Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

She legally changed her last name to Turing, claimed she was his daughter despite being of no relation, and stole Turing's possessions thereby endangering his legacy. What sort of kindness and respect does this warrant? I don't think the comment violates HN standards, is civil enough and more importantly quite appropriate considering the crime.



People have a right to be called what they want. You even admit she legally changed her name so why not use it? The motivations around her desired name are of no concern to any of us.

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.


Julia Turing changed her name in order to commit fraud. Chelsea Manning changed her name because she was transgender. You seem to be ignoring context in order to make some kind of misguided point.

Are you trying to "gotcha" people who argue for trans rights?


The items were stolen in 1984 and she changed her name in 1988. It also sounds like the stolen items were accessible to the public and the claim of being Alan's daughter was not done for any financial benefit. It doesn't appear that any fraud was even attempted.

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.


I’m happy to call this woman Ms. Turing, but I don’t understand why you are defending her actions, other than the name change.

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.


I'm not defending her actions. I am defending her right to control her own identity. Committing a crime doesn't result in a person forfeiting all their basic rights.

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.


I’m so dumb. Forgive me, this is clearly a case of the IoB

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22101244


Sorry, I suspected you were being disingenuous but it seems you were not.


Thanks, I am being completely genuine. Complying with people's wishes in this regard takes no more effort than ignoring their requests, so it just gets on my nerves when people refuse to do it.


I don't mind people legally changing their names, but I don't believe it induces an obligation on other citizens.

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
No. We can chose to make them happy when what they want is reasonable, but they have no right to force other people to use the name they want, specially when they abuse the legal system to create confusion and make a crime.


How is it a right to be called what one chooses?

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.


Name changes are governed by the states so laws vary. However speaking generally, people in the US have the right to change their name for whatever reason they see fit.

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.


> and actively refusing to do it is at best condescending.

In this case, it adds confusion to the circumstances of a crime.


Not participating in someone's alternate universe where she is the daughter of Alan Turing is not "condescending" - it's healthy.


Hi gls, I agree with you that people can change their name in a way recognised in most countries. I'm not sure that their government-registered name (changed since birth or not) has any bearing on what people 'have to' or do call them though? What do you think, gls?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: