Delaware Inmate Fights For Name Change

In Delaware, as in many other US States, inmates are allowed to change their names only for religious purposes.

Now Governor Jack Markell is backing legislation that, if passed, would allow transgender prisoners to change their names.  However, there is no provision in the law for transferring detainees from facilities designated for their birth gender to those reserved for the gender by which they identify.

The, sponsored by Representative James "J.J." Johnson, comes after two courts in The First State blocked a name-change petition from  an inmate at the Baylor Women's Correctional Institution.  Lakisha Lavette Short, who is serving a 55-year sentence as a repeat offender, identifies as a man and wants to go by the name "Kai".  

Last August, Delaware State Supreme Court Judge Jane Brady,  in denying Short's petition, wrote that there is no fundamental right to change one's name.  She also wrote that the state has legitimate reasons to deny a name change because it "needs the ability to quickly and accurately identify people in prison and on parole". Moreover, she claimed, in essence, that  inmates seeking  name changes for religious reasons are "in a separate category" because of their First Amendment right to religious freedom.

American Civil Liberties Union lawyers working with Short are arguing that current Delaware law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution because it allows prisoners to change their names for religious, but not any other, reasons.

An earlier version of Johnson's bill would have allowed for the transfer of prisoners from the a facility for one gender to a facility for the other.  That part was removed before the bill was introduced.

Two years ago, Governor Markell and other lawmakers approved legislation adding gender identity to the Diamond State's anti-discrimination laws.  Let's hope they can continue their good work.

Denying A Wolfe At Red Lion

Last month, people all over the United States were shocked to learn that, in their own country, there are still high schools that hold separate proms for white and black students.  So, students who have spent hundreds of hours with each other in classrooms, played on sports teams (or cheered them on) together, fought, hugged--and, in some cases, dated--could not dance with each other as they were about to graduate.

One such school was in Wilcox County, Georgia.  The state in which I was born (but spent only the first seven months of my life) has, to be sure, been one of the most atavistic when it comes to race relations.  It was one of the last states to repeal Jim Crow laws, and only in Missisippi were more African-Americans lynched between 1892 and 1968.  Still, it's hard to believe that even in such a place, such a frankly barbaric practice as a segregated prom could continue.

That is, until its students dragged out of the 19th Century and into the 21st.  Four girls--two white, two black--took it upon themselves to organize a prom to which all of their classmates were invited.  Roughly equal numbers of students of both races attended, and DJs, photographers and other people came from as far away as New York to volunteer their services.

I mention this story becuase it is, after all, prom season, and another group of people is facing discrimination.

I'm talking about transgender students who aren't allowed to attend in the gender in which they identify.  In one of the most egregious examples of this, Mark Shue, the principal of Red Lion (PA) Area  High School, changed Isaak Wolfe's bid to become the prom king to one to become the prom queen.  He did this without notifying Isaak.  Moreover, he said that Wolfe's female name would be read at graduation.

Shue's rationale for his actions is that Isaak Wolfe's name has not yet become legal.  He is working on that change, and he has been living by his male name--and in his male gender--for some time.  I don't know anything about Pennsylvania law, but I would think that it may well be possible that Wolfe's name change won't become official until he turns 18.  Still, if Wolfe has been living as a boy, with a boy's name--and that is how his classmates, teachers and family know him--he should be allowed to attend the prom and campaign for a title as the person he is.  As he told reporters, had he known Shue would change his petition, he never would have competed.  "It's humiliating," he said.

I call it bullying.  


I say that as someone who didn't attend her prom, and participate in many other activities and rituals that are normal parts of most people's lives, because I couldn't do so as the person I am.  Not being able to live with such integrity, I came to see rejection, exclusion and pure-and-simple meanness as normal.  You've probably heard songs about how love was for other people.  That is how I felt, and still feel sometimes.  When you are subjected to such treatment throughout your life, you have a more difficult time starting or maintaining relationships, or even believing that they are possible.  In other words, you internalize the bullying and bigotry to which you're subjected.

