Transgender Woman Needs Your Support In Texas

[firie]

I just posted this in Stearns' activism thread, because I have never started a thread before, but imagine for it to be seen by more people, it deserves its own thread...

I urge anyone interested to please support Nikki Araguz, who is in the court battle of her life. Her recently deceased husband was killed in the line of duty (he was a firefighter) and his family is suing for Nikki to be cut out of his inheritance, pension, and settlement for loss of life due to her being a transgender woman. The media here has been awful, really, probing every detail of her surgery, legal history, and as one would expect, not being the slightest bit competent in their questions of her. She notes in many interviews that she has not even had the time to mourn the tragic loss of her husband.

I have been watching some of the news interviews and just want to warn people that it is really frustrating, sad, and heartbreaking.

Her assets have been frozen by a Texas judge (as of today), and she is living currently off of donations because she is not allowed access to her accounts (even her own money).

Further, this is a potentially, hugely precedent-setting case in Texas, and will overturn the likes of Littleton (an easy Google: Littleton texas transgender).

Sorry, I am hurried here, but it is heartbreaking, and transgender, GLBTQ activists groups here are urging support, if even just sending a letter or email is what one can do.

I have a news link and can connect anyone to other activists groups, if interested.

Link to some news footage: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id=7569979

Here is another facebook link for information on how to support: http://www.tgctr.org/2010/07/22/nikki/

[Rockinonahigh]

I saw this on the news last night..u can bet it really pissed me off that they are doing Niki like this.Her husbands family need atleast a kick in the butt for being such hard hearted mean sprited people,I do hope she gets the money due to her from this.

[firie]

I saw this on the news last night..u can bet it really pissed me off that they are doing Niki like this.Her husbands family need atleast a kick in the butt for being such hard hearted mean sprited people,I do hope she gets the money due to her from this.

Yeah, it's just all around disturbing, sad, heartbreaking, like I said.

And there is some hype out there that Nikki is trying to take this money from the kids (her husband has children with former wife). I just wanted to note that it appears the children will settle just fine (and will get quite a bit of their father's money), and the family is not even suing on behalf of the children. They are after her widow's rights.

Nikki apparently paid child support for her husbands kids and made more money than her husband, the breadwinner of the family, from what I have read. She is also standing to lose all of her and her husband's current assets, too, from what I understand. Apparently Nikki's inlaws and her husband's ex-wife are trying to take everything.

[Julie]

I had no idea... I will post this on a number of other sights (activism) that I belong too - as well as my facebook accounts (work one has 5500 people).

This is an absolute travesty.

Julie

[suebee]

I saw this article. My first thought was "how could they do this to the woman their son obviously loved?" And then I thought "it's too bad he didn't have a will", because whether or not Nikki was his wife in the legal definition in Texas, she would have a much stronger case if there had been a proper will in place. Now of course I'm just assuming there wasn't one, as I didn't see anything about that mentioned in the article I read, and surely things wouldn't have gone this far if a valid will had been presented. Am I being naive?

[Arwen]

Here is another link.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7120408.html

Heartbreaking..the picture of her. Just heartbreaking.

[Melissa]

I just posted this in Stearns' activism thread, because I have never started a thread before, but imagine for it to be seen by more people, it deserves its own thread...

I urge anyone interested to please support Nikki Araguz, who is in the court battle of her life. Her recently deceased husband was killed in the line of duty (he was a firefighter) and his family is suing for Nikki to be cut out of his inheritance, pension, and settlement for loss of life due to her being a transgender woman. The media here has been awful, really, probing every detail of her surgery, legal history, and as one would expect, not being the slightest bit competent in their questions of her. She notes in many interviews that she has not even had the time to mourn the tragic loss of her husband.

I have been watching some of the news interviews and just want to warn people that it is really frustrating, sad, and heartbreaking.

Her assets have been frozen by a Texas judge (as of today), and she is living currently off of donations because she is not allowed access to her accounts (even her own money).

Further, this is a potentially, hugely precedent-setting case in Texas, and will overturn the likes of Littleton (an easy Google: Littleton texas transgender).

Sorry, I am hurried here, but it is heartbreaking, and transgender, GLBTQ activists groups here are urging support, if even just sending a letter or email is what one can do.

I have a news link and can connect anyone to other activists groups, if interested.

Link to some news footage: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id=7569979

Here is another facebook link for information on how to support: http://www.tgctr.org/2010/07/22/nikki/


Firie - thanks for posting this. We saw the article in our local paper today and will be watching this closely. It is very scary. Was there a will?

Melissa

[Linus]

I saw this article. My first thought was "how could they do this to the woman their son obviously loved?" And then I thought "it's too bad he didn't have a will", because whether or not Nikki was his wife in the legal definition in Texas, she would have a much stronger case if there had been a proper will in place. Now of course I'm just assuming there wasn't one, as I didn't see anything about that mentioned in the article I read, and surely things wouldn't have gone this far if a valid will had been presented. Am I being naive?


If there is an F on her birth certificate and they are married, then it should be set as legal and definitive.

Either way, it shouldn't matter whether there was a will or not. She was married to him and deserves the same rights as any other couple.

[Soon]

If there is an F on her birth certificate and they are married, then it should be set as legal and definitive. There are some news reports that suggest that she is intersexed, had lived her life as male and then did her final transition as an adult.

Every state has its own laws when it comes to transgender folks and their marriages.

In Texas, the Littleton case made it clear that you ARE the gender you were assigned at birth and no surgery/hormones will alter that fact--and, consequently, your marriage, for legal purposes, will be deemed a same sex marriage; therefore it is an invalid marriage and not recognized.

The Littleton case made it clear that no one who changes their sex will be afforded any privileges as a heterosexual marriage.

[Linus]

Every state has its own laws when it comes to transgender folks and their marriages.

In Texas, the Littleton case made it clear that you ARE the gender you were assigned at birth and no surgery/hormones will alter that fact--and, consequently, your marriage, for legal purposes, will be deemed a same sex marriage; therefore it is an invalided marriage and not recognized.

Doesn't make it right. Does it?

[Soon]

Doesn't make it right. Does it?

Of course it doesn't make it right but, unfortunately, it is the law.

I was commenting on YOUR statement saying that if there is an F on her BC then their marriage should be "legal and definitive". It should be...but this is not the case.

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other.

I thought you were stating that their marriage is legal--but it isn't. (at the moment due to Littleton).


ETA: Trust me; I know how "not right" it is to not have a marriage recognized due to a state having a specific law that doesn't recognize a marriage where one partner is trans.

[JustJo]

I saw this article. My first thought was "how could they do this to the woman their son obviously loved?" And then I thought "it's too bad he didn't have a will", because whether or not Nikki was his wife in the legal definition in Texas, she would have a much stronger case if there had been a proper will in place. Now of course I'm just assuming there wasn't one, as I didn't see anything about that mentioned in the article I read, and surely things wouldn't have gone this far if a valid will had been presented. Am I being naive?

I think it's terrible what she's enduring, but I do have to raise one thing...

The article in Arwen's post says that the husband and wife were recently separated when the husband discovered that his wife had been born a man.

We can't know what he said to his family, or how upset or angry he may have been. If he married her without knowing this, he could have been pretty upset and vented that to his family - and all of those emotions could still be pretty raw.

They may not be being vicious. They may think they are honoring what he would have wanted to get everything for his children in the previous marriage and cutting out his current wife.

I'm not saying it's right...just that the story may be more complicated than we think it is.

[Melissa]

If there is an F on her birth certificate and they are married, then it should be set as legal and definitive.

Either way, it shouldn't matter whether there was a will or not. She was married to him and deserves the same rights as any other couple.

