Change of Name in California: Legislation to Discriminate

         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

1^st 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