I read about this from Erin Reed. She said that there was 1) no place on the rules of the petition that said she had to list it and 2) no place to write it in on the petition
It’s also a law that’s been on the books years, and last modified in 1995. It’s a common sense law. Candidates should not be able to hide past indiscretions with a name change. It has nothing to do with trans issues or dead names.
You don’t get to change your first name my marriage, and generally, records are not sealed so people can find out their maiden name. Changing your name via court order can be sealed and often involves changing both first and last names.
Except there’s no place on candidate forms to put it, it’s not written on any of the lists of candidates requirements, and has never been recently enforced. She wasn’t hiding her name, she literally didn’t know she needed to because it wasn’t listed anywhere. It’s like if you ran for office but got rejected at the last minute because you didn’t disclose all your addresses from the last 15 years, despite there not being an official place to actually do that.
People are framing this as some anti-trans law, when that has nothing to do with the original law. In 1995, 99.9% of people had no idea what a deadname is.
“Recent” being within 5 years seems understandable in a general political context, however is a little cruel to trans people who usually don’t want their deadnames out in the public. Would this ruling be applied the same way to married people who changed their name?
I was being rhetorical- I know that they aren’t applying it to married people. But why? Wouldn’t the same reasoning hold, that you could use it to defraud? If not, why wouldn’t changing your name to transition not be in the same category of life event as marriage?
or, hear me out. if you’re running for political office, you deal with such things like an adult. deadname or not, this person would face MUCH more harsh situations in office than having to put a name you don’t go by anymore.
I’m afraid that’s a pretty poor argument. It’s not inherently more mature to subject yourself things that harm you because there exist things that can harm you out in the world.
Please try listening to trans people about their experiences. Deadnaming isn’t just using a old name. For a lot of people, it’s kind of like being called the worst nickname your high school bully had for you, except that everyone in your life, your parents, your friends, everyone, has only called you that for years and years. Some people have a better or at least neutral relationship to their deadname, but it’s still considered incredibly impolite to reference generally speaking.
In regards to this rule, I don’t see a legitimate argument for excluding name changes from marriage and not similarly applying this exception for name changes for trans people (ie associated with a gender marker change, if we want similar criteria to differentiate from other name changes). Both are life events that should be considered normal and regular and not associated with potential fraud. Either this rule applies equally to everyone, or it shouldn’t be applied at all (like it hasn’t been applied in decades to the extent that it isn’t even on the official form).
that it has nothing to do with people that think they are something they are not
Thanks for the explicit transphobia, I’m not interested in continuing this conversation either. Trans people are a normal part of life and until you come to terms with that, you should keep their names out of your mouth.
Do you ever get tired of being a complete and utter piece of shit? Your whole comment history is mostly just you being an unempathetic asshole. Must be nice to not give a shit about anyone but yourself, really simplifies life I bet.
Loads of scammers change only their last names, so I don’t really buy that it’s that different. They should require names changed by marriage too if they want the purpose of this to be for tricking the public. If not, then I question how necessary it is in the first place. It’s not a big deal for Cis folks, but it is for Trans folks, so it should be reconsidered.
I feel like you’re being a bit obtuse, use in the sense of what she’s running under. The headline and tenor of all this is trying to mislead folks into the narrative that she is being forced to run and be identified according to her dead-name or whatever.
That’s all, no need to continue this line of inquiry
It literally is requiring her to be identified by her deadname. Which is why “use” is the correct term. It actually is meaningful, even if you don’t realize that it is. It’s not just a technicality.
It’s not requiring her to identify by that name. The requirement is that it is listed on the petition as a name change. ‘use’ is not the right word and ‘list’ or ‘include’ are better options.
No it isn’t. I had to disclose my prior name when registering to vote, for my passport and driving license applications, and for my working with children check.
That’s using your name. You had to use your name to do those things. You can say it’s fine. But understanding that you’re using that name might help you understand one of the difficulties of being trans.
I’m not trying to be difficult or win an argument or anything. This is just a real example of how a trans person has to deal with being deadnamed.
Yeah, this is an interesting case, the public has a legitimate interest to know the previous identity of a candidate, and the candidate has a legitimate interest in disassociating with their previous identity.
Thankfully Americans are known to approach such cases with compassion and nuance, surely.
*prior identity of someone who didn’t change their name when married apparently. Just anyone who changed their name legally for any other reason, like going back to their maiden name, being transgender, or wanting to change their name for any other number of reasons.
I’m probably speaking out of turn here, but reporting a previous name is a simple matter of security, not deadnaming. I’m not trans, but I use my stepfather’s surname and changed to that legally when I was 18. If someone called me by my mom’s abuser’s name to my face I would be distraught, but when forms ask me for prior legal names I just list it and it’s not a big deal. It’s just an identity thing.
The form isn’t asking “what’s your real name?” it’s asking “have you ever been known by any other legal names?”
It really is not what you are saying it is. You have to disclose it, not use it, because otherwise it’s an easy way to evade any background checks. No one except the recipient of your application is going to see it; using a name is not the same as disclosing it. Using it means it is employed in a manner which people will identify you as, this is not the case here.
For not listing her prior name as a recent name change. She can use the name she wants.
I read about this from Erin Reed. She said that there was 1) no place on the rules of the petition that said she had to list it and 2) no place to write it in on the petition
It’s also a law that’s been on the books years, and last modified in 1995. It’s a common sense law. Candidates should not be able to hide past indiscretions with a name change. It has nothing to do with trans issues or dead names.
Candidates should be able to hide past indiscretions with a name change.unfortunate typo
Oops
Well, they can apparently get married to hide their past indiscretions.
You don’t get to change your first name my marriage, and generally, records are not sealed so people can find out their maiden name. Changing your name via court order can be sealed and often involves changing both first and last names.
shh. they don’t allow common sense on Lemmy. an unfortunate holdover from reddit.
Come on! You can do it better than reddit. Dont be a douchebag and just complain. Make this environment better and friendlier.
If you think someone is just wrong. Let him be, dont comment like this. Do it better than reddit.
Their husbands will sort them out. /s
And yet getting married and changing your name without disclosure is fine.
Except there’s no place on candidate forms to put it, it’s not written on any of the lists of candidates requirements, and has never been recently enforced. She wasn’t hiding her name, she literally didn’t know she needed to because it wasn’t listed anywhere. It’s like if you ran for office but got rejected at the last minute because you didn’t disclose all your addresses from the last 15 years, despite there not being an official place to actually do that.
She also directly said she agrees with the law.
People are framing this as some anti-trans law, when that has nothing to do with the original law. In 1995, 99.9% of people had no idea what a deadname is.
“Recent” being within 5 years seems understandable in a general political context, however is a little cruel to trans people who usually don’t want their deadnames out in the public. Would this ruling be applied the same way to married people who changed their name?
You would know if you would read the article.
I was being rhetorical- I know that they aren’t applying it to married people. But why? Wouldn’t the same reasoning hold, that you could use it to defraud? If not, why wouldn’t changing your name to transition not be in the same category of life event as marriage?
or, hear me out. if you’re running for political office, you deal with such things like an adult. deadname or not, this person would face MUCH more harsh situations in office than having to put a name you don’t go by anymore.
I’m afraid that’s a pretty poor argument. It’s not inherently more mature to subject yourself things that harm you because there exist things that can harm you out in the world.
Please try listening to trans people about their experiences. Deadnaming isn’t just using a old name. For a lot of people, it’s kind of like being called the worst nickname your high school bully had for you, except that everyone in your life, your parents, your friends, everyone, has only called you that for years and years. Some people have a better or at least neutral relationship to their deadname, but it’s still considered incredibly impolite to reference generally speaking.