Linus - tell that to Texas. This Littleton law, as far as I know, does not recognize any surgery or change of marker on docs. It basically says born a male then you are a male. It is the ultimate in transphobia. That's why I asked if there was a will. I think a will could trump this law. If there is no will and she loses the lawsuit then she loses the death benefits. If there was a will then she could be ok. Me and Rufus often wonder about this. We have wills up the wazoo but still wonder if it is enough. We will be heading back to the lawyer this year to add more things and update our docs. I always worry if something happens to one of us that if family contests anything will our docs hold up. It is just something I fret about. Nikki's situation is my worse nightmare.

My only hope in this big mess is that this lawsuit ends up challenging the Littleton law and it all gets overthrown. In the meantime I feel terrible for Nikki Aruguz who is trying to mourn and fight this at the same time. I imagine all she does is cry. It was hard to watch the news video of her.

Melissa

[Rockinonahigh]

This is 2010..we are suposed to be the the most up todate country in the world...big azz lie in my book,Texas as well as other states need a big growning up to be considered on the ball about this situation,Louisiana as well.A will would have helped a lot but maybe not...this world is just so screwd up its not real about so much.Something was said on tv that they were married for two years but didnt know about Nikkis transition..somehow I doubt that is even a possablity...his parents didnt know but its wasnt there bizz to know.

[Soon]

Linus - tell that to Texas. This Littleton law, as far as I know, does not recognize any surgery or change of marker on docs. It basically says born a male then you are a male. It is the ultimate in transphobia. That's why I asked if there was a will. I think a will could trump this law. If there is no will and she loses the lawsuit then she loses the death benefits. If there was a will then she could be ok.

Melissa

Thanks. That is what I was attempting to express as well.

Florida has a similar precedent setting fucked up case (Kanteras vs. Kanteras) where an ex wife went for custody (married to a transman for like ten years I think); she outed her husband (she became born again from what I recall); and the judge ruled their marriage was invalid from the start and any marriages thereafter--where one partner is trans--is not to be considered a valid and legal heterosexual marriage.

[Melissa]

I think it's terrible what she's enduring, but I do have to raise one thing...

The article in Arwen's post says that the husband and wife were recently separated when the husband discovered that his wife had been born a man.

We can't know what he said to his family, or how upset or angry he may have been. If he married her without knowing this, he could have been pretty upset and vented that to his family - and all of those emotions could still be pretty raw.

They may not be being vicious. They may think they are honoring what he would have wanted to get everything for his children in the previous marriage and cutting out his current wife.

I'm not saying it's right...just that the story may be more complicated than we think it is.

If what the family is saying is true. They could be lying. We might never know.

Melissa

[Melissa]

Thanks. That is what I was attempting to express as well.

Florida has a similar precedent setting fucked up case (Kanteras vs. Kanteras) where an ex wife went for custody (married to a transman for like ten years I think); she outed her husband (she became born again from what I recall); and the judge ruled their marriage was invalid from the start and any marriages thereafter--where one partner is trans--is not to be considered a valid and legal heterosexual marriage.

Urgh, yuck. It just makes my stomach turn.

Melissa

[suebee]

This is 2010..we are suposed to be the the most up todate country in the world...big azz lie in my book,Texas as well as other states need a big growning up to be considered on the ball about this situation,Louisiana as well.A will would have helped a lot but maybe not...this world is just so screwd up its not real about so much.Something was said on tv that they were married for two years but didnt know about Nikkis transition..somehow I doubt that is even a possablity...his parents didnt know but its wasnt there bizz to know.

I don't want anyone to misunderstand what I'm about to say. I've lived a great deal of my life in a Canadian border town, have as some of my closest friends Americans, and am in love with an American. But although it may be one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world, it is not necessarily the most up-to-date. Even if we only looked at health care and GLBTQ rights, the U.S. is way behind a number of other "western" countries. There are number of reasons for this, but honestly, the U.S. has a long way to go to live up to it's obvious potential.

Thanks. That is what I was attempting to express as well.

Florida has a similar precedent setting fucked up case (Kanteras vs. Kanteras) where an ex wife went for custody (married to a transman for like ten years I think); she outed her husband (she became born again from what I recall); and the judge ruled their marriage was invalid from the start and any marriages thereafter--where one partner is trans--is not to be considered a valid and legal heterosexual marriage.

I did read that since the Littleton case did not go to the Supreme court that it is not necessarily indisputable.

[JustJo]

If what the family is saying is true. They could be lying. We might never know.

Melissa

Hi Melissa,

I hear what you're saying...and my sympathies are with this woman.

However, I can't see her telling the family that she's transgendered within a week of her husband's death.

Seems to me that the only way the husband's family would know this about her is if he told them before his death.

[Soon]

[B][I][FONT="Trebuchet MS"][SIZE="3"][COLOR="Blue"]I did read that since the Littleton case did not go to the Supreme court that it is not necessarily indisputable.

I never said it was indisputable; however, it is legal precedent and that counts for a lot.

I hope this case does challenge the current legal precedent--that was set by the Littleton--that states you are you are the sex you were assigned at birth and no transition will alter that fact for legal (in this case, marital) purposes.

[DapperButch]

I think it's terrible what she's enduring, but I do have to raise one thing...

The article in Arwen's post says that the husband and wife were recently separated when the husband discovered that his wife had been born a man.

We can't know what he said to his family, or how upset or angry he may have been. If he married her without knowing this, he could have been pretty upset and vented that to his family - and all of those emotions could still be pretty raw.

They may not be being vicious. They may think they are honoring what he would have wanted to get everything for his children in the previous marriage and cutting out his current wife.

I'm not saying it's right...just that the story may be more complicated than we think it is.

If what the family is saying is true. They could be lying. We might never know.

Melissa

Hi Melissa,

I hear what you're saying...and my sympathies are with this woman.

However, I can't see her telling the family that she's transgendered within a week of her husband's death.

Seems to me that the only way the husband's family would know this about her is if he told them before his death.

Or, another option is that he always knew, but when he chose to separate he was angry with her, so he shared with his family that she is trans and pretended that he just learned about it.

Moreover, if he is leaving her and doesn't want to go through a divorce (and knows he doesn't have to due to Littleton), the best thing to do is to OUT her and of course to say that he "didn't know".

[firie]

Hi Melissa,

I hear what you're saying...and my sympathies are with this woman.

However, I can't see her telling the family that she's transgendered within a week of her husband's death.

Seems to me that the only way the husband's family would know this about her is if he told them before his death.

She had SRS, I believe, two months after they were married. She claims she was honest from the get go, before they were married.

But I am going to say this: That's not the point, in my opinion. Any cis-gendered woman, not legally divorced, would be entitled.

