Transgender Woman Needs Your Support In Texas

[Dylan]

Insight by Lisa Harney about this case. The comments are worth reading also.

Click Here


Dylan

[Liam]

Originally Posted by Dylan

Insight by Lisa Harney about this case. The comments are worth reading also.

Click Here


Dylan

Thank you Dylan, for sharing Lisa Harney's piece, I particularly liked the part I bolded.

So, if we’re going to ever have a useful conversation about disclosure? It has to start there. It can’t be a debate about when or if trans people should tell cis people that they’re trans. It can’t focus on the needs and problems of trans people with reliable passing privilege (or who are assumed to have that passing privilege). It can’t even be about disclosure because disclosure is not the problem. It has to be about the fact that transphobia is a systematic, institutionalized force, and its primary purpose is to deny us the right to exist.

[firie]

Dylan and I are going to call a few groups tomorrow and one of our club owning friends and see if we can get a benefit together (he's always up for doing something at the queer bar), so maybe we can get some local talent together and try to raise awareness and maybe some money for Nikki's legal defense.

If local folks are interested in brainstorming, we'd like to do a fundraiser or something, and try to throw some Austin support Nikki's way. If anyone from the Austin area is interested, let us know.

[Arwen]

Originally Posted by firie

Dylan and I are going to call a few groups tomorrow and one of our club owning friends and see if we can get a benefit together (he's always up for doing something at the queer bar), so maybe we can get some local talent together and try to raise awareness and maybe some money for Nikki's legal defense.

If local folks are interested in brainstorming, we'd like to do a fundraiser or something, and try to throw some Austin support Nikki's way. If anyone from the Austin area is interested, let us know.

I'd be happy to do one card readings for $5 donations or something like that if you do this and there's a corner I can hide in with a table and 2 chairs.

[firie]

Originally Posted by Arwen

I'd be happy to do one card readings for $5 donations or something like that if you do this and there's a corner I can hide in with a table and 2 chairs.

Awesome. There are plenty of people that would love that I am sure, that is so awesome. Thank you. We will let you know what we can find out tomorrow.

[Heart]

By calling Nikki a "gold digger," accusing her of manipulating and deceiving her husband, etc, Longoria is engaging in hateful transphobic misogyny something that trans women are routinely subjected to. It's horrific and ironic that while asserting that Nikki is really a man, they use some of the oldest, most sexist woman-hating tropes in the book.

[PapaC]

Originally Posted by Heart

By calling Nikki a "gold digger," accusing her of manipulating and deceiving her husband, etc, Longoria is engaging in hateful transphobic misogyny something that trans women are routinely subjected to. It's horrific and ironic that while asserting that Nikki is really a man, they use some of the oldest, most sexist woman-hating tropes in the book.

Funny that, eh?

This case is very very upsetting. Honestly? It has rattled a few personal disphoric feelings the last couple of days that I've tried very hard not to personalize it, but I feel like while I'm having some struggle in reaching out to Nikki (like on Facebook), I feel somewhat responsible to stay connected. (make sense?)

I think Nikki's case is one of many many MANY cases out there that are living proof to why I maintain a queer identity, why this community, and trans community are vital for my personal survival as well as others.

I wanted to seek out the support group last night in part because of this case and what feelings it has brought up.

I read earlier comments about how this case 'is like all inheritance cases', and why I can understand the desire for a 'balanced' viewpoint (and I really do), and really get the whole 'two sides' concept, there's so much NOT in balance with this case, so much going against Nikki that I'm personally not vested in considering all the supposed 'nuances' and 'details' that may or may not exist. Like firie said, no of this crap would be in the news or considered if Nikki didn't have a trans existence.

This is just gross. period.

I remain grateful for those passionate and close enough and commited enough to this case to keep us informed.

Thank you.

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by Heart

By calling Nikki a "gold digger," accusing her of manipulating and deceiving her husband, etc, Longoria is engaging in hateful transphobic misogyny something that trans women are routinely subjected to. It's horrific and ironic that while asserting that Nikki is really a man, they use some of the oldest, most sexist woman-hating tropes in the book.

I was thinking the same thing Heart. She has been subjected to extreme misogyny as well as transphobia (and of course the two are intertwined anyway)- classic textbook case of a gold digger woman who supposedly deceives her husband to take his money- yet seen as not-woman.

She was the primary breadwinner. How is she a gold digger out to take his money? She was helping raise his children. How was there any financial gain from this relationship for her? I see none.

