Transgender Woman Needs Your Support In Texas

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Dylan

It would be nice if we could JUST give this woman some support and really stop with the theorizing about What If and If Things Were This Way. It's insulting. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world this wouldn't be an issue.

Dylan...I don't hear anyone here saying that she doesn't deserve support - myself included. I do hear people trying to understand the entire story and give other grieving human beings the benefit of the doubt. Let's not forget that the husband's parents are also grieving...this is their son that died after all.

I also hear a discussion about what we can do to protect the ones we love. I don't think that's out of place when we are seeing what can happen.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by JustJo

Dylan...I don't hear anyone here saying that she doesn't deserve support - myself included. I do hear people trying to understand the entire story and give other grieving human beings the benefit of the doubt. Let's not forget that the husband's parents are also grieving...this is their son that died after all.

I also hear a discussion about what we can do to protect the ones we love. I don't think that's out of place when we are seeing what can happen.

Jo,

You really think the parents deserve "the benefit of the doubt" when Ms. Araguz's assets have been frozen and her in-laws are fighting for all of her benefits and estate?

No snark--totally curious.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Jo,

You really think the parents deserve "the benefit of the doubt" when all of this woman's assets have been frozen and are fighting for her benefits and estate?

No snark--totally curious.

I simply like to at least try to understand where people are coming from before I condemn their actions.

This is their son that died. I think there's at least a reasonable chance that they are reacting out of grief, anger and all kinds of emotion that most of us can't understand.

I'm not saying they're right. I am literally trying to see all sides. The fact that Nikki is trans doesn't make her automatically right any more than it makes her automatically wrong. Relationships are complicated. Family dynamics are complicated. Greed is common. People tend to put their own blood family first (i.e. wanting everything for their grandkids instead of the "new wife'). This stuff happens. It doesn't make it right.

I am just bothered by the leap to judgment in either direction without getting as many facts as possible and trying to see all sides.

And, no I didn't read your reply as snark...and mine isn't either.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by JustJo

I simply like to at least try to understand where people are coming from before I condemn their actions.

This is their son that died. I think there's at least a reasonable chance that they are reacting out of grief, anger and all kinds of emotion that most of us can't understand.

I'm not saying they're right. I am literally trying to see all sides. The fact that Nikki is trans doesn't make her automatically right any more than it makes her automatically wrong. Relationships are complicated. Family dynamics are complicated. Greed is common. People tend to put their own blood family first (i.e. wanting everything for their grandkids instead of the "new wife'). This stuff happens. It doesn't make it right.

I am just bothered by the leap to judgment in either direction without getting as many facts as possible and trying to see all sides.

And, no I didn't read your reply as snark...and mine isn't either.

But, how can there be *sides* when, if Nikki was not trans, none of this would EVER be able to occur?

This case would not exist. She would be entitled to whatever assets/benefits any other wife would receive after her husband died. END OF.

I don't see the whole there are two sides to this story when, if this marriage was considered valid/legal, this fight to get her benefits would never even be able to be a logical or reasonable idea or thought.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

But, how can there be *sides* when, if Nikki was not trans, none of this would EVER be able to occur?

This case would not exist. She would be entitled to whatever assets/benefits any other wife would receive after her husband died. END OF.

I don't see the whole there are two sides to this story when, if this marriage was considered valid/legal, this fight to get her benefits would never even be able to be a logical or reasonable idea or thought.

People challenge inheritances all of the time - and assets are frozen until those cases are decided. I know this from my own family experience, in which there were no issues about gender or the legaility of any marriages. It was simply a plain old fight for the money.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by JustJo

People challenge inheritances all of the time - and assets are frozen until those cases are decided. I know this from my own family experience, in which there were no issues about gender or the legaility of any marriages. It was simply a plain old fight for the money.

The SOLE reason her assets/benefits are frozen is because she is trans.

This case is built on that. If that didn't exist, the in-laws would not have no basis for a legal challenge.

It is not just another case of inheritance dispute based on in-fighting--it is entirely based on her transsexed history.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

The SOLE reason her assets/benefits are frozen is because she is trans.

This case is built on that. If that didn't exist, the in-laws would not have no basis for a legal challenge.

It is not just another case of inheritance dispute based on in-fighting--it is entirely based on her transsexed history.

I get what you're saying, but this is my point:

The husband's parents don't want her to inherit (clearly), so they have challenged her right to the estate.

Anyone can challenge an estate, for a whole variety of reasons.

If Nikki wasn't trans, they could challenge her right to inherit based on a variety of other grounds. They may not be true or fair or right, but they can do it - and the assets would be frozen until the case was decided.

Clearly, they are taking the fact that she is trans as their reason to challenge - and yes, that sucks.

We don't know the family or her. As much as we may feel sympathetic to her situation (and I do), we really don't know all the details of the relationships and history of this family.

It sounds like, from Dylan's post, what needs to change in Texas is legislation to prevent judges from being arbitrary in cases involving trans people.

[Soon]

Jo,

With your last post (eta: post #50), I am now upset and I just realized, among other reasons, why.

Your statements equating Nikki's plight to other generic legal challenges to inheritance reminds me of people who say to me--someone who is denied federal immigration rights based on DOMA AND FL's anti-trans laws--well, MANY people have trouble with immigration, not just you. Why don't you try to immigrate another way?

The reason I am not allowed to live here with my husband is because of specific laws that prevent it based on sex and gender. For people to equate it with others' immigration struggles is not valid b/c, if he was born male, I would have had legal status within a year of our marriage. No Question.

So too, the reason her benefits are being challenged is because of specific laws and precedents that are discriminatory based on her assigned birth sex. It is NOT some random family dispute! It is a challenge that can ONLY move forward due to discriminatory laws and precedents set against a certain segment of people.


It is not just like any other case because there would be no case if she had been assigned female at birth.