Intentionally refusing to refer to someone by their chosen name is wrong whether that name is Muhammad Ali, Chelsea Manning, or Julia Turing. I have certainly seen comments flagged on HN for inappropriateness when they refuse to refer to Manning by her chosen name.
Are you trying to "gotcha" people who argue for trans rights?
I am arguing for people to be in control of their own identity. It doesn't matter whether the reason for the change is due to gender like Manning, religion like Ali, or for someone unknown reason like Turing.
In no way, does it ‘sound like’ the items were accessible to the public. From the article,
> A former biology teacher at the Sherborne said Julia Turing claimed she was Alan Turing’s daughter when he gave her a tour of the school.
So, while her name was not legally Turing yet, it sounds like the good professor rolled out the red carpet for her, based on who he believed her to be. It’s very certain fraud was attempted, and also successful.
It says these items were tucked away somewhere in ‘a wooden box in a laboratory’, not sitting in the library in the open for anyone to pick up and look at.
Therefore, I don’t think the reason for the name change is unknown in the case of Ms. Turing. I think it is reasonable to surmise that she believed it would be in her best interest to to acquire the last name, that helped her commit the crime 4 years prior.
Also "a wooden box in a laboratory" doesn't exactly sound like something that is under lock and key with access limited to next of kin. If access to these items was truly so limited, their theft would have been pinned on Turing immediately. In addition, I don't see what benefit she could possibly have received in changing her name four years after the theft. If anything it would further endanger her by linking her legal name to the one she gave the people at Sherborne.
Just as the author of "Animal Farm" is not obliged to state clearly and exactly the legal names of the people his characters represent, and we all know who they represent.
Would you have a similar objection if the root comment factually referred to "The woman previously called Miss Schwinghamer"? or would that factual reference still not be good enough for you?
People have a right to be called what they want
I don't think I should have to participate in someone else's reality if I don't want to, just like they're not obliged to interact with me in the way I demand. It's always nice when they do, but I don't think people have a special right to dictate these kinds of terms to other people. I think this is especially true when the person being discussed will never see this conversation.
You have freedom of speech and don't have to abide by their request. This leads back to my original comment. It is a act of kindness to abide by people's wishes when it requires no extra effort on your part and actively refusing to do it is at best condescending.
In this case, it adds confusion to the circumstances of a crime.