The husband's mother and family, on the other hand, are trying to financially gain after his death and "freeze out" Nikki. I have yet to see one news report discussing how vindictive and money grubbing the family is being. They really haven't even pretended that it's the welfare of the boys they are concerned about.

Also, the judge freezing the life insurance proceeds when she is the named beneficiary is just unbelievable. That's only supposed to happen in extreme cases of fraud or where it is believed a suicide or foul play was involved. I believe she will ultimately prevail on getting the insurance proceeds although no guarantees. If she does she has to go through tons and tons of hoops to get it and meanwhile she has to rely on donations to live.

I don't believe for one second that the husband was deceived. Anyway, they were living their lives, having to deal with child custody issues, she's the main breadwinner and they are living as husband and wife. He supposedly finds out during a custody case that she was born male and all hell breaks loose?

He was fine and happy being married to and living with a woman and she is providing major financial support, helping to take care of the children, and then all of sudden none of this matters because of the fact that when she was born she was assigned the sex male, even though she has been living for a woman all her adult life? Even if hadn't known (which I don't believe for a second) where is the fucking crime here???? Does every non trans person who gets married tell their prospective spouse absolutely everything about their past? If they don't, when their spouse dies are all of their assets frozen due to "fraud?" He was married to a woman and they were living their lives. How does this so-called revelation make anything different in what the two of them had shared together? WTF???

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Dylan

Insight by Lisa Harney about this case. The comments are worth reading also.

Click Here


Dylan

Is there any chance that something like this could be published in a mainstream newspaper or magazine down there (has anyone tried in this case, thus far?)? Great comments, but I often get the feeling that articles like this are preaching to the choir, since it's highly unlikely that anyone not involved in the LGBT community is going to read sites like questioningtransphobia.com. If articles like this could somehow get out there into the Texan mainstream, even to some degree, I think that would be a great step forward in raising awareness in the average person.

[Dylan]

Here's the press conference after the hearing on Friday





Also, I was reading somewhere yesterday that some people think this is just some Texas, backwoods, hillbilly law. Be sure there are other states that have said exactly the same thing (for the purposes of marriage, transpeople are their birth sex...period). Texas judges made their decision based on other states' case laws (at the time of hearing Littleton). New York has Anonymous vs Anonymous (transsexual marriages are not recognized. I don't know if this case has been overturned yet). Ohio has the Ladrach case (a person's sex is determined at birth by an anatomical examination).

Idaho is (or maybe has entered legislation, at this point in time) attempting to add legislation that would state marriage can only be between a "natural born man and a natural born woman" (they already have a marriage is between a man and a woman statute).

There's only one state (New Jersey) which has a case in which a trans marriage has been considered valid (M.T. v. J.T.)

One problem with the Littleton case is that it relies heavily on chromosomes (it actually makes the assumption that transpeople's chromosomes are cis-related) when A) NO ONE gets chromosome testing at birth unless there's some sort of issue (usually, no one gets chromosome tested in a lifetime), B) there's more than just XX, XY chromosome patterns, C) chromosome testing has been ruled unreliable. The law doesn't leave room for those people whose chromosomes are outside xy or xx. It also makes the assumption that penis=xy and vagina=xx, when science, doctors, and lay people KNOW this is just NOT necessarily the case.

So, basically, there is the assumption that anatomy = chromosomes. Basically, Littleton is saying doctors determine sex with nothing more than a cursory glance at one's anatomy and somehow this is 'chromosomal'. And since, "God doesn't make mistakes" (the first judge to hear Littleton actually said this)...doctors are God and their word is final (based on nothing scientific...only a cursory glance at genitals. And what if those genitals are ambiguous? Sex is up to the discretion of the doctor.)

On another note, since only four states have ANY laws discussing transpeople's marriages, IF this issue comes up in one of the other 46 states (and it will), those judges are going to have to also work off case law from different states. This means, Littleton, Anonymous v Anonymous, and Ladrach are going to probably be the cases most (uneducated about trans-issues/or transphobic) judges are going to follow (to justify their own bigotry).

Ergo, this issue affects transpeople everywhere.

On top of that, and as I've already stated numerous times, these 'marriage' cases lead to other forms of oppression against transpeople. For example, Ohio (home of the Ladrach case) will NOT change the sex marker on your birth certificate. They just won't do it. This means, a transperson can never have a correct birth certificate if they were born in Ohio (there are other states which will not change the marker on your b.c. Idaho, South Carolina, and Tennessee). Gender markers on driver licenses cannot be changed. Gender markers on government issued identification are incredibly important, and trickle down to affect employment, housing, etc of transpeople. And since 9/11 government issued IDs are even more important. Transpeople have been/are being/ can be labeled as terrorists. And they're definitely being harassed at airports. Merely changing your name puts you in a computer for scrutiny at airports for two years after your name change.