And her assets have been frozen. She is living off of donations.

~~~~~~

And as for Littleton--and no offense, but unless you live here and you are personally battling Littleton, then I don't think you can say it's not entirely indisputable. Dylan went to court to get an "M" on his license, and the judge denied it because of Littleton. Believe me, it's kinda the bible here as far as Texas courts go.

No offense, Sue. It's just one thing to argue that, but it's another thing entirely when it impacts one directly.

And honestly? Back to the family, I am going to default to her story regardless what the family says. She deserves that from me, in my opinion.

[suebee]

She had SRS, I believe, two months after they were married. She claims she was honest from the get go, before they were married.

But I am going to say this: That's not the point, in my opinion. Any cis-gendered woman, not legally divorced, would be entitled.

And her assets have been frozen. She is living off of donations.

And as for Littleton--and no offense, but unless you live here and you are personally battling Littleton, then I don't think you can say it's not entirely disputable. Dylan went to court to get an "M" on his license, and the judge denied it because of Littleton. Believe me, it's kinda the bible here as far as Texas courts go.

No offense, Sue. It's just one thing to argue that, but it's another thing entirely when it impacts one directly. And honestly? I am going to default to her story regardless what the family says. She deserves that from me, in my opinion.

No offense taken. I was just posting what I had read, and they were talking about the remaining possible legal avenues. As you say, reality can be another thing altogether.

[firie]

Linus - tell that to Texas. This Littleton law, as far as I know, does not recognize any surgery or change of marker on docs. It basically says born a male then you are a male. It is the ultimate in transphobia. That's why I asked if there was a will. I think a will could trump this law. If there is no will and she loses the lawsuit then she loses the death benefits. If there was a will then she could be ok. Me and Rufus often wonder about this. We have wills up the wazoo but still wonder if it is enough. We will be heading back to the lawyer this year to add more things and update our docs. I always worry if something happens to one of us that if family contests anything will our docs hold up. It is just something I fret about. Nikki's situation is my worse nightmare.

My only hope in this big mess is that this lawsuit ends up challenging the Littleton law and it all gets overthrown. In the meantime I feel terrible for Nikki Aruguz who is trying to mourn and fight this at the same time. I imagine all she does is cry. It was hard to watch the news video of her.

Melissa

Melissa!

The lawyer, Phyllis Randolph Frye, who was actually the lawyer for Littleton, thinks they might have a chance in this case. I don't know. The whole thing makes me sick at heart. The whole thing.

I just think about my family doing this to Dylan. The courts doing this to Dylan.

I don't know about a will. I am going to do some more research. Dylan might know but he is on the phone with someone you know, lol. :)

[firie]

No offense taken. I was just posting what I had read, and they were talking about the remaining possible legal avenues. As you say, reality can be another thing altogether.

Yeah, sorry. That was a horrid, horrid court day. I am really jumpy about Littleton. Nasty evil that it is. Phyllis Frye thinks they can beat this. So maybe it's not indisputable, but it just really feels that way.

[JustJo]

Or, another option is that he always knew, but when he chose to separate he was angry with her, so he shared with his family that she is trans and pretended that he just learned about it.

Moreover, if he is leaving her and doesn't want to go through a divorce (and knows he doesn't have to due to Littleton), the best thing to do is to OUT her and of course to say that he "didn't know".

That's certainly a possibility.

The article I read said only that they were recently separated, but not that he had started any legal proceedings to end the marriage before his death.

I think it's one of those situations in which it's impossible to know where the truth lies.

I don't have much faith in the Texas court upholding her rights though.

[JustJo]

She had SRS, I believe, two months after they were married. She claims she was honest from the get go, before they were married.

But I am going to say this: That's not the point, in my opinion. Any cis-gendered woman, not legally divorced, would be entitled.

And her assets have been frozen. She is living off of donations.



Hi firie,

Unfortunately lots of families get nasty when there's an inheritance at stake...especially when it's significant (as the article implied since he was killed in the line of duty).

She is entitled, and I do feel for her. It's an ugly part of human nature that many people will attack any vulnerability they see to get what they want - and clearly his family are willing to use any argument to prevent her from inheriting.

This is why we all need to be sure to take the legal steps to protect the interests of the partners we love. We can't trust the good faith of families, or the right thing to be done in court unless we've guaranteed it with wills, etc.

[firie]

Hi firie,

Unfortunately lots of families get nasty when there's an inheritance at stake...especially when it's significant (as the article implied since he was killed in the line of duty).

She is entitled, and I do feel for her. It's an ugly part of human nature that many people will attack any vulnerability they see to get what they want - and clearly his family are willing to use any argument to prevent her from inheriting.

This is why we all need to be sure to take the legal steps to protect the interests of the partners we love. We can't trust the good faith of families, or the right thing to be done in court unless we've guaranteed it with wills, etc.

Yeah, I know how ugly things can get when it comes to legal disputes, saw that with my mom and dad, so.

I don't know if a will would protect her per se in benefits she deserves that wouldn't have been thought out in a will, like her husband dying in a fire, on the job. That is not likely to be specified in a will, because you wouldn't have it at the time to will it to anyone, correct? I think it gets a bit more complicated than just having a will, but just me.

And again, I guess I just stress that the family wouldn't have this ability to argue in court if she wasn't a transwoman. Which is where the injustice is, in my opinion.

[Soon]

Hi firie,

Unfortunately lots of families get nasty when there's an inheritance at stake...especially when it's significant (as the article implied since he was killed in the line of duty).

She is entitled, and I do feel for her. It's an ugly part of human nature that many people will attack any vulnerability they see to get what they want - and clearly his family are willing to use any argument to prevent her from inheriting.

This is why we all need to be sure to take the legal steps to protect the interests of the partners we love. We can't trust the good faith of families, or the right thing to be done in court unless we've guaranteed it with wills, etc.

Although a will may allow for transference of some property after death, it would not allow for any pension/death benefits (in this case, so far, 60 000 in benefits have been frozen in addition to whatever other assets), to be given to the surviving same sex spouse--which Nikki Araguz is considered under Texas law if she was identified as male at birth.

[JustJo]

Yeah, I know how ugly things can get when it comes to legal disputes, saw that with my mom and dad, so.

I don't know if a will would protect her per se in benefits she deserves that wouldn't have been thought out in a will, like her husband dying in a fire, on the job. That is not likely to be specified in a will, because you wouldn't have it at the time to will it to anyone, correct? I think it gets a bit more complicated than just having a will, but just me.

And again, I guess I just stress that the family wouldn't have this ability to argue in court if she wasn't a transwoman. Which is where the injustice is, in my opinion.

I'm not sure who's paying out in the event of a firefighter's death on the job...but I do know that most "on the job" kinds of life insurance and/or death benefit have a designated beneficiary. It's not automatically a spouse, but can be named to anyone.

Sounds like some confusion on the media coverage too...the article I read said that the parents are trying to get 100% of the estate paid to his children, not that they are trying to get anything for themselves.

At some point, someone in here (or maybe it was on the dash site?) had started a thread about the steps we can take to legally protect our partners. Maybe we need to get that started up again...

[Stearns]

I'm not sure who's paying out in the event of a firefighter's death on the job...but I do know that most "on the job" kinds of life insurance and/or death benefit have a designated beneficiary. It's not automatically a spouse, but can be named to anyone.

Sounds like some confusion on the media coverage too...the article I read said that the parents are trying to get 100% of the estate paid to his children, not that they are trying to get anything for themselves.

At some point, someone in here (or maybe it was on the dash site?) had started a thread about the steps we can take to legally protect our partners. Maybe we need to get that started up again...

If you have a private insurance policy, you can name your beneficiary and it will stand. However, with traditional pension plans, same gender spouses, sadly, are not usually allowed to receive death benefits.

[JustJo]

If you have a private insurance policy, you can name your beneficiary and it will stand. However, with traditional pension plans, same gender spouses, sadly, are not usually allowed to receive death benefits.

You're right, pensions have a whole different set of rules.

I know that on my job we are covered for 2 years of salary as life insurance through the company, and that can be designated to anyone. If I were not to designate, then it follows the usual rules of estate distribution (spouse first, kids second, etc.)

