I am one of those privileged folks who can afford to
use my "real name"[*] ('etymonym'?) for my web
presence. The "common names" by which I am currently most known
by can be interpolated from my etymonym, so I'm reasonably
findable-ish -- more so if I can make a nickname or two visible
along with it. And partly through choices made decades ago,
partly through not having anything much to lose, and a whole
lot from not being in the most endangered
minorities[**] or living/working in circumstances
where danger to such minorities is a constant threat ... a whole
lot from having white privilege and the not-insignificant
privilege of a middle-class background (this is part of
the foundation the aforementioned relative safety is built upon)
even though I currently lack any semblance of middle-class
finances ... I can afford to post the vast majority of what it
occurs to me to write, under my findable, real-world
etymonym.
As has been painstakingly noted elsewhere several times, many
people lack that safety that allows me to post all sorts of stuff
under my easy-to-find-me-in-meatspace name. And as has been
adequately, if less emphatically documented elsewhere, some
people who want to be found are not findable under
anything Google considers a "real" name because their
common names bear no resemblance to their legal
names.
I even have a non-scary, non-'weird', WASPonym, so even to
folks who want to make sure their user base doesn't look
'foreign' or 'minority' to a provincial USian audience, I should
still be in safe territory.
I'm a geek, I have a lot of friends, I'm chock full
of "can afford to blog under my meatspace name" privilege, and my
name is safely WASPy. If I weren't so badly put off by Google's
lack of concern for my pseudonymous-for-safety friends and
acquaintances, unhelpfulness to my known-for-years-by-handle /
unfindable-under-wallet-name friends, and lack of respect for
"funny-named furriners", I'd be a perfect fit for Google Plus,
wouldn't I?
My legal signature, the name on my debit card, the name on my
checks, my name on snail-mail catalogs and newsletters and
utility bills addressed to me, my name in recording credits and
theatre programs and in copyright notices on my tunes and photos,
the name displayed on my vanity website, the human-name field
that appears in From: headers on email I send and Usenet articles
I post, these all match, though admittedly I do
use a shortened form when introducing myself in a spoken, rather
than written, medium, and I do use a rearranged version as my SCA
/ Markland / RenFest persona-name. This would fit pretty much
anyone's notion of a "real" name, right?
Maybe not. If I understand correctly, Google wants a
"first name" and a "last name" with no spaces and only particular
punctuation. Since my real name / common name is in the
first-initial+middle-name+last-name+generational-suffix
format[***], it looks like I only have a few
choices:
- Ignore the no-spaces rule and enter "D. Glenn" for a
first name and "Arthur Jr." for a last name (this works on some
sites) and hope I don't get punted for not following their
directions,
- Strip it down to the spoken form, "Glenn
Arthur", which bumps me into the
hard-to-tell-apart-from-similarly-named-people category (so much
for the "easier to find you if you use [our perverse notion of]
your real name" business), or
- Use my actual first name
... which, last I checked, few of my friends, almost none of my
acquaintances, and none of the not-even-acquaintances who've read
my stories, essays, poems, etc., even know (utterly
defeating the purpose).
Doing a Google web search on "D. Glenn Arthur Jr." (with
quotes), ninety eight of the first hundred hits actually
referred to me. (Not all especially usefully, but all me.) Using
"Glenn Arthur", only five of the first hundred hits had anything
to do with me, though one was at least in the first page of
results, so it could've been worse. (With my name as I write it,
you have to go all the way to the fourth page to find the first
result that isn't clearly me, and the seventh page to
find the next one.)
Now I may not really have standing to complain about
this, given that I've already said I've been put off of Google
Plus by their failure to accomodate so many people I know (and
even more I'm learning about) with really good reasons for using
pseudonyms (and I'm not too happy about the folks with weaker
reasons for uing pseudonyms getting screwed either). But I do
feel impelled to point out that even for what Google thinks
of as "real names", and the kinds of real names
they seem to want (i.e. not-scary-to-provincial-WASPs),
their approach to names is Fundamentally Broken.
So even if you spot them the "real names are more civil" thing
(uh, refuted in a recent study, n'est-ce pas?) and the "no
'funny-looking' names" bigotry, they're still being stupid. If
you're going to stake so much reputation on your insistence on
folks using Real Names, then you have to accomodate
real-world real names. I find it that much harder to take
seriously any of the "real names" arguments of Google and its
supporters in the nymwars, when they're not even making a serious
attempt to handle real names.
But hey, I guess it helps me resist any temptation to sign up
(to be able to post comments) despite my distaste for the
no-pseudos policy.
[*] Let's brush aside for now the whole question of
what the %$#@ "real" means here. That's a whole 'nuther, longer
essay, innit?
[**] Not to minimize the risk of violence from being
trans, but that's more likely to be triggered in person. AFAICT,
there are more dangerous things to be out as
online.
[***] "But first-initial-middle-name is unusual..."
Well, just off the top of my head: F. Scott Fitzgerald, L. Frank
Baum, J. Edgar Hoover, G. Gordon Liddy, J. Michael Straczynski; a
few selected results from S'ingTFW: C. Northcote Parkinson, E.
Allan Farnsworth, E. Power Biggs, F. Lee Bailey, H. Ross Perot,
J. Paul Getty, J. Robert Oppenheimer, L. Ron Hubbard, L. Sprague
de Camp, T. Boone Pickens, T. Rowe Price ... and goodness knows
how many non-famous ones! It may be a less common
format percentagewise, but it's a long way from being
"rare".