Quote from: tgchar21 on February 26, 2019, 02:03:25 PM
I haven't read this thread until just recently, but it looks like you must've read one of my threads where I talk about how to handle questions about previous names when you'd prefer not to out yourself.
First of all none of that will apply until you are "post-legal" (unless you are working "under the table" you will always have to give your legal name out for tax and work authorization verification purposes, although you may be able to save outing yourself until later on in the application process).
If all an employer wants to do is contact references or verify your work/education history, it depends on whether or not such contacts can be made/records can be located with just your new name.
If the employer wants to run a full-fledged background check, then yes you will probably have to bring up your old name somehow. (Since you mention being a college graduate and not being legally transitioned yet, you are probably too old for the "see if it'd be relevant beforehand" advice that I've suggested to child or teen transitioners, since in most cases employers wouldn't care about disclosing other kinds of names changed at a like age such as if they were adopted and if they treat a transperson differently then that is discrimination. In most cases if you transitioned as an adult unless it's been longer ago than the check goes your deadname will be relevant for a typical background check.) That advice about giving the birth name/gender straight to the investigator came from a member on here several years ago who once did that - that might work although if you're looking to get a job quickly that strategy might slow things down a few days or so.
Just don't outright lie and omit the name/say that you've never used another name without inquiring about the relevance/providing another means to give it to the investigator first. *One member on here (I won't mention her name) disagrees and thinks that using those tactics is still "lying" but on that thread she's one who just replied with several posts that really didn't focus on the name issue and talked about other common lies like work dates or salary history - that's different because in those cases you're actually concealing material information, but here you're just changing the process (seeing if the name is truly relevant in your case without outing yourself initially and/or giving the old name straight to the investigator) and not the outcome (although omitting the name "cold turkey" could do that if the employer isn't made aware of factors they can legally use in making a hiring decision, like a criminal history they can ask about).
I am completely aware that none of that advice about previous names applies until one has had a legal name change. And what I mention about attire (such as wearing "masculine"-leaning items from the women's section and/or androgynous attire) is really meant to hold me over and keep me happy until I establish myself and can actually consider transition. That way, I can be wearing "women's" clothing and hopefully it wouldn't out me before I am ready (or if it does, perhaps I'm perceived as a gay male instead). Mainly the purpose of this would be to improve my odds of getting in the door somewhere diversity-friendly prior to legal transition (since trans* is still somewhat new to a lot of people and bias is still a major issue).
And with respect to post-transition, post-name-change background checks, I would probably send my court order along to any of my previous employers and see if they will update my information. I would also try to let my references know about the name change as well. To the greatest extent possible, after getting a legal name change I would prefer not to disclose to the greatest degree possible (and hence would rather disclose directly to the investigator instead so I that can emphasize the need to protect my privacy and safety).
I value my privacy and would prefer to be as stealth as possible once I get to the post-transition stage. The exception would involve an SF-86 if I ever need to apply for a security clearance, though I'm a bit less worried about that since the federal government is usually pretty good at keeping SF-86 forms under wraps and away from unauthorized individuals (filled out SF-86s are not actually classified, but would likely constitute Controlled Unclassified Information and are generally exempt for FOIA disclosure due to the sensitive PII contained within). While it helps the government whenever one comes clean on those (to address blackmail risks), on the contrary if an unauthorized individual gets hold of an SF-86, they can use it to blackmail the clearance applicant/holder (hence why there was so much concern with the 2015 OPM hack and when Abigail Spanberger's SF-86 leaked).
That said, I'm a lot more concerned privacy-wise about more routine background checks that an employer or landlord would run. This would likely include fingerprint-based background checks as well; with those kind of checks, in some cases there can be penalties for disclosing criminal history information to unauthorized individuals (in part as such reports can include expunged records), but I'm not sure if inferring someone is transgender based on such a report and disclosing that to others would actually count as unauthorized disclosure. But generally, whenever government databases are accessed to run a background check, there does seem to be more protections taken than when running one through a private consumer reporting agency. If only this were the UK (I'm in the US) where at least the government checks have a way to not out yourself (the DBS sensitive applications process) if you have no criminal history, then things would be a lot easier. Trying to disclose previous names to the investigator directly would come a bit closer to this "sensitive" process, but unlike with DBS in the UK there are no guarantees that the information will not be discussed with unauthorized individuals.
I do agree that there does need to be a "sensitive" process (akin to the UK's DBS process) for handling previous names in connection with background checks, not only for transgender people, but also for domestic violence and stalking victims who have legally changed their names, plus those in witness protection programs, address confidentiality programs, and pretty much anyone who has received a sealed name change (as those are normally done for privacy or safety reasons) as well. I thought about contacting Democratic members of the U.S. House to see if they could get this into a potential Equality Act (though the odds of it passing are low due to the Senate).