I still think the critical message is don't trust family to do the right thing after you're gone. We have to do the legal paperwork to ensure that our loved ones get everything they can, and that we want them to have.

[firie]

I'm not sure who's paying out in the event of a firefighter's death on the job...but I do know that most "on the job" kinds of life insurance and/or death benefit have a designated beneficiary. It's not automatically a spouse, but can be named to anyone.

Sounds like some confusion on the media coverage too...the article I read said that the parents are trying to get 100% of the estate paid to his children, not that they are trying to get anything for themselves.

At some point, someone in here (or maybe it was on the dash site?) had started a thread about the steps we can take to legally protect our partners. Maybe we need to get that started up again...

Yeah, there are different media accounts on what the family is doing. Her lawyers are saying that the family didn't file an injunction on behalf of the children, and that the children are entitled to quite a bit of money regardless of whether Nikki wins or not. The family is fighting to get her widow's benefits, and other assets. Not what the children are entitled to--and I think they get their college paid for too. That's coming from her side, and I guess, and this is just me, I don't really care what the family is doing. And as heartless as this may sound, I don't care what money is going to whom or what the family wants to do with the money or if the money is going to the children, and people can think of me as horrid and evil for that.

The point of injustice, to me, is that: She wouldn't be in this position if she wasn't a transwoman. She wouldn't be scrutinized in the way that she is, they wouldn't be accusing her as fraud, and there wouldn't be nasty, heinous, horrid things all over the media and internet about a woman who just lost her husband. They wouldn't be saying things about her body in the way that they are saying things. That is my issue. And I am not in the courtroom, so I am throwing my support behind her regardless of where the money goes.

[JustJo]

Yeah, there are different media accounts on what the family is doing. Her lawyers are saying that the family didn't file an injunction on behalf of the children, and that the children are entitled to quite a bit of money regardless of whether Nikki wins or not. The family is fighting to get her widow's benefits, and other assets. Not what the children are entitled to--and I think they get their college paid for too. That's coming from her side, and I guess, and this is just me, I don't really care what the family is doing. And as heartless as this may sound, I don't care what money is going to whom or what the family wants to do with the money or if the money is going to the children, and people can think of me as horrid and evil for that.

The point of injustice, to me, is that: She wouldn't be in this position if she wasn't a transwoman. She wouldn't be scrutinized in the way that she is, they wouldn't be accusing her as fraud, and there wouldn't be nasty, heinous, horrid things all over the media and internet about a woman who just lost her husband. They wouldn't be saying things about her body in the way that they are saying things. That is my issue. And I am not in the courtroom, so I am throwing my support behind her regardless of where the money goes.

I do agree, and I do see what you're saying.

I also know that some estranged (but still legally married) spouses who are not transgendered find themselves in this same legal battle, particularly when there are children of an ex-spouse involved.

The difference is that it isn't turned into a media feeding frenzy - and that is an absolute travesty, in my mind. No one who is greiving should have to deal with this level of media attention.

[firie]

I do agree, and I do see what you're saying.

I also know that some estranged (but still legally married) spouses who are not transgendered find themselves in this same legal battle, particularly when there are children of an ex-spouse involved.

The difference is that it isn't turned into a media feeding frenzy - and that is an absolute travesty, in my mind. No one who is greiving should have to deal with this level of media attention.

Yeah, and I am not arguing with you, so please don't see it that way, but it is more than just that Jo, and with all due respect, it is NOT the same in my opinion as estranged wives who have legal battles with ex-spouses when the other spouse dies. It is not the same, and not just because of the media frenzy and the tragedy that is the "public" response to Nikki.

It is a court having the right to say whether your marriage is null and void, based on who you are--regardless of the money. It is a court saying you are going to have to suffer even further while we figure out if you are a boy or a girl. It is a court freezing assets for an indeterminate amount of time because we don't like the idea that you might be a "tranny" and got one over on this poor family. There are money/spousal disputes, sure, but then there are also other things at stake here for her, as well as many other people. It is more than just a money spat to me. That is what I am getting at. Sorry, sometimes things like this just hurt, hurt, hurt!

[JustJo]

It is a court having the right to say whether your marriage is null and void, based on who you are--regardless of the money. It is a court saying you are going to have to suffer even further while we figure out if you are a boy or a girl. It is a court freezing assets for an indeterminate amount of time because we don't like the idea that you might be a "tranny" and got one over on this poor family. There are money/spousal disputes, sure, but then there are also other things at stake here for her, as well as many other people. It is more than just a money spat to me. That is what I am getting at. Sorry, sometimes things like this just hurt, hurt, hurt!

I completely agree on this part. And I believe it won't change until same-sex marriage is legal and recognized equally in every state.

And I don't feel like you're fighting with me at all...nor I with you. :rrose:

[Stearns]

You're right, pensions have a whole different set of rules.

I know that on my job we are covered for 2 years of salary as life insurance through the company, and that can be designated to anyone. If I were not to designate, then it follows the usual rules of estate distribution (spouse first, kids second, etc.)

I still think the critical message is don't trust family to do the right thing after you're gone. We have to do the legal paperwork to ensure that our loved ones get everything they can, and that we want them to have.

I agree that we need to do everything we can, but, unfortunately, our partners aren't allowed to get many benefits, regardless of how much we want them to. I'm glad to hear you work for a progressive company. I had a choice between a traditional plan and a 401K and chose the 401K, because I can name my beneficiary. But, since my insurance policy is completely employer-provided, my wife won't be able to collect any death benefits.

[JustJo]

I agree that we need to do everything we can, but, unfortunately, our partners aren't allowed to get many benefits, regardless of how much we want them to. I'm glad to hear you work for a progressive company. I had a choice between a traditional plan and a 401K and chose the 401K, because I can name my beneficiary. But, since my insurance policy is completely employer-provided, my wife won't be able to collect any death benefits.

It's one of the reasons I really love the company I work for. We have absolutely equitable domestic partner benefits on every count.

It sucks that you would have to buy insurance privately to give your wife the same protection that other couples have given to them. Again, why I believe that we need to put our difference aside and focus on the right of same sex partners to be recognized and have equal legal status. For me, everything else pales in comparison.

[BullDog]

My heart certainly goes out to Nikki. One thing I am surprised that no one has mentioned is, under the law if she is not recognized as a woman then she will receive the same treatment as same sex couples. It certainly is homophobia (even though she may not be homosexual) as much as it is transphobia. I have heard of cases where a lesbian police officer was killed in the line of duty and her partner did not get spousal death benefits. I believe it was in Florida. It is true that if she was legally recognized as a woman and legally married to a man then she would be deemed heterosexual and her marriage would be seen as legitimate. That has to do as much with heterosexuality as it does with cisgender.

[Soon]

My heart certainly goes out to Nikki. One thing I am surprised that no one has mentioned is, under the law if she is not recognized as a woman then she will receive the same treatment as same sex couples. It certainly is homophobia (even though she may not be homosexual) as much as it is transphobia. I have heard of cases where a lesbian police officer was killed in the line of duty and her partner did not get spousal death benefits. I believe it was in Florida. It is true that if she was legally recognized as a woman and legally married to a man then she would be deemed heterosexual and her marriage would be seen as legitimate. That has to do as much with heterosexuality as it does with cisgender.



If you have a private insurance policy, you can name your beneficiary and it will stand. However, with traditional pension plans, same gender spouses, sadly, are not usually allowed to receive death benefits.

Although a will may allow for transference of some property after death, it would not allow for any pension/death benefits (in this case, so far, 60 000 in benefits have been frozen in addition to whatever other assets), to be given to the surviving same sex spouse--which Nikki Araguz is considered under Texas law if she was identified as male at birth.

Bulldog,

I think we have mentioned it and realize that is the issue as well. Of course if there weren't restrictions on same sex marriage, this discussion wouldn't take place b/c, either way, their marriage would be considered valid. I don't think anyone is missing the fact that this has to do with homophobia as well as transphobia.

