When treating people with respect is just too difficult for some.

[msnobody]

Sounds like this person has a deeply held conviction, which may deserve some respect as well. Just sayin’.

A couple of years ago, a patient legally changed her name to ___ Jesus. I never had to call her by name after the name change, but had thought I would not call her by her new full two-word name as I felt I’d be using Jesus’ name in vain. My thoughts were to just use the new first name without the Jesus part. Perhaps that would be a compromise that would be respectful for the both of us.

Why couldn’t it have been changed out of reverence instead of vanity? For example, many Christians have named their daughters Mary, as a nod to the Mother of Christ. That’s not vain. Same with John, or Adam, or Mahershalalhashbaz.

- Doc

If it were other than work, I would have discussed with her the motivation for the name change (and other behaviors). It was other behaviors that accompanied the name change that led me to believe it was not out of reverence.

[Dwight]

but they legally changed their name, so it's not just a wish or preference, they got a government sanctioned name change. Seems like a silly hill to die on. If they changed it for vanity or shock value the best thing you could do would to treat it like a nothing-burger.


I'm glad Ceebs will stop calling me a moron, since he will respect my deeply held belief about calling out racist thoughts and actions. After all it isn't difficult to treat people with respect, including respecting deeply held beliefs.

[Gadianton]

to expand on the trope elements going on here:

Hello! I just need to let you know something. I've been struggling with using non-Anglo holiday greetings for over a decade. It creates a massive amount of stress and discord within myself and is just not healthy for me. I have come to the conclusion that I will no longer be using non-Anglo holiday greetings with anybody. I will wish you a Merry Christmas (what country let you here XXXXX or XXXXXX? I can't keep 'em straight).

My love and appreciation of you as a person is unchanged. I just can't do all the different greetings anymore. I'm truly sorry if this causes difficult feelings for you. That's not my intention. My intention is to do the best possible thing for my personal mental and emotional health. This is something that I need to put to rest within myself. I love you and I hope for all the good things for you in life!

[Fence Sitter]

I have to admit that I use the term Mormon intentionally when I am interacting with active LDS, which sort of illustrates the conflict here. I consider myself "Mormon" and, I also think those LDS with whom I am interacting also fit that definition, even though they may have stated they wish to be called "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Sometimes I may be in a group where there are people who still prefer 'Mormon' and others who do not. Do I have to right to expect LDS members to call me a Mormon even though the church has told them not to do so? Is it being disrespectful to shout at King Charles that he isn't your king as we have seen in New Zealand recently? If you ran into Russell Nelson, would you call him "President"? He's not my president.


When and how is it okay to disagree with how someone else wishes to be identified? Isn't acknowledging someone else's claims of identity also supporting that claim?

[Dwight]

I am a Mormon, part of me was glad Russell said that self-righteous Brighamites shouldn't use it. My family is mostly chill, my mom definitely thinks it is silly and she has no problem with being a Mormon. I think my dad is a bit more of a stickler. Russell was not born president of the church. I suppose he and millions deeply believe that it is inherent to him now. I'd wager any psychiatrist would say him not being called president or prophet causes him much less distress than someone who is deadnamed or misgendered.

The incident with King Charles was in Australia. That is a bit more interesting cause the woman that shouted that is a member of parliament and swore an oath of allegiance. She claims when she made that oath to her majesty Queen Elizabeth and her "hairs", not her "heirs" (the actual wording). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-23/ ... /104508694

[sock puppet]

Sounds like this person has a deeply held conviction, which may deserve some respect as well. Just sayin’.

A couple of years ago, a patient legally changed her name to ___ Jesus. I never had to call her by name after the name change, but had thought I would not call her by her new full two-word name as I felt I’d be using Jesus’ name in vain. My thoughts were to just use the new first name without the Jesus part. Perhaps that would be a compromise that would be respectful for the both of us.

Shingles doesn't care

[ceeboo]

It's extremely easy to treat people with respect if they agree with your personal opinions/ideology - treating people with respect if they don't share your personal opinions/ideology/view/belief is the real measuring stick for respect.

The OP text (especially given other texts I have read) was not disrespectful treatment. It was actually fairly warm/kind.

In my opinion, (UR4 re: motive; removed. -c-) is an example of it being too difficult for some to treat people with respect - That being the author of the text.

Hi Ceebs,

Hey Res

I think you’re way off here.

I'm listening and open to being way off here.

This was a note to the authors niece or nephew. What loving and respectful aunt would insist on calling a niece or nephew by a name that was a complete rejection of who that person is? Calling a person by their preferred name, regardless of their legal name, is a simple matter of courtesy that we extend to each other all the time. Who actually demands to see a friend or family member’s driver’s license and refuses to address them as they have asked to be addressed?

For a transfolk, calling them by their deadname is not only rude, it’s a denial of their identity. In the current environment in which political and religious leaders are denying that trans folk even exist, it’s a slap in the face.

If extending the common courtesy that we commonly extend to strangers is so traumatic, then it’s best that she not interact with her niece/nephew. But to just announce that she refuses to call them by their preferred name and pronouns, blaming emotional stress without even acknowledging the emotional stress on her niece/nephew is both passive aggressive and toxic as hell.

I hear what you're saying and if I was ever asked to call someone by a certain name of a specific pronoun, I can't imagine not doing so.

But, I am not the author of the text, and I can see why some people land where they do on this topic. For example: Maybe the author doesn't think someone can change their gender (I'm not interested in getting into a debate around gender fluidity, or how many genders there are, and/or if it is possible for someone to change their gender - These things are not relevant to the specific example I am offering here) - Maybe this someone doesn't think it's possible to change gender and that it is not kind and/or loving to go along with pretending something that the Text author does not believe is true. Rather, maybe the text author believes it's actually harmful to the niece/nephew do so.

Anyway, all I am saying is that I can understand how someone could write the OP text, and I do not believe it is malicious/mean/hateful or disrespectful.

[canpakes]

Really? You think so? You honestly think that hearing from an aunt that her bigotry means she won't use the name you prefer is an issue that will just get swept under the rug and ignored?

I do think it is possible.

The interesting thing is that Auntie’s stress and discomfort is easily resolved with the use of a ‘they/them/their’ pronoun, as this lets her avoid acknowledging the child’s decision or gender preference, if that’s what’s truly bothering her. She uses the exact same pronouns without issue anyway when talking about two or more people.

Refusing that solution is Auntie’s way of not sweeping this under the rug, or resolving her conflict, nor ever intending to. Rather, it’s Auntie’s way to display her passive aggression during any occasion she could have chosen otherwise. Auntie is intent on keeping the issue alive so that she can play the victim for a problem that she would no longer be able to define.

[ceeboo]

I'm glad Ceebs will stop calling me a moron, since he will respect my deeply held belief about calling out racist thoughts and actions. After all it isn't difficult to treat people with respect, including respecting deeply held beliefs.

And if one of my deeply held beliefs is that you're a moron - do you respect that? Or is this respect thing only granted to virtuous people like you who use your super-powers to find and call out the racists among us?

[canpakes]

… For example: Maybe the author doesn't think someone can change their gender … Maybe this someone doesn't think it's possible to change gender and that it is not kind and/or loving to go along with pretending something that the Text author does not believe is true. Rather, maybe the text author believes it's actually harmful to the niece/nephew do so.

‘They/them/their’.

Problem solved.