You’re hitting the wrong aspect of the problem. You should use someone’s old name when it’s absolutely necessary, not as a matter of course. People change their name for a reason after all, and if their latest one suffices, let it be.

In the case of this person, they were not notable under their birth name. Unfortunately, their transgender status is the whole reason they’re notable, and the article clearly states that they are. I don’t need that person’s old name to understand the situation.

▲

ajsnigrutin 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Pretty much every married woman (who changed/added to her last name) has her birth name written there, even if she was never notable/known as Knavs or Skłodowska.

More info is usually better than less info, if you personally don't need to know something, that does not mean that that info should be removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melania_Trump

	▲	grayhatter 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Most people, who adopt a different married name, don't do so because they consider their former name to be offensive or insulting. If I'm proud of my name, you should include it. If I'm ashamed of my name, you should omit it, unless it's important context or information. You have to have a clear articulable reason above, it's a real detail.