A friend of mine is transgender. She recently changed her legal name from, let's say, John to Jane.

In the company where she works, when somebody changes either their first or last name, the old name is still displayed in brackets next to their last name. So her name in all emails is displayed as "Jane (John) Smith". It stays like this as long as the person works for this company, it's supposed to make it easy for colleagues to find this person if they are not aware of the change.

She doesn't want everyone including new colleagues and clients to know than she was called John before, for obvious reasons. What would be the best way to explain that to HR in order to convince them to remove the old name?

  • 27
    Did she talk to HR? It seems like an easy thing to accommodate, I don't think divorcees are keen to have their ex's name displayed either, so there should be precedent. Is there a reason to suspect a straightforward request would not be sufficient?
    – nvoigt
    Jan 15, 2020 at 21:12
  • 6
    I would talk to HR if I were her. If HR doesn't listen, I would talk to the legal counsel of the company (if it has one). When it comes to these things, the legal counsel usually has the final word over HR. Jan 16, 2020 at 10:12
  • 4
    I don't understand how this policy helps anyone. I'm trying to picture a case where if I couldn't find "Jane Smith" in a directory, I should know somehow to search for "Jane Doe (Smith)".
    – spuck
    Jan 16, 2020 at 17:25
  • 6
    @spuck Depending on the interface/search function, it could eaisly be the case that searching for "Jane Smith" brings up Jane Doe (Smith)". Jan 17, 2020 at 5:58
  • 3
    It would help if you stated your location/jurisdiction - in the UK there would be an excellent case against this because gender reassignment is a protected characteristic.
    – Dan
    Jan 18, 2020 at 13:10

5 Answers 5


What would be the best way to explain that to HR in order to convince them to remove the old name?

Precisely the actual reason, which you have also mentioned in the question, i.e.:

She doesn't want everyone including new colleagues and clients to know than she was called John before

However, the company/HR division may have some kind of internal policy in place to handle name change cases. But it doesn't hurt in talking this through with the HR, and requesting them to accommodate the request.

At least your friend could request any form of official external communication to curtail the old name.

  • I find all the answers good, but I'm accepting this one because it got the most votes from the community. Jan 17, 2020 at 19:08

You should be able to negotiate an exception to this rule. And in general you should be able to expect that in the future you are referred to as "Jane Smith" with no indication of your previous name. However in the the transition period you are probably going to have to make some concessions that address the concerns of HR.

The problem from HRs point of view is that people know the name "John Smith", and may know him as a contact with several responsibilities. If those people look in the directory for John Smith and don't find him, then they are going to assume that John Smith left the company, and will have no idea who has taken over his responsibilities. They have no idea that Jane Smith who has recently appeared in the directory is the same person.

The least you are going to expect is that someone will have to contact people who might have had dealings with you to tell them about this name change. Depending on your responsibilities this might include people outside the company. And it might not only be people you know about - if someone has given the name "John Smith" as a useful contact to someone else they may have to be told that their contact is now "Jane Smith". It is not reasonable to try to perpetuate the fiction that John Smith and Jane Smith are two different people.

Exactly how far this email has to go is going to be a matter for negotiation, but expect there to be some pressure to disseminate it widely. Remember they have already had this discussion with people who are changing their names for reasons they would rather people not know about.

You should expect an approach that will mean people contacting you for the first time know you as Jane Smith and have no knowledge of your previous name.

  • "They have no idea that Jane Smith who has recently appeared in the directory is the same person." - If I have understood anything correctly about transitioning, then this is exactly the point. The old name is called "dead name" for a reason. Yes, it may cause some waves - so what? John is dead. Long live Jane.
    – Fildor
    Jan 17, 2020 at 14:24
  • 2
    Yes, but you have to balance that with the fact that colleagues know that "John Smith" is responsible for such-and-such account, and now they have to know that person is now called "Jane Smith" and know how to reach them. I think it unrealistic to expect them to be told "Jane Smith" is now responsible for that account without also knowing that Jane Smith and John Smith are the same person. Jan 17, 2020 at 14:27
  • 3
    That's my point, they don't unless you tell them. They know that John Smith used to handle the account, and now John Smith isn't in the directory. So what do you tell them? You have to tell them something. Do you say "Jane Smith is now handling the account" and pretend Jane Smith is unconnected with John Smith? Or do you send an email to the people affected saying that John Smith is now Jane Smith, which is what I am advocating. The solution I propose is exactly that - tell the people who need to know, don't tell the whole company, and don't have something that tells people who haven't joined. Jan 17, 2020 at 14:35
  • 1
    I do see where you are coming from and you do have a point there. I just think you overcomplicate things here. An email account can be redirected/relayed. A change of responsible persons can be explained by that person who will know best how she wants to explain or if at all. The bigger concern here, however, are all the people who have never dealt with "John". To them - if they even notice - a "John Smith" has been replaced by a "Jane Smith" in the names list. Nothing really to be explained or pretended there. (imho)
    – Fildor
    Jan 17, 2020 at 14:46
  • 1
    What if John Smith actually had left and you had a new starter named Jane Smith? Just do exactly what you would do in that situation.
    – gnasher729
    Apr 2, 2022 at 11:39

As a transgender woman, your friend is always in danger of discrimination. A phonebook entry "Jane (John) Smith" tells everyone in the company she is transgender. Totally different from LGB people where the name doesn't give anyone a clue. So everyone in the company who thinks he can prove his manliness or whatever by picking on a transgender woman may now try to do so.