In regards to this rule, I don’t see a legitimate argument for excluding name changes from marriage and not similarly applying this exception for name changes for trans people (ie associated with a gender marker change, if we want similar criteria to differentiate from other name changes). Both are life events that should be considered normal and regular and not associated with potential fraud. Either this rule applies equally to everyone, or it shouldn’t be applied at all (like it hasn’t been applied in decades to the extent that it isn’t even on the official form).
Removed by mod
Thanks for the explicit transphobia, I’m not interested in continuing this conversation either. Trans people are a normal part of life and until you come to terms with that, you should keep their names out of your mouth.
Removed by mod
Do you ever get tired of being a complete and utter piece of shit? Your whole comment history is mostly just you being an unempathetic asshole. Must be nice to not give a shit about anyone but yourself, really simplifies life I bet.
Loads of scammers change only their last names, so I don’t really buy that it’s that different. They should require names changed by marriage too if they want the purpose of this to be for tricking the public. If not, then I question how necessary it is in the first place. It’s not a big deal for Cis folks, but it is for Trans folks, so it should be reconsidered.
As if the transphobes only want to hear their deadnames to stroke their egos.
Good clarification. The title is still correct though. They still want her to use her prior name, just not exclusively so.
Disclose, not use. She can use her name as her real name and political persona
Putting your name on something IS using it.
I feel like you’re being a bit obtuse, use in the sense of what she’s running under. The headline and tenor of all this is trying to mislead folks into the narrative that she is being forced to run and be identified according to her dead-name or whatever.
That’s all, no need to continue this line of inquiry
It literally is requiring her to be identified by her deadname. Which is why “use” is the correct term. It actually is meaningful, even if you don’t realize that it is. It’s not just a technicality.
It’s requiring her to list what her deadname is, which is a far cry from using her deadname.
It’s not requiring her to identify by that name. The requirement is that it is listed on the petition as a name change. ‘use’ is not the right word and ‘list’ or ‘include’ are better options.
No it isn’t. I had to disclose my prior name when registering to vote, for my passport and driving license applications, and for my working with children check.
That’s using your name. You had to use your name to do those things. You can say it’s fine. But understanding that you’re using that name might help you understand one of the difficulties of being trans.
I’m not trying to be difficult or win an argument or anything. This is just a real example of how a trans person has to deal with being deadnamed.
Yeah, this is an interesting case, the public has a legitimate interest to know the previous identity of a candidate, and the candidate has a legitimate interest in disassociating with their previous identity.
Thankfully Americans are known to approach such cases with compassion and nuance, surely.
*prior identity of someone who didn’t change their name when married apparently. Just anyone who changed their name legally for any other reason, like going back to their maiden name, being transgender, or wanting to change their name for any other number of reasons.
Are people made aware of the previous identity, or is it just for security’s sake in the application process?
I’m not sure how it works in Ohio, but my state has a similar thing where a candidate will have their previous name listed underneath in parenthesis.
I’m probably speaking out of turn here, but reporting a previous name is a simple matter of security, not deadnaming. I’m not trans, but I use my stepfather’s surname and changed to that legally when I was 18. If someone called me by my mom’s abuser’s name to my face I would be distraught, but when forms ask me for prior legal names I just list it and it’s not a big deal. It’s just an identity thing.
The form isn’t asking “what’s your real name?” it’s asking “have you ever been known by any other legal names?”
I think it’s reasonable that you need to use your previous name to help identify you for security purposes. I’m not really arguing against that.
But at the same time, if you did have a problem with using it at all because you had completely disassociated with it, I would understand that too.
A lot of people seem to be deeply offended by a modicum of empathy though.
It really is not what you are saying it is. You have to disclose it, not use it, because otherwise it’s an easy way to evade any background checks. No one except the recipient of your application is going to see it; using a name is not the same as disclosing it. Using it means it is employed in a manner which people will identify you as, this is not the case here.