You may or may not be
aware that in California, if you identify with the gender you were at birth and
you wish to change your name (without change of citizenship, change of status,
or help from the Witness Protection Program), you have to advertise the intention
in a local newspaper. The reasoning is
that should someone disagree with the new name, he or she may appear in court
and protest, giving the reasons.
California has different legislation for those who identify with a
different gender than they were at birth, and wish to change their name: They
do not have to advertise it in the paper.
Do you may think it is no
big deal to have different sets of rules for the population? Well, if those who identify with a different
gender than they were at birth had to fork out $300 extra to advertise the intention
in a newspaper, they would cry that it is an invasion of their privacy and
unfair to have to pay more than those born the gender with which they still
identify. So why then is it acceptable
to invade the privacy of citizens who identify with the gender they were at
birth and to ask them to fork out the money?
I wrote letters to Gov.
Brown often related to his Unconstitutional Mandatory Vaccination Legislations. Here is the last letter I wrote to him as “Debbie.”
December
23, 2017
Governor
Jerry Brown
State
Capitol
1st
Floor
Sacramento,
CA 95814
Dear Governor Brown,
It is inappropriate to discriminate
against those identifying with the gender that they were born who are seeking a
name change. This group who identify
with the gender they were born have to fork out $300 to advertise the intent to
change their names in the newspaper. (I
checked with our local paper.) The group
who now identify with a different gender than they were born do not have to do
this. Why should someone be offered the
chance to notice a name change in the paper and have the opportunity to come to
court to stop an average person from changing their name when it isn’t equally
so for those who identify with a different gender than they were born? If legislation is good enough for those who
identify with a different gender than they were born, then why isn’t that good
enough for those who are identifying with the gender they were born? A criminal could just as easily be in either
group.
According to the Transgender Law
Center, “As of July 1, 2014, individuals changing their name to conform with
their gender identity are no longer be required to: (1) publish their name
change; and (2) attend a court hearing for their name change, so long as it is
uncontested and you are not concurrently seeking a court-ordered gender change.
When filling out form NC-100, check the box next to Question #3 b. “Other (Specify)” and write
the following text below the line ‘This petition seeks to conform petitioner’s
name with petitioner’s gender identity.’”
The group who identify with the
gender they were born have to appear in court. The other group have
choices. The individuals who now
identify with a different gender than what they were born really do not even
have to undergo any fixed treatment. The
treatment is up to the doctor and patient.
It actually may involve no surgery or hormonal change. It is a private decision. Well, if a person chooses to remain the
gender they were born that is a private decision, too and this group should not
be forced to do things the other group is not forced to do. Please fix this
legislation to be the same for the public who identify with the gender they
were born instead of discriminating against them.
Most of all, when people marry or
change their citizenship, they sign the name they want as their new name. No advertisement or visit to court is
necessary. If legislation excuses the
gender fluid group from the newspaper notification and visit to court, it
should be the same for the gender certain group.
Thank-you,
Debbie
Allsup
No comments:
Post a Comment