Reply #85: So you contend that a person's name isn't part of their identity?

[laconicsax]

I say that a person's name is "an ingrained part of one's identity," and you interpret that as me saying that I define myself by my last name? Of course I don't define myself by my last name. My name is a part of my identity. Part<Whole. Part+Part+Part+...+Part=Whole.

No one has ever demanded that I change my name as a condition of marriage. I can't speak for those who have been in that position. All I can say is that those people do exist and the few whom I know say that they felt like they had lost part of who they were. I also know women who felt the same way after voluntarily changing their name.

Family names have been around for less than 1000 years, not 5000. They originated from either a father's name (Johnson, inherently male), where a person lived (Cleveland), what their job was (Baker), or a nickname (Osborn). After the Nine Years' War, the English made the Irish change their last names. When French Canada started being settled in the 16th century, settlers would change their name to that of the region. I defy you to identify a surname that's been passed down patrilineally for 5000 years.

Do you honestly believe place names, occupational nouns, and nicknames are inherently male or are you just subjectively shifting goalposts to suit your needs.