An Oklahoma judge has twice now refused to grant a name change to a transsexual on the basis that it would be assisting “that which is fraudulent.”

In his esteemed opinion, SRS doesn’t change DNA and therefore attempting to appear as a woman while still a man is fraudulent.

In case that doesn’t convince you, he quoted the bible for the authority that God intended men to stay men and women to stay women.

Last, he didn’t want to be seen as complicit in legitimizing sex change through name change.

Seriously?

Fraud and deceit

Fraud in the legal sense is about misleading others to their financial detriment. We neither mislead, nor take advantage of anyone. Even if it were otherwise, people tell lies and half-truths all the time; heck, people even pretend on occasion – costume parties, Hallowe’en, acting – none of it fraudulent. Most of it is normal and expected in polite society, otherwise we would have conversations like this: “This is my son; isn’t he just adorable?” “No, I’m afraid he is as ugly as you are.”

Anyway, there is no deceit. A person who lives as the gender opposite to their DNA is braving judgment, ostracization, discrimination, self-doubt, loneliness, etc., as well as the pain, incovenience and expense of surgery and other procedures. We do not undertake this decision lightly, and are seriously committed to it. Is it not more “fraudulent” to feel this way and introduce yourself as a man?

Legitimacy

  A transsexual can live full-time as a woman, even get her operation, and more than likely is called by her female name by everyone who deals with her, but somehow by refusing to allow her offical name to match what is going on in reality, this judge thinks he is denying her sex change legitimacy? More likely, he is denying his own decision legitimacy. He can pronounce from the bench that the sun revolves around the earth – and that has been tried – but it doesn’t make it so. This decision is just messing with the peace of mind of the individual in question in service of the personal beliefs of this judge – a no-no in our legal system.

Invoking God’s Name and Children’s Names Too

 Shall we now set up a government commission to validate the names chosen by parents for their children too? What if a parent chose to call their daughter Chris? or Pat? or Jamie? Or even Toni, or Andi or Frankie? Should we disallow parents from using these names that may confuse others about the gender of their children? How about Moon Unit or Dweezil?

And, what does God have to do with the law? Isn’t there a separation of church and state in the United States? Besides, it is an insult to God that so often people wanting to do something stupid claim that it is God’s will. If you cannot come up with a fair and just, kind and generous reason to do something, chances are that God doesn’t want you to do it, because God is all those things.

Practically Speaking

  Is it not better for everyone in society if people who genuinely feel themselves to be female and are obviously and irreversibly committed to that feeling – even if they are provably wrong – be allowed to live as female? If you force such a person to retain a male name, you cause them much personal anguish. And, everywhere the divergence between their existence and their name becomes evident – airport, hospital, employment interviews, etc. – there will have to be explanations offered and accommodations made and awkward conversations and possibly embarrassment.

If you let them be, they just live as women. No one need check their DNA; that is between them and their atomic physical existence – it has no practical significance.

“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Heard that one?

(For more info, see here.)