I'm not angry about this, contrary to what it may sound like: I'm amused. Perhaps I'm easily amused.

Thing is, it's a pretty normal thing - and it's happening a bit more now given recent topic of discussion here - for me to wind up having conversations with people about the value of anonymity or pseudonymity, in which people volunteer the opinion directly to me, usually in agreement with me, that anonymous commenters are not all bad, or that there's some value to allowing anonymous online comments because of some example... out there (*waves hands airily*) somewhere.

To *me*. They say this directly *to me*. While I am standing directly in front of them, as it were, virtually, *using a pseudonym*.

You know the ID in my wallet does not actually say "Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis", right? My professional license does not say "Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis, LMHC". That is not what I put at the top of my IRS 1040. It's not what my patients call me.

Something is betrayed, when this happens. It reveals something about how people think about pseudonyms. It would seem many people think of pseudonyms, in a sort of unconsidered way, as being things that don't attach to actual identities.

But my pseudonym is very much attached to an actual identity - I am very much a person, and a very distinct one, who exhibits a lot of personality, who moves freely through social worlds, with whom one can develop various types of relationship, from the parasocial to the intimate. For those who have the unconsidered assumption that pseudonyms do not refer to identities, the fact that mine does causes a category error, and causes them to forget (or maybe even never notice) that the appellation by which they know me as a pseudonym, and unsubtly one at that.

I've seen other evidence of this conceptual fault line, for instance in discussions of the threats and value of allowing pseudonymous commenters on the internet, around platform policies.

In such policy discussions - here I'm particularly remembering #nymwars and Google+ - it's not uncommon for organizations to reveal such double consciousness about what a pseudonym is, where they issue draconian policies against them, but then are like, "oh but we don't mean the pen names of authors - at least if they're famous." What made Google+'s approach scandalous was that they *didn't* do that. They really did attempt to forbid all pseudonyms. This was a subtle-but-stark contrast to Facebook's "Oh, well, if you can prove that you actually go about using the pseudonym as a regular name you can use it on Facebook". Which is another way of saying "we don't think a pseudonym that designates an identity is a pseudonym, when we say we don't want pseudonyms we don't mean to include pseudonyms that do refer to identities." Except of course they then issue punitive edicts that frustrate or thwart the use of any pseudonym that does not have the legal underpinnings of a legal name.
@siderea
Google+ also specified "same language" for all parts of the name, which was bizarre and also antisemitic (for one thing)