.

I don't think that calling someone what they prefer to be called is a political issue.

I personally don't know any right-wingers that wouldn't call you by the name/gender that you request them to. These people probably exist but it is a very small group.

Theres a difference between disagreeing with the concept at a societal level vs disrespecting someone on a personal level. Far fewer people do that.

I have met people multiple times who will call someone the opposite of whatever's on their pronoun pin (if they have one)

Even to cis people.

> their pronoun pin

That's... a new one for me. Ah, they're all over Etsy—if anyone else was thrown by that, they're exactly what your first guess would be based on the name: a big round pin with your preferred pronouns printed on it. Interesting.

> the opposite of whatever's on their pronoun pin

Well, yes, obviously? They have a pronoun pin. That's not a matter of disrespecting that person (as you note, we do it to everyone); it's a matter of disrespecting pronoun pins on principle.

"That's not a matter of disrespecting that person; it's a matter of disrespecting pronoun pins on principle."

Pardon me, but what? You expect the persons wearing the pin to not feel disrespected? Or that the pin will be emotionally damaged by the disrespect?

"Well how was I supposed to know your pronouns?"

"Well, pronoun pins are dumb"

Pick one.

Could you please specify the country, so I don't accidentally move there?

As a counterpoint, I live in Texas and I have never seen this.

It's a big place.

While I'll readily admit I don't like a lot of the political environment here, there are also a _lot_ of amazing people and places.

Thank you!

Texas unfortunately.

Doesn't happen all the time or everywhere, but I've seen people brag about doing this.

Thank you!

I find it personally helpful to get points of data like this.

Living in Switzerland, the cultural standards are sometimes astonishingly different between countries (e.g. I still regularly see job application forms that require both a headshot of the candidate and a date of birth).

Well, yeah, but that's so you don't hire someone unattractive, or worse the wrong kind of person.

Sometimes, when I can tell during a hiring process that it's just not working out, I do ask companies why they ask for a photo and a date of birth.

The answers generally are:

- "We've always done it this way" - Well sorry to hear that, but that's not a reason

- "Everybody does it this way" - Well, I'm a candidate and I can tell you that no, only 10% of companies are doing it this way

- "We want to get a first impression of the person before we invest time to look at them closer" - The first step in your application process is a 15min call with an HR person. Do you really need a step before that to reject someone based on age or ethnicity or gender?

So far, no one has reacted with any kind of understanding.

> I personally don't know any right-wingers that wouldn't call you by the name/gender that you request them to

I've never been faced with this problem personally, but what I can say that is that if you've known someone for any length of time say "Bill" and then one day "Bill" wants to be called "Jill" there is an ask that extends far beyond what is ordinarily reasonable.

That's why I think "deadnaming" is totally stupid. That name isn't dead. You just don't like/prefer it. But it was there and people know that name. They know you—and you just changed your mind. That's not their problem—that's yours.

Imagine I read your comment and didn't think of a trans person, but a Ms. Jones who had married a Mr. Smith and was now Mrs. Smith.

Is your opinion the same?

Yes.

Marriage is a union where two people make a lifelong commitment to each other: their identity is now united. This is a normal and good thing.

While it's hard to shift, as long as you're making an effort it's fine. If you slip up from time to time, especially early on, that's understandable. But eventually you should learn it. You were willing to call them by what they asked to be called originally, rather than just calling them "big guy" or whatever, so I don't think it's unreasonable to respect their wishes on what they wish to be called in the future too.

There is a big difference giving someone a nickname vs. assenting to a reorientation of outward identity.

Someone wants a nick-name? Sure. No problem.

Someone who was a guy/gal and now claims to be something else? Especially if he/she is actively known in a space as something before and _then_ changes? That's a HUGE demand that honestly shouldn't be something anyone is comfortable asking others to do.

I do this too, but with people who change their phone number. No, that number still exists, and I associate it with them. They choose to change it? That's their problem.

Edit: Guess I should put a /s. Is there a tag for highly passive aggresive /s?

Perhaps it should be /sa should be for /[s]trawman [a]rgument.