Sorry for the ramble, but this really affects so much more than just Texans and marriage.


Dylan

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Dylan

Here's the press conference after the hearing on Friday





Also, I was reading somewhere yesterday that some people think this is just some Texas, backwoods, hillbilly law. Be sure there are other states that have said exactly the same thing (for the purposes of marriage, transpeople are their birth sex...period). Texas judges made their decision based on other states' case laws (at the time of hearing Littleton). New York has Anonymous vs Anonymous (transsexual marriages are not recognized. I don't know if this case has been overturned yet). Ohio has the Ladrach case (a person's sex is determined at birth by an anatomical examination).

Idaho is (or maybe has entered legislation, at this point in time) attempting to add legislation that would state marriage can only be between a "natural born man and a natural born woman" (they already have a marriage is between a man and a woman statute).

There's only one state (New Jersey) which has a case in which a trans marriage has been considered valid (M.T. v. J.T.)

One problem with the Littleton case is that it relies heavily on chromosomes (it actually makes the assumption that transpeople's chromosomes are cis-related) when A) NO ONE gets chromosome testing at birth unless there's some sort of issue (usually, no one gets chromosome tested in a lifetime), B) there's more than just XX, XY chromosome patterns, C) chromosome testing has been ruled unreliable. The law doesn't leave room for those people whose chromosomes are outside xy or xx. It also makes the assumption that penis=xy and vagina=xx, when science, doctors, and lay people KNOW this is just NOT necessarily the case.

So, basically, there is the assumption that anatomy = chromosomes. Basically, Littleton is saying doctors determine sex with nothing more than a cursory glance at one's anatomy and somehow this is 'chromosomal'. And since, "God doesn't make mistakes" (the first judge to hear Littleton actually said this)...doctors are God and their word is final (based on nothing scientific...only a cursory glance at genitals. And what if those genitals are ambiguous? Sex is up to the discretion of the doctor.)

On another note, since only four states have ANY laws discussing transpeople's marriages, IF this issue comes up in one of the other 46 states (and it will), those judges are going to have to also work off case law from different states. This means, Littleton, Anonymous v Anonymous, and Ladrach are going to probably be the cases most (uneducated about trans-issues/or transphobic) judges are going to follow (to justify their own bigotry).

Ergo, this issue affects transpeople everywhere.

On top of that, and as I've already stated numerous times, these 'marriage' cases lead to other forms of oppression against transpeople. For example, Ohio (home of the Ladrach case) will NOT change the sex marker on your birth certificate. They just won't do it. This means, a transperson can never have a correct birth certificate if they were born in Ohio (there are other states which will not change the marker on your b.c. Idaho, South Carolina, and Tennessee). Gender markers on driver licenses cannot be changed. Gender markers on government issued identification are incredibly important, and trickle down to affect employment, housing, etc of transpeople. And since 9/11 government issued IDs are even more important. Transpeople have been/are being/ can be labeled as terrorists. And they're definitely being harassed at airports. Merely changing your name puts you in a computer for scrutiny at airports for two years after your name change.

Sorry for the ramble, but this really affects so much more than just Texans and marriage.




Dylan

Lovo-Lara case in North Carolina also deemed a marriage where one partner was trans valid.


ETA: Maryland it seems so as well.

States that DO recognize transsexual marriages as valid heterosexual marriages:

North Carolina - North Carolina law allows amendment of a birth certificate for persons who have received gender reassignment surgery. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 130A- 118(b)(4) (2008). In Matter of Lovo-Lara, 23 l&N Dec. 746 (BIA 2005), the Board held that North Carolina recognized a marriage as valid and heterosexual where one of the spouses had received gender reassignment surgery and her birth certificate had been amended to reflect her changed sex

New Jersey - New Jersey law recognizes as a valid non-same-sex marriage a marriage solemnized between two persons of the same birth sex, one of whom has received sex reassignment surgery, so long as the other claimed spouse was aware of the sex change. M.J. v. J.T., 140 N.J.Super. 77, 355 A.2d 204 (NJ.Super. 1976).

Maryland - Maryland law permits a change of the person's legal sex, on the basis of sex reassignment surgery. Re: Heiiig, 372 Md. 692, 816 A.2d 68 (Md. 2003). This case did not involve the issue of the person's ability to marry a person of the same birth sex. Until such time as the Maryland courts clarify this issue, however, CIS adjudicators will assume that Maryland law recognizes as a valid non-same-sex marriage a claimed marriage between two persons of the same birth sex, one of whom has received gender reassignment surgery.