Principal Shue has already humiliated Isaak Wolfe.  I hope he realizes the error of his way and doesn't contribute to a cycle of alienation and despair that has claimed far too many young people.

Sixteen Months And $18,000 Later

In New York City, it costs $160.  In Oklahoma, it costs $18,000.

You read that right.  Oh, but it gets even better.  The thing I'm talking about takes about one month in New York versus 16 in Oklahoma.  

Plus, in the Sooner State, you have to fight for it in ways that no one in the Empire State has had to fight, at least for the past two decades or so.

So what is this thing I'm hinting at?  If you've been reading this blog, you might have figured it out:  a transgender's name change.

The $160 figure I've quoted included the filing fee, the cost of having my court order published in the Legal Notices section of The Village Voice and the certified copies of the order the court clerk made.  And one month (actually, a couple of days short of that) is the amount of time that elapsed from the time I filed until the day the court received notice that its order had been published.

Then again, the Civil Court in downtown Manhattan, where I filed, doesn't have a great master of jurisprudence like the eminent Bill Graves.  In a country that supposedly still recognizes a separation between church and state, and faith and the law, the Honorable Mister Graves has used the Bible as his basis for denying trans people the right to change their names.  

Then again, who am I to criticize a judge for using The Good Book in making his decisions?  After all, he learned everything he knows about genetics from it.  I'll be the first to admit that he knows far more about it than I do, and probably ever will.  "If you're born male, you say male, according to the study I've done on DNA," he advised someone who petitioned to change her name.  "And if you're born female, you stay female."

Christie Ann Harvey had the chutzpah courage to challenge the learned judge. She filed an appeal after the judge, as he did in the case of Angela Renee Ingram, cited the Bible and his trove of knowledge about the human genome to deny her request to change her name from Steven.  Ms. Harvey's efforts resulted in an order from the Civil Court of Appeals that reversed Judge Graves' decision.  The Court also said that Graves abused his discretion in citing the Bible instead of Oklahoma law in making his decision.

One of the most bizarre aspects of this story is that, not long after Judge Graves denied Ms. Harvey's petition, she was allowed to change her gender, but not her name, on her driver's license.  It's one of the reasons why, she says, she was "living in limbo."  Not surprisingly, she's "happy" that she can now take one more step to living a normal life in the gender of her mind and spirit.  

If anyone is living in limbo, I'd say it's the Honorable Judge Graves.

A "Fraudulent" Request

According to Bill Graves, I made a fraudulent request on 18 June 2003.  

Thankfully (for me, anyway), he is a District Judge in Oklahoma. I filed my request in the Civil Court in Manhattan.

But the fact that Judge Graves presides over the court in Oklahoma County is not so felicitious for James Dean Ingram.  My petition for my name change was granted within a month.  A couple of weeks later, as per the law, I'd published it in the Legal Notices section of the Village Voice (the newspaper chosen by the judge), had the change notarized, and I have been Justine ever since.

On the other hand, Ingram, who has been living as a woman, was not allowed to change "James Dean" to "Angela Renee."  The esteemed judge's decision was based on his extensive research:  "If you're born male, you stay male, according to the study I've done on  DNA.  If you're born female, you stay female."  

However, the honorable jurist revealed another motive for his denial of Ingram's petition:  "You'll give me publicity I don't want."

And I thought the standards for scholarship in gender studies were low!  According to Judge Graves, one can reach valid scientific conclusions based upon one's desire, or lack thereof, for attention.

I suppose Ms. Ingram is not aware of that.  Had she known, perhaps she wouldn't have been so crushed that she "just wanted to die."  

Last year, in a similar case, Graves cited the Bible and "expert testimony" in concluding that "the DNA code shows that God meant for them to stay male and female."

So let's see...His credentials in jurisprudence qualify him as an expert on the Bible and genetics. Hmm...Maybe I should have gone to law school. But, if I had, I somehow think I might have ruled differently.  After all, two erudite and reasonable people can come to different conclusions on the same subject, right?

By any chance is this Graves fellow related to someone named Lysenko?  Or Shockley?