How Important is a Name?

Here's a weird case from a morals perspective: To what degree should we be able to define our own identity?

Here's the story: Judge Rules On Name Change

The problem is that the judge's ruling, from a strictly legal perspective, is fine. That is, from the perspective of the law as defined by the State of Oklahoma Judge Graves is in the right here. There are a number of people who would prefer not have sex or enter marriage with someone who has had transgender surgery even as they otherwise accept that it is a person's right to do so. There is also the legitimate issue of whether or not the person is legally male even after the surgery has been completed; the judge's point that person remains male at the cellular level and then using that for his standard is legitimate. There are a number of other standards that he could have used, such as Ingram's ability or inability to become pregnant or if musculature or skeleton had changed, but that's at the discretion of the judge; nonetheless, in all of those cases Ingram would have been still male. The last point is iffy, about the gender change being an effective disguise, but that one could have gone either way.

Ultimately, from a legal perspective, I can understand the judge's ruling.

However, it doesn't work out from a morals level. The judge errs by bringing the biblical quote into the situation. The problem is twofold: The first is that he may have erred by adding a religious element, especially when rendering a judgment such as this given the current atmosphere; the summoning of the biblical spirit when so many transgendered have reason to hate the religious was a serious error in judgment.

At the same time, he may have erred when he decided against the name change. If Ingram really wanted to demonstrate his change, his name is a vital step. Names have power; changing his name to represent her new status (pronouns work here, I believe) is a powerful first step towards solidifying that new identity. She was attempting to make a point by changing her name to fit her new persona, demonstrating to her community as a whole that she had a fundamental change in who she is.

She, through the free will that we were given by God, was acting to make a change in her life that she felt was necessary. She did not feel that she was a man, and was taking steps to change that. This was not a simply or easy solution, and it was no doubt reached only by seriously considering all of the different factors involved. She decided that the identity she was given at birth did not fit her, and so decided to change that. It was her choice, and, as long as she was willing to accept the ramifications of that decision, she should have been allowed to make whatever changes she felt as necessary.

In that regard, the judge erred. If he is arguing that she could commit fraud by using the female name, then an equal argument could be made that she was committing fraud by using the male name. The name no longer reflects who she is and, if expectations are based on her name, she is not going to get the behaviors towards her that she is expecting. Worse, as she if for all intents and purposes a man, she is going to mess with those expecting a man rather than a woman. The judge is messing with those expectations on a number of levels, and I'm not sure how correct that is. Let's just hope Ingram appeals and gets the name she deserves...