“The arguments referencing the risk of homosexuality and abortion may well be welcome and normal within the context of [his] private life and views. However they are disgraceful when used in the present context. The balance of [the teacher’s] arguments are borne from unrealistic hysteria and we need not go into them further.”
Brutal. Good on them for sending such a strong message about their low opinion of bigoted teachers.
This is one case when the title really undersells the story.
I am also drawn to this comment like a shark to blood:
They don’t say what he thinks the requirement are, but I’ve worked with someone who is likely to be the foremost expert on names in NZ (not close enough that they would know my name, though). Legally changing your name is as easy as starting to use the new one. If it’s not done in an attempt at identity theft or fraud, and you actually use the name as your own, you have assumed the new name and “legally” it is yours.
The tricky bit is proving your new name to organisations. The bank won’t take your word for it, so you need proof. They will ask for a birth certificate or passport, etc, to prove your name. So there is a process needed to change your name on your birth certificate, which is probably what they are referring to.
Do I expect anyone to know or care about this distinction? No, unless you’re claiming to know the legal details of changing your name.
Like a shark to blood…
(Do I have proof of any of this? No, I can’t work it out in the legislation. Maybe it’s common law? I don’t know, take with a grain of salt).
The fact is, if being trans isn’t a legally valid reason to change your name, then the law is the problem. And what the law says isn’t relevant anyway. It has nothing to do with what a teacher can call their student.
Absolutely, I was just rambling about his lack of knowledge about legal name changes despite claiming to know.
Nah you’re correct, this is the advice my lawyer gave me about name changes.