So to me it seems quite obvious that publishing her name like that is a really bad idea. It should be enough if she visits HR and tells them that she doesn't want her new and old name, and this reason. If there is resistance to this, then she should tell them that if there are any attacks, any discrimination against her, she will hold HR responsible for this.

There may be a company policy, but whoever wrote the policy probably had men and women in mind who are getting married and never thought about this situation.

Maybe I didn't make that clear enough. This is not negotiable. The dangers for a transgender woman are real, and HR risks extreme trouble both for the company and personally if they publish her old and new name and something goes wrong. There are no business reasons that would allow HR to put her into danger.

  • 5
    That's unnecessarily confrontational IMO, and completely ignoring the business reasons for including both names. You can easily improve this answer explaining how a company can alleviate the confusion when clients, or coworkers, suddenly get emails from Jane instead of John, and are unsure who that person is.
    – Aida Paul
    Jan 17, 2020 at 13:38
  • 1
    It might be better to negotiate with HR in peace rather than confrontationally. If anything happens, she actually needs to call HR for help rather than making HR responsible. If HR refuses to take action after actual consequences happen, then HR needs to be held responsible, not before this.
    – Mefitico
    Jan 17, 2020 at 18:21
  • Yes, this email totally ignores the realities of business which need to be addressed - like it or not.
    – deep64blue
    Jan 18, 2020 at 20:24
  • 4
    The business reality is that if OP's transgender friend gets attacked in the company because the company refused to follow absolutely minimal precautions, the company will be in big trouble.
    – gnasher729
    Apr 1, 2022 at 13:39
  • I agree that it isn't reasonable to advertise the name change indefinitely, but surely if a person has chosen to change their name, they are braced for the need for the fact to be announced (at least once) to those who already know them by the old name? If you don't want people to know you are transgender, then the only possibility would be to change your friends and colleagues as well as your name, by moving to a new place and job as a stranger.
    – Steve
    Apr 3, 2022 at 12:22

I think that one point not being addressed here, is that current employees need to know that her name has changed, in order for them (and, to some extent, her) to continue to do their jobs effectively.

So, I agree with the other answers that HR should be able to bend the rule in this case, and remove the reference to the previous name in email signatures etc. If she is in a position where people routinely need to contact her, however, then as well as this should probably be a blanket email from either herself or via HR notifying everyone of this change.

I'm speaking here as a colleague of someone who did this exact thing a year ago. She sent out a global email informing people of her new name and gender, stating that she understood that people would take some time to adjust, and would inevitably make mistakes to start with, and that's OK, provided that people at least try to get it right.

This sort of thing goes a long way towards helping everybody else adjust, and helps make those first few interactions just that little bit less awkward.

  • They don’t need to know the name changed. They need to know that nobody named John works there anymore, but someone named Jane is now working there.
    – gnasher729
    Apr 2, 2022 at 11:41
  • 1
    @gnasher729 That very much depends. At my place of work, that person was a department head, it would be very odd if people were just told that they don't work here any more, with no further explanation.
    – SiHa
    Apr 3, 2022 at 12:34

Additionally, ask IT to make 2 emailaddresses:

  • John Smith, with an autoresponder "this person (has changed their name and) can now be reached at Jane Smith"

  • Jane Smith, the account she uses from now on.

Now the requirement that people can still find the person are satisfied. People who knew her old name/mailaddress get the necessary information and can update their contact info. People who didn't know Jane before her transition, need not know about John.

  • 2
    What would the company do if a man named John Smith left, and a woman named Jane Smith took over John's job? They would just redirect all mail addressed to John Smith to Jane Smith. Or have an auto-responder "all of John Smith's responsibilities are now handled by Jane Smith". There is no need to tell anyone it's the same person.
    – gnasher729
    Apr 1, 2022 at 13:42
  • @gnasher729: that's creative, and absolutely true. There is no need, it's optional. Thanks for contributing!
    – Konerak
    Apr 1, 2022 at 17:01
  • @gnasher729, I think that very much depends. Clearly, there are some people who had no prior personal dealings with John, who don't need to be told that they are now Jane. But those who have had personal dealings with John and will continue to do so, clearly need to be told that their name is now Jane.
    – Steve
    Apr 3, 2022 at 12:30
  • @Steve: why "clearly"? If they had personal dealings, they will find out soon enough. Do note my answer had (parentheses) in it also, to deal with the requirement from the question stating "She doesn't want everyone including new colleagues and clients to know than she was called John before, for obvious reasons.".
    – Konerak
    Apr 3, 2022 at 19:19
  • @Konerak, I was replying to the point by Gnasher that "there's no need to tell anyone that it's the same person". I don't think that can be assumed generally. That's not to say it must be broadcast to every stranger, but you'd really think that before changing name, the person would have either have announced the fact, or have prepared a list of those colleagues who would have to be told. The presumption of secrecy seems ludicrous.
    – Steve
    Apr 3, 2022 at 22:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .