unlawfulbooger@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 day agoMisgendering does not rulelemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square64fedilinkarrow-up1586arrow-down124
arrow-up1562arrow-down1imageMisgendering does not rulelemmy.blahaj.zoneunlawfulbooger@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 day agomessage-square64fedilink
minus-squareGladaed@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up7·7 hours agoYes, but actually no. Using deadnames of companies is much more acceptable than for people.
minus-squareGlytch@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·3 hours 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-up4·7 hours 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.