It isn't just that her transition does not legally make her a woman for legal purposes but that, under law, she is still a man and considered to be in a same sex marriage. I get that and found two examples where Stearns and myself both stated their marriage--b/c she was born male--is now treated as a same sex one--hence, VOID.

I think most understand the inegalitarian structure that prevents their marriage from being recognized. I don't think anyone is missing that piece to why this is an injustice.


About Florida: This State has, at 3 (!) different times, passed legislation to ensure that a marriage is only recognized as a man and woman and NO other union shall be considered for legal purposes (common law, civil union etc). So, of course, the surviving partner would not receive benefits. Stories like that, sadly, are all too common around here and the many other states that have passed such unjust legislation.

[Soon]

I was just reading the comments on Queerty (http://www.queerty.com/dead-firefighter-leaves-behind-transgender-wife-his-family-wants-her-kicked-to-the-curb-20100720/)about this case and here is one that I thought was interesting:

@peteNsfo:
Actually, Texas law has been amended since the Littleton vs. Prange decision:
(I'm quoting Cristan Williams the head of Houston's Trans Center)

"In 2009, lawmakers (in H.B. No. 3666) changed the Texas family code to permit an applicant for a marriage license to use a sex change court order to nullify the birth certificate gender.

Sec. 2.002. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE. Except as provided by
Section 2.006, each person applying for a license must:
(8) an original or certified copy of a court order
relating to the applicant's name change or sex change;"
I suspect Nikki's admission that her and her husband got married shortly before she had her SRS is going to sink her claim they were legally married.


Read more: http://www.queerty.com/dead-firefighter-leaves-behind-transgender-wife-his-family-wants-her-kicked-to-the-curb-20100720/#ixzz0ucE1Zqy2


Here is the act that pertains to this case: (http://www.legis.state.tx.us the part of the
/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB03666F.htm)

AN ACT
relating to the application for and issuance of a marriage license.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 2.002, Family Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.002. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE. Except as provided by
Section 2.006, each person applying for a license must:

.........

(8) an original or certified copy of a court order
relating to the applicant's name change or sex change;

---------------


Here's another article about the case from TGctr.org (http://www.tgctr.org/2010/07/24/nikki_araguz/) (Houston based)

[Dylan]

I was just reading the comments on Queerty (http://www.queerty.com/dead-firefighter-leaves-behind-transgender-wife-his-family-wants-her-kicked-to-the-curb-20100720/)about this case and here is one that I thought was interesting:

@peteNsfo:
Actually, Texas law has been amended since the Littleton vs. Prange decision:
(I'm quoting Cristan Williams the head of Houston's Trans Center)

"In 2009, lawmakers (in H.B. No. 3666) changed the Texas family code to permit an applicant for a marriage license to use a sex change court order to nullify the birth certificate gender.

Sec. 2.002. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE. Except as provided by
Section 2.006, each person applying for a license must:
(8) an original or certified copy of a court order
relating to the applicant's name change or sex change;"
I suspect Nikki's admission that her and her husband got married shortly before she had her SRS is going to sink her claim they were legally married.


Read more: http://www.queerty.com/dead-firefighter-leaves-behind-transgender-wife-his-family-wants-her-kicked-to-the-curb-20100720/#ixzz0ucE1Zqy2


Here is the act that pertains to this case: (http://www.legis.state.tx.us the part of the
/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB03666F.htm)

AN ACT
relating to the application for and issuance of a marriage license.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 2.002, Family Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.002. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE. Except as provided by
Section 2.006, each person applying for a license must:

.........

(8) an original or certified copy of a court order
relating to the applicant's name change or sex change;

---------------


Here's another article about the case from TGctr.org (http://www.tgctr.org/2010/07/24/nikki_araguz/) (Houston based)

Her marriage was legal in the state of TX when she was married. Her surgery has nothing to do with her legal status as female. Her birth certificate had been changed...as had her other documentation.

Both she and the marriage were legal according to TX law.

This is something TX does a lot to transpeople. They give you legal status as the gender you are...but you have to 'behave'.

The Littleton case is a ridiculous case, and frankly it's too deep for me to get into here.

Also, about the husband's family saying this is 'for the children'. They're original petition for the injunction says NOTHING about the children. Additionally, they're not ONLY fighting for the widow benefits rightly due Nikki; they want the ENTIRE estate. All 600,000$ of the estate she's built with her husband. She was also the primary breadwinner. This is a case of greed, pure and simple. Three weeks ago, the husband's parents were taking the ex wife to court and smearing her name, in the custody battle. Now, they are siding with the ex wife to get the house, property, bank accounts, etc. The family also didn't make this 'all about the children' until yesterday when it was brought up in court.

On top of that, they've frozen a separate life insurance policy the husband took out in which he SPECIFICALLY named Nikki the beneficiary. This woman is living strictly on donations.

Here's a youtube of what's REALLY going on...as opposed to what the media is representing

YouTube- Nikki Araguz: What happened in court today

Also, here's the transphobic interview that was conducted by a local television station. Be forewarned, this interview is extremely transphobic, and it was very difficult for me (personally) to watch.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id=7563539&syndicate=syndicate&section


This woman needs support right now. She needs financial support, and community support.

TransTexans are going to be greatly impacted by what happens with this case. This is extremely important to all transpeople in this state. The Littleton case has been used against us in a number of ways (not limited to marriage). It has even been used to deny us simple things like name changes.

The Texas Legislature came back after Littleton and in direct response to Littleton with amendments to Texas Family Code that allowed transpeople to use amended birth certificates and other documentation...because the Littleton ruling was so ridiculous.

Also, when the media states the Texas Supreme Court ruled in the Littleton case, they are LYING. The Texas Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

To recap. This marriage was LEGAL in the state of Texas according to Texas Family Code. She was also LEGALLY female when they were married. "The" surgery <gag> is NOT a precursor to having your b.c. changed and/or SSA, DL, etc.

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.

But we DON'T live in a perfect world. We live in the here and now, and this woman doesn't need is more pontificating and theorizing about her life. This is happening NOW...with the laws enacted NOW.

She needs support...as does the entire Texas trans community. This is a case that is going to have LONG lasting impacts on our actual LIVED lives RIGHT NOW.

Please help with support and listening...and please realize that what you're hearing on the major media is HIGHLY biased.


Dylan

[JustJo]

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]

Hi Dylan,

When you write that Texas gives you legal status and grants marriage licences where one partner has legally changed their sex, (this is not the case in FL, btw), as long as they "behave"--do you mean that as long as a legal case doesn't come up challenging the validity of the marriage or their sex?

I mean, how legal is it if one has a custody/divorce/inheritance (etc.) case, and they revert back to the you are what you are born therefore it is invalid idea a la Littleton?

ETA: Thanks for the further info/clarifications and youtubes.

[Soon]

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]

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.

[Dylan]

Hi Dylan,

When you write that Texas gives you legal status and grants marriage licences where one partner has legally changed their sex, (this is not the case in FL, btw), as long as they "behave"--do you mean that as long as a legal case doesn't come up challenging the validity of the marriage or their sex?

I mean, how legal is it if one has a custody/divorce/inheritance (etc.) case, and they revert back to the you are what you are born therefore it is invalid idea a la Littleton?

ETA: Thanks for the further info/clarifications and youtubes.





Yeah, you're legally whatever gender you say you are, and you can get married. BUT the second there's some kind of issue (inheritance, etc), they strip it all from you (legal status, marriage, etc).

The reason for this is because Littleton was such a ridiculous ruling. It was just absolutely ridiculous...to the point that the TX legislature, judges, etc knew it was ridiculous, so they responded. They responded by making TONS of changes to Texas Family Code, Texas Safety Code, and a few other places. The laws they made in direct response to Littleton granted rights to transpeople and made things like gender marker changes, marriage licenses, name changes, etc EASIER. Basically, whatever they could do to loosen up the laws, they did it.

A LOT of things in the state of Texas are based STRICTLY on the individual judge's decision. So, if you get a decent judge, there's actual statute law that *may* help out transpeople. However, if you get some shitstick, hillbilly judge...they can rely on Littleton (and they will pull it out for ANY damned thing they wish when it comes to transpeople).

