A few months ago I started a thread talking about the issue of job applications that ask for "previous names" or the like, and the legalities of asking the question (turns out it depends on when in the hiring process it's asked and how it's worded), but didn't discuss how to handle it in practice if you encounter it.

First of all the fundamental reason for asking it is so they can properly check relevant records. The recommended way to ask it (speaking from the company's perspective) is thus "Do you have any ([insert here] work, school, criminal, etc.) records under another name?" That enables them to seek what information they need - and no more. Unfortunately you can and probably will run onto the question asked in a more gray-area form, like about asking for any other names you're known by. The good news is depending on your situation you may be able to get around outing yourself without lying by answering in a roundabout way (by the way I do not advocate lying, but rather using alternate ways of answering the question and/or determining what they need to know). These "alternate methods of responding" are based on advice I've seen regarding other touchy and/or illegal inquiry subjects (e.g. asking about your family, whether or not you're a citizen, etc.) and responding in a way that answers what they need to know yet doesn't lie (mentioning you can meet the requisite work schedule, that you're authorized to work in the country without restriction, etc. respectively).

If you don't have ANY records they'd want to check (either because you transitioned young before you ever worked, had any credit, etc.) or you've updated ALL your educational, employment, and credit records, and don't have any criminal history under your old name (if you do this tactic is basically gone out the window forever), you have an option I recently thought of: When asked, simply state something like "none that any relevant records would be under". (If you can't honestly give that statement then this strategy won't work.) If they ask what the deal was, and you've changed the name (not necessarily your gender if you haven't done or can't do it) on your birth certificate, you can mention that there was a change made to your birth certificate. Chances are they'll assume you were adopted or had some other childhood name change and will say they don't need to know said name, and thus you will have avoided outing yourself (to be honest I think that most non-TGs in the aforementioned categories don't even bother mentioning that or their birth name and they don't usually end up getting accused of "lying", but in a TG's case with employers finding ways to cover their discrimination it's best to be sure first). Obviously this idea probably won't realistically work for those who transitioned much past the start of adulthood as it will likely be too difficult or impossible to ensure everything (and I mean everything) that the employer may want to see is under the new name.

So what can the other TGs do to avoid outing oneself to an employer? If some records (whether it be work, school, credit, criminal, or other) that they want to check is under your old name, you probably don't have a choice but to out yourself (provided that the check they're doing is legal). What you might try doing if you can't honestly use the strategy in the last paragraph, but what they want to check under your old name is something that chances are they won't go after (like your high school records once you've graduated college or work history from decades ago), you might try putting something down like "will mention/discuss if needed"; unlike the tactic mentioned above this one may raise more questions though.

One caveat: What I say applies to private-sector jobs in the U.S. If you're applying for a government (especially Federal as they're exempt from the normal suite of "illegal questions") job, or a military, police, etc. job, you probably will have to mention your former name regardless of whether or not it's relevant (and especially so when applying for a security clearance).

Another side note: Although admittedly TGs are some of the most severely affected by these kinds of questions, being asked for former/other names you're known by without the question being tailored to the specific purpose like I mentioned, could raise legal issues with regards to other groups too if a pushy employer considers not mentioning said names to be lying (except in these cases where an employer is trying to find some excuse to fire or not hire someone I think most of the time companies see the old names question as more of an "informational" one like asking for your phone number or e-mail address rather than an "under the oath" one). Examples of other affected groups are (like I've mentioned before) immigrants who change their names in order to assimilate, and beyond legal name changes those who use pseudonyms for lawful purposes like authors, those who blog under another name, or those who have a name used only in religious circles; it would especially be legally an issue if the subject of the book/blog/etc. is something about religion, one's national origin, etc. Then again, if those people know about it ahead of time, they can employ the same tactic I mentioned above of saying that no relevant records are under the other name and escape unscathed without lying.

Another thought: If you want to be extra sure about using the "no relevant records under the old name" strategy (once again assuming you honestly can), you can contact HR of the company (e-mail or other written method is probably best since you'd have a record) before filling out the application and describe the situation in the same way. If they say you don't need to mention it, you're then off the hook.

Remember with any of the tactics in this thread I'm mentioning you're responsible for whatever happens; I'm not a lawyer or other professional in this area.

Quote from: blueocean on May 24, 2012, 10:02:58 PM
A friend of mine got a nasty surprise when they had to get a police clearance for a job and found out that it has all your old names on it. They found out that he used to be a woman, and well you figure out the rest. This is totally unecessary as no matter what someone's name is, that wont change that they have or do not have a criminal record, so why is the old name necessary. They really need to start taking trans people into account with things like this.