States that DO NOT recognize transsexual marriages as valid heterosexual Marriages As of November 2008, the following States do not recognize gender reassignment surgery as changing a person's legal sex, for purposes of marriage:

Florida - Kantams v. Kantaras, 884 So.2d 155 (Fla. App. 2004);
Illinois - Re Marriage of Simmons, 355 III. App. 3d 942, 825 N.W. 2d 303 (III. App. 2005)
Kansas - Estate of Gardiner, 273 Kan. 191.42P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002).
Ohio - Re: Ladrach, 32 Ohio Misc. 2d 6, 513 N.E.2d 828 (Oh. Probate 1987);
Tennessee - Tennessee Code 68-3-203(d)
Texas - Littleton v. Prange, 9S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App. 1999).


source

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Lovo-Lara case in North Carolina also deemed a marriage where one partner was trans valid.


ETA: Maryland it seems so as well.

States that DO recognize transsexual marriages as valid heterosexual marriages:

North Carolina - North Carolina law allows amendment of a birth certificate for persons who have received gender reassignment surgery. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 130A- 118(b)(4) (2008). In Matter of Lovo-Lara, 23 l&N Dec. 746 (BIA 2005), the Board held that North Carolina recognized a marriage as valid and heterosexual where one of the spouses had received gender reassignment surgery and her birth certificate had been amended to reflect her changed sex

New Jersey - New Jersey law recognizes as a valid non-same-sex marriage a marriage solemnized between two persons of the same birth sex, one of whom has received sex reassignment surgery, so long as the other claimed spouse was aware of the sex change. M.J. v. J.T., 140 N.J.Super. 77, 355 A.2d 204 (NJ.Super. 1976).

Maryland - Maryland law permits a change of the person's legal sex, on the basis of sex reassignment surgery. Re: Heiiig, 372 Md. 692, 816 A.2d 68 (Md. 2003). This case did not involve the issue of the person's ability to marry a person of the same birth sex. Until such time as the Maryland courts clarify this issue, however, CIS adjudicators will assume that Maryland law recognizes as a valid non-same-sex marriage a claimed marriage between two persons of the same birth sex, one of whom has received gender reassignment surgery.

States that DO NOT recognize transsexual marriages as valid heterosexual Marriages As of November 2008, the following States do not recognize gender reassignment surgery as changing a person's legal sex, for purposes of marriage:

Florida - Kantams v. Kantaras, 884 So.2d 155 (Fla. App. 2004);
Illinois - Re Marriage of Simmons, 355 III. App. 3d 942, 825 N.W. 2d 303 (III. App. 2005)
Kansas - Estate of Gardiner, 273 Kan. 191.42P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002).
Ohio - Re: Ladrach, 32 Ohio Misc. 2d 6, 513 N.E.2d 828 (Oh. Probate 1987);
Tennessee - Tennessee Code 68-3-203(d)
Texas - Littleton v. Prange, 9S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App. 1999).


source

Thank you so much!

I knew the info I was going off of was a little outdated (it was specific to the Littleton case and which cases those appellate judges used in rendering their decisions).


Thanks Again,
Dylan

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Dylan

Also, I was reading somewhere yesterday that some people think this is just some Texas, backwoods, hillbilly law. Be sure there are other states that have said exactly the same thing (for the purposes of marriage, transpeople are their birth sex...period).
Dylan

And this goes to how important it is for our entire community to support same-sex marriage as well as legislation like ENDA and laws in every state recognizing and legally sanctioning reassignment of sex/gender on birth records. Hell, this all needs to be part of a federal constitutional amendment! I just don't see any other way for these kinds of human and civil rights to ever be recognized if each state can just have their own legislation covering them. I have yet to see state's rights fall on the side of human or civil rights!


It takes unity to get these kinds of things changed. And this isn't just a Texas or transgendered issue at all.

[Dylan]

More delightfully transphobic reporting that not only relays the facts incorrectly, but also attempts to paint Nikki as a liar and defrauder (is that a word?).

The Link


Dylan

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by Dylan

More delightfully transphobic reporting that not only relays the facts incorrectly, but also attempts to paint Nikki as a liar and defrauder (is that a word?).

The Link


Dylan

The comments under the article are gross. Some are good, some are just gross.

[Soon]

HOUSTON - Nikki Araguz can get very dramatic. She considers herself the widow of fallen firefighter Thomas Araguz.