Littleton states you are what your chromosomes say you are...except NO ONE gets a chromosome test. Littleton is complex because it steps over itself constantly. It says one thing in one part, and another thing in another part.

You can get a better idea of the how the laws are fucked up here in the Great State O' if you click here (http://startelegram.typepad.com/politex/2010/05/abbott-asked-to-decide-on-transgender-marriage.html) and then click on the link that says, "fascinating review of Texas case law".

Again, Littleton is really difficult to explain, because it's so confusing. And the judge basically brings up a lot of god.


Dylan

[Dylan]

Additionally, Nikki and her husband were NOT estranged or legally separated as has been reported in the media.


Dylan

[Soon]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Soon]

You know, I wonder if, Jo, you would be as willing to see the other (parents') side if it was some in-laws who swooped in after their lesbian daughter died to challenge/take all the property/assets from her wife?

[JustJo]

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.

I do see your point, and I feel that you are somehow thinking that I'm unsympathetic to the situation in this country. Believe me, I'm not.

I'm not actually saying it's the same, but I can also see that I'm not going to be able to explain it in a way that will be understood.

For the record, I get that trans people and gays are unfairly treated. I'm not saying we aren't. I'm not trans, but I do have a nasty ex-husband who may, at some point in the future, try to argue that I'm an unfit parent based solely on the fact that I love a woman. At that time, I will find myself in a legal battle too.

I am sympathetic. I'm just not seeing this the same way that you are.

I don't wish to continue to upset anyone, so I'll leave you all to this conversation. :rrose:

[JustJo]

You know, I wonder if, Jo, you would be as willing to see the other (parents) side if it was some in-laws who swooped in after their lesbian daughter died to challenge/take all the property/assets from her wife?

I have little doubt that this will actually happen if my diabetes kills me young - and, no, I would still want everyone to try to understand every side before making a decision.

And, my apologies, I had already posted my previous post when I saw this.

[Dylan]

On another note. As Nikki left the courtroom yesterday a crowd of people followed her and yelled transphobic slurs at her and the people escorting her.

And again, this woman is now living strictly off of donations. She can't even stay in her house anymore because of this greedy and arbitrary use of a transphobic law.

If this judge upholds Littleton, trans people in this state are in for some serious ramifications.

The Littleton case has been used to invalidate completely valid marriages between transpeople, when one in the marriage didn't 'behave' themselves and keep it under their hats.

Again, the Littleton case has been used to deny transpeople the simplest of things...even name changes.



Dylan

[Dylan]

On top of all of that, the news in Houston ran a big story last night about Nikki's 'early years'. They included information about her arrest history, birth certificate, court hearings for name change/gender change, etc.

Yet, I have heard NOT ONE THING about the husband's family. NOT A THING. No delving into THEIR pasts, medical conditions, operations. NO discussions of what THEIR bits look like. NO TALK of THEIR criminal histories. NOTHING.

We barely even get to know their names. BUT...EVERYTHING about Nikki's life is fair game and newsworthy.


Blatant Transphobia,
Dylan

[Soon]

On top of all of that, the news in Houston ran a big story last night about Nikki's 'early years'. They included information about her arrest history, birth certificate, court hearings for name change/gender change, etc.

Yet, I have heard NOT ONE THING about the husband's family. NOT A THING. No delving into THEIR pasts, medical conditions, operations. NO discussions of what THEIR bits look like. NO TALK of THEIR criminal histories. NOTHING.

We barely even get to know their names. BUT...EVERYTHING about Nikki's life is fair game and newsworthy.


Blatant Transphobia,
Dylan

I just watched a clip that a news station uncovered from over ten years ago with the newscaster saying, "Remember, Nikki was born male!" and part two will include a discussion of how DOES Nikki look so feminine?

They are positively fascinated by the freakishness that Nikki signifies to them with the subtext being: "Wow, look at the pretty psuedo-girl! You could be *fooled* too!"

ugh.

[Boots13]

This is heartwrenching.

And another absolutely outrageous example of bias by the
community and goldigging by the ex.

I cant imagine the emotional trauma and anguish this woman is going through.

[Dylan]

I just watched a clip that a news station uncovered from over ten years ago with the newscaster saying, "Remember, Nikki was born male!" and part two will include a discussion of how DOES Nikki look so feminine?

They are positively fascinated by the freakishness that Nikki signifies to them with the subtext being: "Wow, look at the pretty psuedo-girl! You could be *fooled* too!"

ugh.

I'd like to know HOW does Nikki's mother in law look so feminine?

There was another Houston station that ran a story allllllllllllllllll about Nikki's criminal history with her entire rapsheet (including <gasp> a ticket for driving without her license! Can you believe?!! Transpeople are so dangerous! Driving without their licenses! The Horrahhhhhhh!>

And yet...still no word about the husband's family.

I'd really like a detailed description of the mother in law's bits! And I'd also like the mother in law to PROVE she's a woman.


Dylan

[Cyclopea]

Am I the only one wondering how on a site with 150 firefighters present an 11 year captain ends up trapped in a warehouse alone with no back-up? I am interested in the investigation results as to how, exactly, this occurred.
Highly unusual.

[Soft*Silver]

wow, Cyclopea, you just pointed us to the hand that has the coin in it, instead of what they want us to focus on! No Shit! How did he end up trapped with no help around him?

[Heart]

Horrible case. And the point isn't the many complex details, history, grudges, side-taking, etc that exist in any family, the point is that in this case all of that is being played out through the prism of transphobia.

[SuperFemme]

I'd like to know HOW does Nikki's mother in law look so feminine?

There was another Houston station that ran a story allllllllllllllllll about Nikki's criminal history with her entire rapsheet (including <gasp> a ticket for driving without her license! Can you believe?!! Transpeople are so dangerous! Driving without their licenses! The Horrahhhhhhh!>

And yet...still no word about the husband's family.

I'd really like a detailed description of the mother in law's bits! And I'd also like the mother in law to PROVE she's a woman.


Dylan

i cried watching the video of Nikki going into the courthouse being taunted and chased.

"How does it feel to be a MAN Nikki?"

"Liar"

"She needs to leave. We don't want her here and she needs move on".

ffs that woman just lost her husband, her home, and all her money. the unabashed hate she is being subjected to gives me great pause. i can only sit here and weep.

i hope anyone who can, donates to Nikki.

[atomiczombie]

This whole thing is so disgusting it makes my stomach churn.

[SuperFemme]

Am I the only one wondering how on a site with 150 firefighters present an 11 year captain ends up trapped in a warehouse alone with no back-up? I am interested in the investigation results as to how, exactly, this occurred.
Highly unusual.

some research:

http://vincentdunn.com/dunn/newsletters/july_aug_sept_2003/FDNYHP_23.html

[AtLast]

Am I the only one wondering how on a site with 150 firefighters present an 11 year captain ends up trapped in a warehouse alone with no back-up? I am interested in the investigation results as to how, exactly, this occurred.
Highly unusual.

I'm with you on this. Seems way off! This is so awful in its entirety, anyway.

[SuperFemme]

I'm with you on this. Seems way off! This is so awful in its entirety, anyway.

Apparently being trapped/caught is the number one cause of death amongst firefighters.

Are you all saying that this man was murdered? I don't get it.

Not being snarky, just wanting to understand.

[AtLast]

Apparently being trapped/caught is the number one cause of death amongst firefighters.

Are you all saying that this man was murdered? I don't get it.

Not being snarky, just wanting to understand.

I know you are not being snarky at all. I am wondering about how transgendered people may be treated differently. I don't know a lot about fire fighting per se, so looking at the info you posted.

Thinking about things like when a gay cop is killed in the line of duty and back up failed due to just plain homophobia. I know.... being too suspicious.. perhaps.

But, yes, awful accidents do happen. And i know that sometimes, other fire fighters would be lost if they went into situations that just are not safe and that has to be rough for them when another fire fighter is trapped.

Important thing here is this woman and what she is going through.

[SuperFemme]

I know you are not being snarky at all. I am wondering about how transgendered people may be treated differently. I don't know a lot about fire fighting per se, so looking at the info you posted.

Thinking about things like when a gay cop is killed in the line of duty and back up failed due to just plain homophobia. I know.... being too suspicious.. perhaps.

But, yes, awful accidents do happen. And i know that sometimes, other fire fighters would be lost if they went into situations that just are not safe and that has to be rough for them when another fire fighter is trapped.

Important thing here is this woman and what she is going through.

:brightbulb: ding :brightbulb: ohhhh. now i get it. thanks for that. the thought that he would be unprotected because he is married to a transwomen is appalling. it also substantiates her claims that he know.

[firie]

Horrible case. And the point isn't the many complex details, history, grudges, side-taking, etc that exist in any family, the point is that in this case all of that is being played out through the prism of transphobia.

