Following that train of thought, given that kids will eventually encounter something that makes them giggle, mightn't it be good for them to do that and get used to being "professional" as early as possible? (Though there's probably an age below which getting them to stop giggling wouldn't work at all.)
Last, considering the case of a male professor that makes sexual innuendo towards female students as a come-on... I don't know how these things work, but is it possible that this would make it easier for the girls to figure out that he's "creepy" and someone they should avoid (possibly even giving him a reputation they learn about before meeting him), thus reducing the likelihood that he's in a position to do something worse? In fact, given today's neopuritan colleges, it seems likely that him doing that might in itself get him fired; or at least it could put him on thin ice, to be more immediately condemned if students start accusing him of doing worse things.
I don't know if the above scenarios would actually happen that way. But I do suspect that the people arguing to get the name removed haven't thought through second-order effects like those.
But, on reading the discussion page, I realized I forgot about kids and students, especially women, and in that context, even though changing the name is obviously not the best or most important way to solve the problem, it could be a great mitigation and is worth doing.