I heard somewhere that as a compromise between transgender people who don't want their name change to be published and others who are concerned that allowing such name changes to be done privately would increase fraud, someone suggested a change to a state's name change law that would allow transgender people legally changing their name to seal the record of the change - but only if they don't change their last name as well*. The proposal would also provide that if they had circumstances (such as being massively in debt or a felony record) that would result in such a last name change request to be denied if they were cisgender, the judge must still allow the first/middle name changes needed to affirm their gender identity but can deny the change to the last name*.

*Exceptions would apply if they were restoring a former last name changed due to marriage or if they can demonstrate their last name at birth would've been different had they been assigned to the opposite gender. An example of the latter would be I know of a few families where as a compromise all the boys would get the father's last name and all the girls the mother's - in that case a TG person could change to the last name they would've had if they had been assigned to the right gender at birth. In the case of publishing the name change, as an example Samuel Jones wanting to become Samantha Smith could still have a name change to Samantha Jones without the public notice and have the right to do so protected, but a notice showing a change from Samantha Jones to Samantha Smith would still have to be made public to change the last name and the last name change would be subject to the same scrutiny as a cisgender person's petition (absent the aforementioned exceptions).

What are your thoughts on this? Although some TGs, particularly those trying to be as stealth as possible and who changed their last names to make their past harder to find, may dislike this as a compromise akin to "separate but equal" I think it's a reasonable way to balance the concerns of transgender people having their birth identity exposed vs. the general population who are concerned that relaxed name change laws and a tightening of disclosure of the former name would increase fraud related to name changes. Such a rule addresses the "needs" for transgender people (having a first and middle name in line with the gender they identity with) while preserving the status quo for name changes related to "wants" (including a transgender person's last name which normally does not have any gender identity directly attached to it). As another example, such a philosophy came out of the recently revised I-9 form (USCIS decided that as a compromise between the transgender population's concerns between the old form asking for any other legal names used vs. the agency's desire to assist in the identification of employees filling out the form, that the new form would keep "Other Last Names Used" mandatory but not require other given names used to be disclosed).

I had to publish my name change, and I didn't take exception to that. It was in a once-a-week local paper. After it was done, I googled my old name and found the court record with the details of my name  change. Not the request, I found the court proceedings. It is, after all, public knowledge. Something to consider.

Hugs, Devlyn

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 08, 2017, 10:28:18 AM
I had to publish my name change, and I didn't take exception to that. It was in a once-a-week local paper. After it was done, I googled my old name and found the court record with the details of my name  change. Not the request, I found the court proceedings. It is, after all, public knowledge. Something to consider.

Hugs, Devlyn

In all but a few states that is the case right now. My post was about transgender people who want to change such laws to make that private for their benefit vs. the general population who are concerned that such a law would increase issues with private name changes. The idea under this compromise suggestion is that a transgender person's changes to their given names would be subject to a protocol like what is afforded to DV victims in many states, but if they want to change their last name too they'd have to do it like everyone else. I'm referring not to the immediate situation and concerns of someone transitioning now/in the past/in the near future, but rather I started this thread to discuss this proposal.

I thought you were referring to the pre-change public notification. I was pointing out that the Court does make the information public, if not published, after the change. I think some people believe that other than the newspaper notice, it's private. That isn't the case.

Hugs, Devlyn

The name changes of DV victims are sealed. It is a public record like any other, but it is sealed by a judge. That means that it would require a court order to unseal. Getting a court order would require that the petitioning party have cause to unseal the record. It couldn't be curiosity or concern, or anything like that. They would need to have some level of proof that the record contained or demonstrated evidence of wrongdoing.

In every state, any person changing their name can petition the court to waive a publication requirement and to seal the subsequent court order for the name change with good cause. So if a person has been harassed in the past, has a fear of violence, has had a malicious identity theft, etc., they have good cause to request those things.

I do not think by default trans people should be afforded special privileges that non-trans people would need to show cause for. I do think if a trans person has a legitimate fear of violence or harassment, that they should pursue having their records sealed.

Quote from: FTMax on March 08, 2017, 01:27:22 PM

In every state, any person changing their name can petition the court to waive a publication requirement and to seal the subsequent court order for the name change with good cause. So if a person has been harassed in the past, has a fear of violence, has had a malicious identity theft, etc., they have good cause to request those things.

I do not think by default trans people should be afforded special privileges that non-trans people would need to show cause for. I do think if a trans person has a legitimate fear of violence or harassment, that they should pursue having their records sealed.

I agree with you almost completely.  As a person that is completely new to this entire life (I'm taking baby steps to finding myself), I can see the flip side of the coin in the OP. I feel that everyone has a degree of anonymity that should he allowed. I feel that if my parents were not forced to publish me at birth, why do I need it published now? There is a risk to everyone in the community to an extent, and for this reason I feel that there should be extra precautions taken for general safety, and it should be at the discretion of the person getting their name changed. Yes, standardized background checks should be done, and if the person has felonies or etc, then the new name needs to be linked to their old name. We live in the 21st century, and yet there is 17th century violence towards anyone in the LGBTQ community (almost like pre civil rights era United States).