Thank you, this is exactly what I have been trying to say in several posts, and yet couldn't do so as on point as the way you have here.

[adorable]

Am I the only one wondering how on a site with 150 firefighters present an 11 year captain ends up trapped in a warehouse alone with no back-up? I am interested in the investigation results as to how, exactly, this occurred.
Highly unusual.

Actually, it happens often. Firefighting is very dangerous. I have been a volunteer firefighter/emt for several years. Fires are unpredictable. And unfortunately even if you know that one of your own is trapped inside, that doesn't mean you can attempt a rescue. Fires can actually be too hot, and command can decide not to allow anyone else in. The reason for this is because losing one is bad enough. You send two in to save that one, and the other two get into trouble, so you send two more in and then they get into trouble....
It creates a horrible domino effect.
Stories like this happen:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PS17LO1&show_article=1
http://www.wusa9.com/news/columnist/blogs/2007/08/tv-station-reports-7-boston.html
http://www.firefighternation.com/forum/topics/two-firefighters-die-in-1?commentId=889755:Comment:4708394&xg_source=activity


For a family to drag this poor women through the mud like this is unbelievable and wholly unforgivable. There is no shame for some people. They probably disproved from the start and just waited for an opportunity to destroy her. Once her husband died, they had the perfect chance. Even if they lose, which I hope they do, the death by character assassination will be almost impossible for her to ever recover from. Like Dylan said, her life has been put out there and deemed newsworthy. Why isn't the focus on the fucked up dysfunctional family that thinks this is somehow ok?

[firie]

Actually, it happens often. Firefighting is very dangerous. I have been a volunteer firefighter/emt for several years. Fires are unpredictable. And unfortunately even if you know that one of your own is trapped inside, that doesn't mean you can attempt a rescue. Fires can actually be too hot, and command can decide not to allow anyone else in. The reason for this is because losing one is bad enough. You send two in to save that one, and the other two get into trouble, so you send two more in and then they get into trouble....
It creates a horrible domino effect.
Stories like this happen:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PS17LO1&show_article=1
http://www.wusa9.com/news/columnist/blogs/2007/08/tv-station-reports-7-boston.html
http://www.firefighternation.com/forum/topics/two-firefighters-die-in-1?commentId=889755:Comment:4708394&xg_source=activity


For a family to drag this poor women through the mud like this is unbelievable and wholly unforgivable. There is no shame for some people. They probably disproved from the start and just waited for an opportunity to destroy her. Once her husband died, they had the perfect chance. Even if they lose, which I hope they do, the death by character assassination will be almost impossible for her to ever recover from. Like Dylan said, her life has been put out there and deemed newsworthy. Why isn't the focus on the fucked up dysfunctional family that thinks this is somehow ok?

Yeah, and on the ex, in which the whole family was against in court over custody of the children before the husband died. Where is she in the news?

I think it's disgusting, and the more I read, the more disgusted I become, particularly with the family and the news.

I read the Chronicle article posted by Arwen below and I am really frustrated with that report. I think it was off base, and would like to point that out, and probably was one of the worst I have read thus far. It was shoddy reporting in my opinion and didn't even touch on half of what is going on here. And when you talk about about what the family is doing, and only quote Nikki, and not even argue her lawyer's points, then well, I would call that fucking biased.

I am also confused by reports that keep noting that this is just the poor parents and their plight to save the children. If Nikki wins, the kids still get 300,000$, and college tuition, if not more.

Not one of the articles discusses the fact that Nikki is technically homeless right now. Not one of them cares not one bit what she is going through. Not one of them that I have found (mainstream) points out how messed up this is, regardless of what the family wants. I can't find one fucking article that will weigh how gross that is toward her, in mainstream news (only news that is Nikki supportive is coming from TG networks, groups, etc, and, well, Nikki herself). If anyone comes across news information that is Nikki positive or even critiques the family, can someone please post it or send it to me via pm? I would really appreciate that.

Also, Melissa pointed me to the Huffington Post, where the discussion (comments below the article) are quite interesting: link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/nikki-araguz-transgender_n_653129.html)

I would also like to note that so many of the articles say, "Lawyers say..." or "Lawyers think..." WTF is that? These local papers are talking to the family's lawyer. Period. And that lawyer is even getting everything about Littleton wrong! So deceptive. Such a prime example as to how our community gets screwed over by the "unbiased" news.

[Dylan]

Here's the latest video update of the case. The TG Center of Houston (absolutely amazing place, and makes me (sometimes) wish I lived in Houston, just so I could be a part of something so amazing...they actually have a trans archives and history library).

The next video will be of the entire press conference, and I'll post that when it comes out.

I'm writing various scathing letters to the news stations and newspapers in Houston for their incredibly biased and blatantly untrue coverage. I will be posting those later today (might be tomorrow; we have obligations today, but I'm going to try to squeeze it in) with addresses of where to send them if anyone else would like to send letters also (sending emails is a complete waste of time...please send letters, they make a much bigger impact).


pzLfPcOzJlg



Dylan

[BullDog]

The news coverage I have seen has been deplorable- that includes the so-called liberal Huffington Post which gets a two thumbs down from me on their blurb and posting a pic of Nikki Araguz that looks like a mug shot. I watched one of the tv interviews some male "news reporter" did with Nikki Araguz and wanted to punch him every time he opened his mouth. It was disgusting.

Clearly none of the reporters get that she has always been female. They are all focused on the sex change (and whether she's been trying to "fool" anyone) and trying to pinpoint when she became a woman when in fact she has always been one. She has obviously lived her entire adult life as a woman. Her name change was in 1996 and she was born in 1975, which means she was around 21 when she changed her name.

I just don't know if she will meet the "legal" definition of woman to make her marriage legal. If not I assume she will be denied just as same sex couples would be. I certainly think she is entitled to the death benefits and of course her own/ assets and joint assets that she and her husband shared. I am interested in seeing if the case sets any precedents for trans people and/or same sex couples. I looked up her attorney and she is definitely very experienced and sounds like the best one for the job.

Her husband's family and their lawyer are disgusting. They are smearing their daughter-in-law and also their son and the two boys. I can't imagine Thomas Araguz (or anyone) wanting to be remembered this way or to see his children be put through this, not to mention his wife.

[Stearns]

What happened at the court hearing that Nikki says she was pleased about? Anybody have an update?

[SuperFemme]

something has been itching at my brain.

i wonder? does the new federal hate crime legislation that covers transgender as a protected class play into what these people, the town and the media is doing to this woman?

[Soon]

something has been itching at my brain.

i wonder? does the new federal hate crime legislation that covers transgender as a protected class play into what these people, the town and the media is doing to this woman?

From what I understand, this new legislation covers only violence-based crimes that are committed against people due to their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

So, if no physical violence has been committed, then I don't think this case (and community, media etc.) would fall under this Act.

[SuperFemme]

From what I understand, this new legislation covers only violence-based crimes that are committed against people due to their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

So, if no physical violence has been committed, then I don't think this case (and community, media etc.) would fall under this Act.





That sucks.
I consider what they are doing to this woman beyond violent, but I suppose the legal definition won't agree with me. boo.

[chefhottie25]

I'd like to know HOW does Nikki's mother in law look so feminine?

There was another Houston station that ran a story allllllllllllllllll about Nikki's criminal history with her entire rapsheet (including <gasp> a ticket for driving without her license! Can you believe?!! Transpeople are so dangerous! Driving without their licenses! The Horrahhhhhhh!>

And yet...still no word about the husband's family.

I'd really like a detailed description of the mother in law's bits! And I'd also like the mother in law to PROVE she's a woman.


Dylan


Dylan...I am with you brother. The double standard is untolerable. It is sad that this is happening to Nikki.

[Melissa]

What happened at the court hearing that Nikki says she was pleased about? Anybody have an update?

All I've picked up so far is that Nikki is fine with the 50/50 split of the death benefits between herself and the two children and that she had promised her husband she would take care of them if anything happened to her.

