4 ms·
There is a slight difference though. In the pronoun case the asker is implicitly demanding that norms change on their behalf. The changing (or fighting the chan
by kasey_junk 4y ago
There is a slight difference though. In the pronoun case the asker is implicitly demanding that norms change on their behalf. The changing (or fighting the change) of those norms is an explicitly political act.
Similarly, my wife not taking my name upon our marriage was an implicit political act and my mom going by Ms. was as well.
At different points in time either of those acts could have brought ridicule to my wife and mother so that’s not a terribly good standard.
Personally, I view addressing people as they want to be simply polite but let’s not pretend that our view of “correct” isn’t a political act that is potentially outside the current norms.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y agoI think it’s made to be political but I think the line of what is or isn’t political and avoiding it is itself a political behavior by its nature. It’s inherently political to say one name change is political because “I will go by Jacob instead of Jessica”, and another name change isn’t political because of “only my dad calls me David, I go by Dave”.
- kasey_junk 4y agoI go by Muhammad Ali because I don’t acknowledge my slave name and I call him Cassius Clay because his momma did are both political. It turns out the political impact of an action is derived from its deviance from acceptable norms or its reaction.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y agoI don’t understand your point. I’m merely pointing out that calling something political is itself a political behavior.
- amendegree 4y ago