I don't mean to be insensitive about the poster's situation, but it would just seem to me that if you're going through with the long and dramatic process of changing your gender that the commit behavior of a common source code control system would be the least of your considerations.

Men may not change names as often as women, but they certainly change email addresses, job titles, and other affiliations. This creates very similar practical considerations, not just with SCCS, but with mailing list archives, web archives, and most every other form of electronic record.

This poster seems to have an issue with the static and un-malleable nature of the written past in general.

That's true, and I think assigning malice to this situation is unfounded. But maybe this is a problem worth solving?

This is the stupidest thing you'll read today. Commits are cryptographically signed, which is why you can't change details on them. Its a feature. Get over it. Math isn't patriarchal.

Come on, don't reject it so flippantly. Sure, for the case of a woman getting married and taking a new last name, I doubt it's that big of a deal - you can change your name for future commits, but your old name will exist for historical commits. However, there _are_ cases where you might not want your former name around (transgender, or even something like privacy / witness protection). Right now, these folk are being sort of excluded (however inadvertently) and it's worth discussing ways to fix that.