FWIW, my attorney pointed out that with all the databases out there, it's not like anybody who really wants to find out about your new name can't find out.  It's pretty much impossible to simply vanish and reappear as someone else nowadays unless you stay entirely off the grid, in which case publication wouldn't matter anyway.

The only real advantage IMHO is that by waiving publication and sealing the record, it's harder for small-time bigots to look around for trans people to harass.

In my county, it's now standard practice for courts to grant a petition to waive publication and seal the record for trans people's name changes.

Quote from: Scorpio2Scorpia on March 08, 2017, 05:54:30 PM

Quote from: FTMax on March 08, 2017, 01:27:22 PM

In every state, any person changing their name can petition the court to waive a publication requirement and to seal the subsequent court order for the name change with good cause. So if a person has been harassed in the past, has a fear of violence, has had a malicious identity theft, etc., they have good cause to request those things.

I do not think by default trans people should be afforded special privileges that non-trans people would need to show cause for. I do think if a trans person has a legitimate fear of violence or harassment, that they should pursue having their records sealed.

I agree with you almost completely.  As a person that is completely new to this entire life (I'm taking baby steps to finding myself), I can see the flip side of the coin in the OP. I feel that everyone has a degree of anonymity that should he allowed. I feel that if my parents were not forced to publish me at birth, why do I need it published now? There is a risk to everyone in the community to an extent, and for this reason I feel that there should be extra precautions taken for general safety, and it should be at the discretion of the person getting their name changed. Yes, standardized background checks should be done, and if the person has felonies or etc, then the new name needs to be linked to their old name. We live in the 21st century, and yet there is 17th century violence towards anyone in the LGBTQ community (almost like pre civil rights era United States).

Whether you recognize it as such, a birth certificate is a public record which recognizes that you were born. And birth records are only sealed in the event of certain kinds of adoption.

I completely disagree with the need to publish name changes for everyone. But I don't agree that trans people by default are at such a high risk of violence that all name changes due to gender transition should be sealed automatically. I also don't agree that the LGBTQ community in the US is at a high risk for violence when compared to other minority groups. I don't think you have statistics that could back that statement up.

Quote from: FTMax on March 08, 2017, 06:19:08 PM
Whether you recognize it as such, a birth certificate is a public record which recognizes that you were born. And birth records are only sealed in the event of certain kinds of adoption.

I completely disagree with the need to publish name changes for everyone. But I don't agree that trans people by default are at such a high risk of violence that all name changes due to gender transition should be sealed automatically. I also don't agree that the LGBTQ community in the US is at a high risk for violence when compared to other minority groups. I don't think you have statistics that could back that statement up.

I should have specified that I meant overall worldwide, and including the hate towards those in/around communities. I have driven 650,000 (approximately) miles across the US and have seen it all over. While I don't mean the full on cross burning, lynching type of discrimination, I am more talking of the general discourse towards the community (some areas very more blatant than others). I was raised in New England, and have lived in the south since 1998, and spent 13 of my summers in TN (visiting my dad, and even tried living there for almost a year). My wife is a Latina, and when we lived for a short time (for my job) in AL, there were people there that wouldn't like her because of where she's from (I actually had a customer say to me when I told her my kids were half hispanic, "We'll I'm sorry for you, and them."). That was just 9 1/2 years ago. There is still a need for people to have privacy, and that a birth is a public record, it is not put into newspapers (as far as I've seen, and I have 4 kids), so why is a name change? The "right" thing to do is ask the person receiving the change what they wish. I for one do not care (as of right now) if mine was public record. What I do care about is that ithe is on my terms, when and how I want it known. I already know that through this journey I have just started, there are people in my life that wouldn't understand, and others that don't care what I do (I only have a select few friends, and fewer that are close).

I honestly just feel it is up to the person (depending like I said earlier if any prior record permits), to have this done as they feel most comfortable.

Thanks for the comments. What I meant by a "private" name change was not necessarily that the record would be fully sealed (i.e. can be viewed only by another court order) but rather no newspaper or other public notice of the change would be required. The name change record would be on par with how for example most birth certificates are handled (technically a public record, but at least for the person's lifetime only qualified parties can obtain a copy of it with personally identifiable information).

The idea of allowing transgender people to change their first/middle - but not last - names with the publication-exempt name change is to balance the concerns of transgender people and their privacy vs. the concerns that allowing name changes without public notice would increase fraud associated with the procedure.

Quote from: tgchar21 on March 09, 2017, 07:26:53 AM
... concerns that allowing name changes without public notice would increase fraud associated with the procedure.

Publication is an obsolete requirement and everyone knows it.  It does nothing to make fraud harder.

