> is because it's not a name

What, pray tell, are you using as the definition of what is or is not a name? You appear to be saying something has to be a common name to be a name, which opens the question of how new common names ever come about.

I'm sure you're not saying that everyone that chose unconventional names that became conventional for your lifetime and peer group chose "names" and everyone else that chose unconventional names chose the "stupid(est) names" due to "brain damage"...but I struggle to make sense of what you said in any other way.

So what am I missing?

I believe their objection is to spelling conventions, not so much the individual names themselves.

Their examples were Ashtin and Tristyn, and if I had to guess I don't think they'd object as strongly or at all to Ashton or Tristan.

But that's just my read of their comment.

I think this person would prefer the names like Tristan and Tristyn to all be grouped together under 1 Tristan instead of being separate because it is just an alternative spelling just to be different.