Did he have a criminal record under the old name? On most reports I've seen it will list whatever names or aliases were used to commit crimes on the record. Although not good for TGs, I think they do that so those who use alias names to commit crimes or who change their names to cover up their criminal past will be recognizable. I think the only way that will ever change is if the powers that be (at the national/federal level) were to start requiring a comprehensive criminal history check to change your name (not a requirement that you be crime-free, but rather so they can be sure you're not trying to cover anything up) and require you to notify any jurisdictions where you have committed a crime of your name change. This idea probably won't pass muster with most people because it makes it more inconvenient to change your name (especially with many Americans not wanting any more government intrusion).

I guess that presents a warning to TGs who are thinking of doing illegal activities (which I don't personally sanction): Assuming you don't already have a record under your original name, change your name before engaging in such activities.

After reading a discussion on the FTM forum about someone just putting their old initials down as a way to not out themselves, someone else (not here on Susan's) suggested yet another idea along those lines: If you changed your last name along with the rest of your name when you transitioned put only your former last name down (indeed many forms only have space for such). This tactic will probably be more effective for MTFs though, since with a woman they'll probably assume it's a maiden (or former married) name. A variation of this idea is if your original first name is also a common surname, put just that down; likewise they'll probably assume the same thing.

FYI, when a background check is done through a private company (as opposed to for example obtaining a police report straight through the appropriate agency), their records are made of a compilation of public records and other records associated with a particular SSN. That means there is frequently erroneous information with such checks (search around on the Internet and you may find stories like those of someone supposedly committing rape before he was even old enough to start kindergarten). That also means that if you were to run a check through five different companies you'll probably get five different results. Also, from what I understand, the SSN "traces" they do to find previous names and addresses is NOT based on the actual SSA records for that person (which can only be released to certain parties), but names that have been associated with the number when obtaining credit, employment, etc. That's why nicknames and spelling errors/variations you have used for such purposes can show up, as well as if someone has stolen your SSN and used another name along with it. For early-transitioning TSs that explains why if you change your name before having any of those kinds of records you may be able to dodge this bullet (and be able to use the tactics in the earlier posts on this thread), and for all practical purposes your name change would be like that of someone who was adopted in terms of having to reveal the original name (from some adoptees I've talked to such names usually don't show up under such checks unless they were adopted after having such "adult" records).

I advocate lying.

Ok, so no matter what, employers will always know your birth name. Then it's not at all possible to get a job as your target gender. You will always and forever be considered and employed as (or not employed because of) your birth gender. Then why do so many claim to work stealth when it's not possible to hide your birth name from employers?

Quote from: thefire on June 06, 2012, 07:53:11 AM
Ok, so no matter what, employers will always know your birth name. Then it's not at all possible to get a job as your target gender. You will always and forever be considered and employed as (or not employed because of) your birth gender. Then why do so many claim to work stealth when it's not possible to hide your birth name from employers?

As I said in this post, whether or not an employer will find out about your past is not simply a "yes" or "no" question but depends on several factors like those I mentioned.

Here's a good way to get a clue as to whether or not your old name would show up on a typical background check done through a third-party company (bearing in mind like I've said before that each company/site you do a check with is different and you may get different results with different ones): Search your name on a site like Peoplefinders or Intellius; on some sites like those they'll show a listing of names and/or aliases that relevant records they have on you are associated with. Note that even various spelling variations and nicknames (e.g. Catherine Smith vs. Katherine Smith vs. Kate Smith vs. Katie Smith) or different presences/absences of middle names/initials (e.g. John Miller vs. J.R. Miller vs. John R. Miller vs. John Robert Miller vs. J. Robert Miller) that have been used in some capacity that appears on their record (e.g. to obtain credit or employment, or having been convicted of a crime under) will register as another alias, as would errors like these. In general those who have the best odds of their old name not appearing are those who transitioned young enough before they had any of these types of records under their old name. The next best odds are with those who either transitioned a long time ago or have diligently and successfully changed over as many things as they can. The worst odds are with recent older transitioners and those who have one or more "red flags" under their old name like a bad credit or criminal conviction history. If you were to run a search on a cisgendered person whose name was changed for whatever reason you'll probably see similar results; if for example the name change was related to a childhood adoption the original name likely won't show up, but it probably will on a change related to marriage (unless it was a long time ago or done very young). On the other hand most name-changing brides don't go back and change things like old credit accounts, school records, etc. that many TSs do, so that may skew those results.