What’s in a Name?

I recently discovered that Substack provides an audio-version of The Dogs of Looser Island.

And I discovered the AI-generated voice mispronounces my name.

I checked with the Customer Service bot, who told me, oozing AI-generated sympathy, that they (no gender assigned) were very sorry, but there was no way around this, unless I want to change my name to a phonetic spelling: shah-ree.

Growing up, I disliked my name. (And my red hair, and my freckles, and the fact that I moved frequently and, for the first eight years of my life, lived with only one parent). I disliked anything that made me different.

I adopted the name Elizabeth, for a while, in my diary, and tried on a few other names. As an adult, I toyed with the idea of legally changing my name.

My name, my choice.

But over the years I’ve grown to appreciate my differences. I like the odd pronunciation of my name, now. Many of my freckles have mysteriously merged to form age spots, but I appreciate the physical reminder of the freckle-faced child I used to be. And I like my hair, though now it’s more of a chestnut, generously sprinkled with gray.

So I’m sticking with Shari-rhymes-with-Ferrari (or, if you’re feeling mean-spirited, rhymes-with-sorry).

My name, my choice.

I have friends who have changed their names, some legally, others informally. I respect their choices, and it usually takes very little effort on my part to remember to use their chosen names.

Their names, their choices.

It all seems pretty straightforward to me.

I would be deeply upset if someone else decided my chosen name wasn’t sufficient. Which is why, when I saw that HHS had changed the name on the official portrait of Rachel Levine, a four star admiral, because she is trans, and foisted her previous name upon her, my first thought was: Why? Followed closely by: How petty.

High prices at home, intractable wars abroad, an economy that by almost every measure is faltering . . . why on earth is our government worrying about the name on a portrait? (Or eliminating a free day in our national parks, for that matter, or having a nonsensical conversation about whether the font an agency uses reflects “traditional values”?)

It seems likely the attack on the right of trans people to choose their names is intended as distraction from the substantive issues of the day. Trans rights are important, but the lofty language on one side of those discussions, and the coarse and insulting language on the other side, is hyperbole, a smokescreen intended to turn the public gaze away from: attacks on boats in Venezuela/Epstein files/tariffs and inflation/costs of health insurance/the effect ICE activity is having on all our communities. Not to mention the cruelty of ending healthcare subsidies, food assistance, student loan forgiveness, and many other programs designed to ensure people can meet their basic needs.

No one else’s chosen name is under scrutiny. When Attorney General Pamela Bondi says her name is Pam, we call her Pam. When Robert F. Kennedy, Jr says he’s Bobby, we call him Bobby. If a woman gets married and adopts her spouse’s last name, we use the new last name, just because she said so.

Admiral Rachel Levine says her name is Rachel, and that should be respected.

As I’ve said before, all the episodes of The Dogs of Looser Island were written years ago, updated and refreshed shortly before the publication in 2025. Unfortunately, Amelia’s story in Episode 10: Belonging is even more relevant today than when it was first written.

People are still insisting a trans person “used to be” something else, still insisting only the name given by parents is valid. And now, social media vitriol and rage-bait has added a new venue for hate (hence the update to Episode 10).

Wouldn’t it be grand if, ten years from now, in the next publication of The Dogs of Looser Island, we could collectively shake our heads ruefully at the antiquated and out-of-date episodes?

To all the Amelias in the world, here’s hoping we can do better, and be better.