Interesting piece on the agony uncle pages of the Telegraph:
www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/dear-richard-madeley-transgender-brother-furious-choice-baby/
The key point is that a pregnant woman who has a transman sibling wants to name her baby after a female ancestor who was important to them as she (ancestor) was a suffragette and a scientist. Transman sibling has stopped to talking to her because the ancestor's name is also the transman's deadname. The writer of the letter and the wider family had supported the transman through transition and had previously had a good relationship.
Richard's reply is that she should name the baby what she likes and to "tell your brother to grow up. There’s already one baby on the way.
"You say he had full family support during his trans journey. Well, support flows both ways. Tell him how important it is to you to honour your ancestor. And why shouldn’t you? Is this valued family figure – part of ALL your collective pasts – destined to become a sort of non-person simply because of your brother?
As for him refusing to speak to you over this… well, really. He’s being over-dramatic and, frankly, ridiculous. In fact, if the naming of his little niece is the biggest thing in his life he has to worry about, he’s an extremely lucky man."
Which I thought was very good advice.
It does raise interesting questions about the nature of a deadname.
If dead then surely can be re-used? If there is still an issue then it is not dead at all. Say the deadname was Sally and the transman is now Fred then it suggests philosophically there is still a Sally-iness about Fred, if it really was a dead name there would not be. And that is why Fred is uncomfortable. If there never was any Sally to Fred and just Fred waiting to come out then surely the Sally name should be available to use within the family for others??
I wonder if a situation with the married surname of a woman who divorces and wants to never hear her ex-name again is structurally similar?
Mrs Smith goes back to being Miss Jones. Changes her documents and never, ever, ever uses the name again. Miss Jones would still have to use Smith on any document that says 'any other name you have been known by'? Surely? Is Miss Jones every really able to lose the Smith completely? would she really expect never to hear it again?
And say the married name was unusual like Fernsby. Women can choose to change their name or not. What if a friend or a cousin or sister met another Mr Fernsby and wanted to marry and take the name Fernsby, would anyone think it reasonable if the women for whom that name was 'dead' objected to the name change and having another Mrs Fernsby in the family even if the name was a traumatic one where there had been DV or soemthing?
Those of us who do change our names have our MIL, and SIL possibly too, all the same Mrs xxxx as we are. Possibly even the ex-wife too! Maybe more than one ex-wife!! Are woman just more used to having odd name associations and changes?
Although this story is a transman I associate the deadname issue more with transwomen for some reason. Maybe because women expect and evolving name identity?