Completely agree. The Harry Houdini example is actually illuminating I think: what if he had stood as Harry Houdini - would it be reasonable to stand on that persona rather than his real one? I think not.

Another point on Johnson is that he deliberately conflates his personal life with politics when it suits him (pictures of his new born son on the front pages of papers) whilst using the courts to obscure others (his possible fatherhood of another child).

On use of his name it's the man himself who makes the ruthless political decisions and not the stage persona which is is much more 'warm and cuddly'.

To me, "calling a trans person consistently by the wrong pronouns" and "referring to someone at work using a name you know is their spouse's pet name for them" would fall into the same category. I find it hard to view any of these as anything other than Dick Moves. I do have an unusually strong loathing of globally-inconsistent rules, though, which probably makes me more prone than most to generalise the rules along this axis (whereas you believe that they should not generalise past a particular point).

Re Harry Houdini specifically: I think it would have been reasonable, yes. Lord Buckethead does it. In fact, I think it would be reasonable to stand as Borat, and people voting for Borat would be voting specifically for Borat, not for Sacha Baron Cohen. If elected, I would expect Sacha Baron Cohen to rule to the best of his ability as if he were Borat.

> calling a trans person consistently by the wrong pronouns

That's not a stage persona, though. I don't reject that someone can transition genders, and hold political office as their preferred gender.

In the same way, I absolutely don't begrudge a politician using a preferred name if it is their actual preferred name. What I personally won't tolerate is a stage persona. They don't get to "play a character" when they run for office.

> Lord Buckethead does it.

I think this is the best example of a blurred line. I don't mind Lord Buckethead's persona, because I view his activities as political satire despite the fact that he's using the actual election mechanisms. If, however, he stood a 1% chance of winning and actually wanted to govern I would absolutely not accept "Lord Buckethead" as a reasonable candidate. So, as political satire, Lord Buckethead is fine as a stage persona. As a bona fide political candidate, I think it's absolutely wrong.

Tbh if Johnson ran the UK as "Boris" I'd probably give him a pass and call him Boris, but he doesn't.

In any event Happy Xmas!