It dates from the days when the only way you could find out about someone was to ask around, and when there were indeed publications that everyone read, including creditors and potential creditors.  Nowadays, name changes are generally published in papers or parts of papers that no one reads, and creditors and lenders and such will check with a credit bureau rather than scan newspapers.  (Credit bureaus require an SSN, which you can't change, so they can easily spot the name change, sealed record or no sealed record.)  Moreover, if you want to do anything, you have to change your name at the bank, on your credit card, your telephone account, etc., etc.  You'll leave traces all over the place.

If someone wants to find you, changing your name won't make it any harder for them.

BTW, in Virginia, at least, birth records are not public information  until something like 70 years after the birth.  I was trying to look up my birth record, and couldn't.  (I had to file a request for a copy and provide ID.)

18 states don't require publication. 5 require it at the discretion of the court, which would most likely mean it would be waived in the case of trans people or other at risk populations. That leaves 27 states that do require publication to some extent.

Different states have different levels of concern about the potential for fraud and abuse related to name changes. Many of those 27 states that require publication are ones that are considered to be quite progressive. They may just experience a higher rate of things like fraud or identity theft or what have you that makes them feel like the added publication requirement is appropriate.

Now that you've clarified what you meant, my response is basically the same. I personally don't think trans people should receive special privileges. If something like what you are saying were to be developed, I would want it to apply equally to every population. But I am also a firm believer in state's rights, and I ultimately would defer to the judgment of each state as to what they find appropriate.

FTMax - On the other hand ANY transgender person changing their name to affirm their gender identity, other than 1) Those who already have a gender-neutral or gender-appropriate name and are changing it more due to personal preference than as a necessity or 2) Those who are well-known enough before they transitioned (e.g. Caitlyn Jenner) that making the name change legally private would have little or no practical effect, could make the argument that their privacy and/or safety could be at risk by having their name change published; hence the argument that the law could automatically allow that for transgender people (who qualify for a gender marker change at the same time or who have already changed such) without needing an extra burden for those who are already strapped for time/money/other resources.

Quote from: tgchar21 on March 09, 2017, 01:04:52 PM
FTMax - On the other hand ANY transgender person changing their name to affirm their gender identity, other than 1) Those who already have a gender-neutral or gender-appropriate name and are changing it more due to personal preference than as a necessity or 2) Those who are well-known enough before they transitioned (e.g. Caitlyn Jenner) that making the name change legally private would have little or no practical effect, could make the argument that their privacy and/or safety could be at risk by having their name change published; hence the argument that the law could automatically allow that for transgender people (who qualify for a gender marker change at the same time or who have already changed such) without needing an extra burden for those who are already strapped for time/money/other resources.

They could make the argument, but can they corroborate it with statistics? If they are a trans woman of color, perhaps. Anyone else? Not so much. It would be special treatment under the law.

It costs no extra money to ask the court to waive a publication requirement if they are open to waiving it. So that argument is moot.

I think what you're not understanding necessarily is that this wouldn't be a single piece of policy or legislation. This would be 32 individual fights against specific states in order to change all of those policies. If progressive states like California and Massachusetts are the ones that are requiring publication of name changes regardless of reasoning, do you really think you'd be able to convince states like Kansas? I'm not saying don't try, but I think you fail to recognize that the scope of this issue is not as narrow as you present it to be.

Actually California changed their law a few years back - I don't have a link immediately available, but in CA trans-related name change are now eligible for a waiver of the publication requirement (I'm not sure if it's by default or available upon request, but with the same medical documentation to change gender marker it can be done without any other special concerns).

If you're so against transgender people getting special treatment in that arena, then you should also be against state policies that treat a transgender person's legal name change differently than most others when it comes to amending birth certificates (CA is also an example here - with most name changes they'll only "add" the new name keeping the old one visible, but with transgender people they'll issue a new birth certificate with the old information redacted).

ETA: Sorry those links aren't working at the moment, but awhile back I saw each of those respective forms when I was informing someone else of CA's procedures for amending a BC (and remembered what they said for each, unless there's been a policy change since then).

Also, in FTMax's point regarding such laws in different states, I'm not stating that ALL states need to change their laws - but rather my idea is a brainstorm for a compromise on how such issues could be handled. In fact, during the time when the federal government was favorably controlled for transgender people, I cautioned against any federal policy when it comes to issues that are normally under state control, such as some members who wanted a uniform policy on amending BCs (on the basis that one can move but one can't choose where they were born). I stated that if the federal government were to be unfavorably controlled (as it is now) then we could end up with another uniform policy - one that we would NOT like.

Quote from: tgchar21 on March 09, 2017, 05:02:11 PM
If you're so against transgender people getting special treatment in that arena, then you should also be against state policies that treat a transgender person's legal name change differently than most others when it comes to amending birth certificates (CA is also an example here - with most name changes they'll only "add" the new name keeping the old one visible, but with transgender people they'll issue a new birth certificate with the old information redacted).

In what other situation would such a change be necessary? It's not special treatment if it's the only situation where such a change might need to be made.

I think if it matters to people, they should just draft a petition to waive the publication requirement. Bar Associations in almost every state offer limited free legal assistance. They can point folks toward templates that they can use.