There is a moment that shows up again and again in public conversations when the topic quietly shifts. What begins as a discussion about policy, language, or disagreement suddenly stops being about any of those things. Instead, it becomes a test of whether we are willing to extend basic human decency—and whether we are willing to be consistent about it.
That moment doesn’t usually arrive with a dramatic announcement. It slips in subtly. Someone makes a simple observation grounded in everyday life. Rather than engaging with it, the response sidesteps, reframes, mocks, or escalates. Not because the point is hard to understand, but because it asks something uncomfortable of the listener.
The original observation is remarkably simple. For our entire lives, we have adjusted how we address people based on preference. We’ve done it casually and without controversy. “My name is James, but I go by Jim.” “My legal name is Elizabeth, but please call me Liz.” “I don’t like my first name—use my middle name instead.” These exchanges happen in classrooms, workplaces, churches, gyms, and families every single day. They don’t provoke outrage. They don’t require debates about ideology. They don’t inspire threats or insults.
The social action involved is minimal. Someone tells you what they prefer to be called, and you decide whether or not to respect that preference. That’s it.
The current debate around preferred names and pronouns often pretends this request is unprecedented, confusing, or overly demanding. But it isn’t. What’s new isn’t the behavior being asked for. What’s new is the resistance to applying a courtesy we already understand how to give.
One of the most common ways people avoid this point is by retreating into semantics. The response comes quickly: “That’s a nickname.” The goal here isn’t clarity. It’s containment. By narrowing the conversation to definitions, the broader ethical question can be quietly dismissed. If we argue about labels instead of behavior, we never have to answer the harder question lurking underneath: why does personal preference suddenly become unacceptable when it’s attached to an identity some people are uncomfortable acknowledging?
Whether something is called a nickname, a preferred name, or a pronoun does not change the underlying principle. We already know how to adjust how we address people. We’ve always known. The distinction is not about ability; it’s about willingness.
When semantics stop working, the conversation often shifts again—this time away from argument entirely and toward dehumanization. Words like “cultists,” “you people,” or “brainwashed” begin to appear. This language is not accidental. It serves a purpose. Once a group is framed as irrational, dangerous, or less than fully human, their dignity becomes negotiable. Empathy becomes optional. Cruelty becomes easier to justify.
At this stage, disagreement is no longer about ideas. It becomes about allegiance. Political tribalism takes over, and the goal is no longer understanding but winning. You are no longer a person making an observation rooted in lived experience; you are a symbol of a side that must be defeated. Nuance is abandoned. Consistency becomes flexible. Courtesy is treated as weakness rather than a baseline expectation.
The most revealing moment comes when someone invokes state power as a joke or a warning—law enforcement, deportation, surveillance. Even when said flippantly, this move marks a clear boundary. It signals comfort with coercion over persuasion and a willingness to joke about, or threaten, state violence against people they disagree with. At that point, the issue has moved far beyond names or pronouns. The question becomes who is allowed to participate safely in public discourse at all.
What makes all of this especially unsettling is how unnecessary it is. Consistency does not require agreement with every identity or experience. It does not demand full understanding or personal resonance. It only asks that we apply the same standards we already live by. If you have ever called someone by a nickname, respected a stage name, adjusted how you address a married friend, or used a title for a doctor, pastor, or coach, then you already understand the mechanism at work.
Refusing to extend that same courtesy selectively is not a matter of confusion. It is a choice.
So the real question is not whether these situations are technically identical or whether the terminology fits neatly into one category or another. The real question is why basic courtesy is treated as negotiable only when it involves marginalized people.
When the insults, semantic detours, and threats are stripped away, what remains is something very simple and very old. Human decency is not radical. Consistency is not oppression. And the refusal to engage honestly with that reality says far more than any name or pronoun ever could.
No comments:
Post a Comment