Tessa Hirschfeld-Stoler Olin Yuri Winn-Ritzenberg, 26, was asked to provide documentation when he sought to change his name.Should a transgender person seeking judicial permission to change her or his name be required to furnish medical documentation justifying the change?
A panel of justices in State Supreme Court in Manhattan ruled on Wednesday that the answer is no. The ruling was a victory for the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, a nonprofit advocacy organization.
The fund had brought the case on behalf of a transgender man, Olin Yuri Winn-Ritzenberg, who had petitioned the New York City Civil Court seeking to legally change his name from Leah Uri Winn-Ritzenberg.
In February, a Civil Court judge in Manhattan, Manuel J. Mendez, denied the petition, ruling that Mr. Winn-Ritzenberg first had to provide a letter from a physician, psychologist or social worker documenting the “need” for the name change.
Michael D. Silverman, the executive director of the transgender advocacy group, argued that the state’s common law generally allows an adult “to change his or her name at will, for any reason,” and that transgender petitioners like Mr. Winn-Ritzenberg were being held to a higher standard. About 10 other people, all in Manhattan, have approached the fund with similar reports of having their name-changing petitions denied for the same reason Judge Mendez gave.
Advocates like Mr. Silverman note that not all transgender people take steps like hormone-replacement therapy or sex-reassignment surgery; many take the view that gender is socially constructed, or not even a stable or meaningful category altogether. The fund’s Name Change Project connects transgender people seeking to change their names with lawyers who work for free or for low cost.
Three justices — Douglas E. McKeon, Martin Schoenfeld and Martin Shulman — on Wednesday reversed Judge Mendez’s ruling, voting unanimously to grant Mr. Winn-Ritzenberg’s petition. They found that he had “satisfied the requirements for a name change” under state law, and wrote, “In the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or interference with the rights of others, the name change petition should have been granted.”
They added, “There is no sound basis in law or policy to engraft upon the statutory provisions an additional requirement that a transgendered-petition present medical substantial for the desired name change.”
“This ruling confirms that each one of us has the right to be known by a name we choose,” Mr. Silverman said. “That choice can’t be second-guessed by doctors, therapists or anyone else just because someone is transgender.”
Mr. Winn-Ritzenberg, who is 26 and pursuing a master’s degree in social work at Hunter College, said in a statement after the ruling was issued: “This ruling means that I can finally change my name and move forward with my life. My gender transition has been a very personal journey, and no one is in a better position to decide that I need to change my name than I am.”
Comments are no longer being accepted.