unlawfulbooger@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 20 days agoMisgendering does not rulelemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square68fedilinkarrow-up1595arrow-down125
arrow-up1570arrow-down1imageMisgendering does not rulelemmy.blahaj.zoneunlawfulbooger@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 20 days agomessage-square68fedilink
minus-squareGladaed@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up10·20 days agoYes, but actually no. Using deadnames of companies is much more acceptable than for people.
minus-squareGlytch@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up9·19 days agoDespite what the Supreme Court will tell you, corporations aren’t actually people, so you don’t have to worry about dead naming them.
minus-squaresamus12345@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·20 days agoDeadnaming is not necessarily misgendering. Sometime people have deadnames for reasons other than gender.
Yes, but actually no. Using deadnames of companies is much more acceptable than for people.
Despite what the Supreme Court will tell you, corporations aren’t actually people, so you don’t have to worry about dead naming them.
Deadnaming is not necessarily misgendering. Sometime people have deadnames for reasons other than gender.