Samantha E. Wood, the petitioner, is a transgender adult film star who has been known as “Candi Bimbo Doll” for over a decade, according to her petition for a name change. Because this identity has been “embraced” and consistently used by her, she filed a petition to legally change her name.

No opposition was filed, but the name-change request that came before then-San Francisco Superior Court Judge Gail Dekreon was denied because she said that although “a person has a common law right to change their name to ‘Candi Bimbo Doll’ without the necessity of any legal proceeding…No person has a statutory right to change their name to a name universally recognized as being offensive.” (underline in original)

A unanimous three-justice panel from Division Two of California’s First Appellate District disagreed, concluded that Dekreon’s denial was erroneous, and reversed it on March 15. Justice James Richmond authored the opinion, which described Dekreon’s research and the precedents on which she erroneously relied. He began by quoting some of the trial judge’s research on which the denial was based.

Dekreon began with a lengthy explanation of the word “bimbo,” which she said was offensive. She explained that the word has “sometimes” been used to describe a prostitute, but the current Oxford English Dictionary says “it is now used as a derogatory term for ‘a young woman considered to be sexually attractive but of limited intelligence.’” The derogatory meaning of bimbo, universally, is an attractive but stupid young woman; a foolish, stupid, or inept person,” she said.

The trial judge then updated the definition because she was “aware of a TikTok trend of the 2020s. She said the mobile video site promotes “Bimbofication, which “encourages self-love.” She then admits that the “perception of ‘bimbo’ may be changing, but “the word itself is perceived as offensive and seen as a step backward for women empowerment in our culture…Attaching a couple of progressive words to it doesn’t actually make it political.”

She concluded, “The judiciary should not lend the Great Seal of California to a person in ‘a social experiment’ who proposed to change their name to a word or phrase that is determined to be vulgar and offensive.”

Justice Richmond was not persuaded by Dekreon’s reasoning. He began the appellate court’s reversal by citing the law governing name changes which says that “a person has a common law right to change his or her name without applying to a court.” However, he acknowledged that using a new name does not provide a public record. A statutory procedure, according to California’s Code of Civil Procedure §1275 et seq., is needed to make the name change official. He then discussed the importance of the word “may” in the Code section that explains that the court “may” without hearing, enter the order that grants the name change

The opinion explained that subsequent cases ruled that a name change “may” be denied only for a “substantial reason.” Two precedents were cited. One permitted a name change because the man who requested it had been using it for years. The other reversed a trial court denial to a woman who sought to return to her maiden name because doing so “could have an adverse effect on their children.”

Justice Richmond then turned to the one case that Dekreon cited to support her denial. In that case Russel Lawrence Lee petitioned to change his name to “Misteri Nigger,” in order to promote “a social experiment concerning a term that is considered vulgar and offensive.” This led to an appellate court affirmation of the trial court’s denial because “no one has a statutory right to change his or her name to one universally recognized as offensive.” However, he wrote, “Lee is a far cry from the situation here.”

Dekreon also cited a 1990 Rutgers Law Review article that defined strong insults as those “that tend to shock those at whom they are directed and those that hear.” The article did not include “bimbo” among offensive terms that can be considered “fighting words.”

Richmond then addressed Dekreon’s references to “bimbofication.” He noted that the word has recently been used to describe the Oscar-nominated movie Barbie, and thus it is no longer derogatory but is now a positive description of female empowerment. In striking down all the trial court’s reasoning, he said, “Bimbo is not a fighting word. It is not vulgar…and is not necessarily offensive.” He also said the word is listed 17 times on the California Secretary of State’s website of businesses and is also permitted on personalized license plates.

Next, the opinion provided a bit of history on the only four California cases in addition to Lee that upheld the denial of a name change. In the first, a man who tried to change his name to Peter Lorre was denied after the actor of the same name appeared at the hearing and testified against it. The court said the change “would confuse the public.” In another, a man named Thomas Boyd Ritchie III tried to change his name to just III, pronounced “three.” This was denied because “numbers might cause inherent confusion…” Similarly, a man with a national reputation as a “marijuana advocate” wanted to be legally known as “NJ weedman.com.” The court opposed this because it would be confused with a web domain name. Another was denied because the man who wanted it had outstanding warrants.

The opinion summed up the principle underlying the precedents as “Confusion. Confusion. Confusion. Confusion” before declaring “There is no confusion here.” He said that Dekreon’s opinion was reviewed for abuse of discretion, which cannot be “whimsical, uncontrolled power, but a legal discretion, which is subject to the limitations of legal principles governing the subject of its action…” He added, “…law provides that ‘public policy favors granting a name change’ and courts should “encourage rather than discourage’ it....Moreover, there must be ‘substantial and principled reasons’ for denying a name change. No such reason is present here.”

Candi Bimbo Doll now has a legal name.