I found out there was no will. This is all from online news sources and so how true any of this is is anyone's guess. From what I have been reading, when there is no will, Texas will divide an estate between the spouse and children. 50% goes to the spouse and the other 50% is divided among the children. So even if Nikki's marriage wasn't contested by the in laws, the 50/50 division of the death benefits would have happened at probate anyway.

This also goes for joint owned property and bank accounts. Insurance with a named beneficiary does not count and if there was a will then the property would be divided according to the will. The judge has frozen everything (but technically, as far as I can figure out, if Nikki was named beneficiary of a life insurance policy it should not have been frozen). Also, as far as I know, bank accounts are not covered by a will. You have to name a beneficiary on the account and through your bank. So I'm not sure why her bank accounts were frozen unless there was no named beneficiary on the accounts.

The inlaws are going after everything claiming the marriage is not valid. They are not content with the 50% but want the lot. On the upside for couples, if there is a will then this could ward off what is happening to Nikki because contract law will take over. We also read somewhere, and this is for couples, that it is good to have a witnessed letter in your documents stating that the husband or wife is fuly aware her/his partner is transgendered/transexual. You have to have two witnesses to this letter. I would also suggest having a lawyer draw up the letter. This can help if, again, family comes along and argues the deceased spouse did not know and was defrauded.

As usual, gay, lesbian, trans people and partners have to have all kinds of documents to protect the relationship. And we have to think of any possible eventualities that might happen and try to ward them off in case they do.

From what I've learned, a will is your best protection. I've also learned about something called right of surviorship when it comes to property. If both names are on a property make sure you set it up as right of survivorship this way, when one of you passes away, the other automatically gets the property and the property does not have to go through probate.

Melissa

[atomiczombie]

I have donated $50.00 to her legal defense fund and so have my parents. I am proud of my folks for doing this. I am praying for Nikki.

[Stearns]

All I've picked up so far is that Nikki is fine with the 50/50 split of the death benefits between herself and the two children and that she had promised her husband she would take care of them if anything happened to her.

I found out there was no will. This is all from online news sources and so how true any of this is is anyone's guess. From what I have been reading, when there is no will, Texas will divide an estate between the spouse and children. 50% goes to the spouse and the other 50% is divided among the children. So even if Nikki's marriage wasn't contested by the in laws, the 50/50 division of the death benefits would have happened at probate anyway.

This also goes for joint owned property and bank accounts. Insurance with a named beneficiary does not count and if there was a will then the property would be divided according to the will. The judge has frozen everything (but technically, as far as I can figure out, if Nikki was named beneficiary of a life insurance policy it should not have been frozen). Also, as far as I know, bank accounts are not covered by a will. You have to name a beneficiary on the account and through your bank. So I'm not sure why her bank accounts were frozen unless there was no named beneficiary on the accounts.

The inlaws are going after everything claiming the marriage is not valid. They are not content with the 50% but want the lot. On the upside for couples, if there is a will then this could ward off what is happening to Nikki because contract law will take over. We also read somewhere, and this is for couples, that it is good to have a witnessed letter in your documents stating that the husband or wife is fuly aware her/his partner is transgendered/transexual. You have to have two witnesses to this letter. I would also suggest having a lawyer draw up the letter. This can help if, again, family comes along and argues the deceased spouse did not know and was defrauded.

As usual, gay, lesbian, trans people and partners have to have all kinds of documents to protect the relationship. And we have to think of any possible eventualities that might happen and try to ward them off in case they do.

From what I've learned, a will is your best protection. I've also learned about something called right of surviorship when it comes to property. If both names are on a property make sure you set it up as right of survivorship this way, when one of you passes away, the other automatically gets the property and the property does not have to go through probate.

Melissa

Great research and advice, Melissa. Thank you.

[Dylan]

Here is another article that talks about the fact that Longoria (Nikki's former mother in law) names HERSELF (NOT 'the precious children' as she's claiming now) as heirs to Thomas' benefits and (now) 1/2 of the estate.

It also states that Nikki was named sole beneficiary of the life insurance policy.

Widow Braves Hostile Court Proceedings

Houston, Texas – July 23, 2010 – Jeers and public threats greeted Mrs. Nikki Araguz outside the Warton County Courthouse today. The Widow of Wharton County firefighter Captain Thomas Araguz, who was killed in the line of duty, was in court for the first hearing in a suit brought by Araguz’s mother, Simona Rodriguez Longoria. The suit claims that Longoria should inherit Capt. Araguz’s widow’s benefits and all marital assets.

Longoria claims that since Mrs. Araguz was legally a male before transitioning to female, and legally changed her gender prior to her subsequent marriage to Capt. Araguz that Longoria, not Mrs. Araguz, should receive all benefits and joint property. This includes any income earned by Mrs. Araguz during the marriage. Mrs. Araguz was the principle wage earner of the couple.

Capt. Araguz’s two children from a previous marriage will receive one half of Capt. Araguz’s $600,000 firemen’s fallen hero benefit regardless of the outcome of this case. They are also entitled to free tuition at Texas State Schools, as will be their children.

Longoria today expanded her claims to the property of Mrs. Araguz, asking the court to seize funds paid by a life insurance policy to which Mrs. Araguz was the named beneficiary. Judge Clapp granted her request, adding those funds to the widow’s benefits and all marital assets currently being held in escrow.

In a victory for Mrs. Araguz, the Judge also prevented Longoria from spending any of those funds or disposing of Capt. and Mrs. Araguz’s marital assets.

Longoria said in court today that her goal was to “freeze Nikki out.” All of Mrs. Araguz’s assets are currently frozen and unavailable to her.

If you would like to help support Nikki in her hour of desperate need, donate to the TG Center Nikki Araguz Fund. The TG Center Nikki Araguz Fund not only supports Nikki’s ongoing legal battle, it also provides for her day-to-day needs.



Link (http://www.dallasvoice.com/judge-bars-fallen-firefighters-transgender-widow-from-collecting-spending-death-benefits-1035665.html)


Oh, it also tells why she was happy about the court hearing on Friday.




Dylan

[Dylan]

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

Click Here (http://www.questioningtransphobia.com/?p=2671)


Dylan

[Liam]

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

Click Here (http://www.questioningtransphobia.com/?p=2671)


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]

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]

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]

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.

[EnderD_503]

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

Click Here (http://www.questioningtransphobia.com/?p=2671)


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

Yakpp6qbNKI



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

[BullDog]

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???

[Soon]

Here's the press conference after the hearing on Friday

Yakpp6qbNKI



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
(http://www.powervisa.com/spouse-visas-and-transgender-marriages.html)

[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
(http://www.powervisa.com/spouse-visas-and-transgender-marriages.html)

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

[Soon]

Within all this phobia, hatred and injustice, I can't wrap my mind around the fact that HER account/HER monies are frozen.

How is that possible?

What was her husband's occupation? Wasn't she the primary (or sole?) breadwinner? How can her OWN money be inaccessible!? How can a judge render one's own income inaccessible to the person who earns it? (am I getting it right or missing something?)

[Dylan]

Transphobic Trope (#5 according to Lisa Harney)

Transpeople As Deceivers and Liars

This might seem to be two tropes, and indeed they can and do work separately, but I’m going to do them together because I think they very often work together (especially in the criminal justice system). This one is trans women specific.

First, there’s the frequently touted idea that trans women are really just men in dresses. The man in a dress is a pitiful figure, trying and failing miserably to pass as a woman. The notion occasionally touted by some online feminists that trans women will be immediately and obviously be readable as trans–and hence able to be kept out of womyn’s “safe space”–relies on this idea. This is often the figure of trans women in popular culture, the laughingstock who can’t gender themselves properly (always played by a cis man, with bonus hilarity points if there’s facial and body hair).

This second half, the stealthy deceiver, is closely allied to my first trope (“Really a [assigned birth sex]“) except that it posits the trans person as actively fraudulent. The idea is that appearances are deceptive, that we are able to mimic cis femininity so well that we can trick innocent people (usually men) into believing we are something we are not. To live your life in your gender, and most particularly, to expect to have sex with someone, is inherently a lie.

This is the trans person as surprise plot twist that fuels movies like The Crying Game, though it’s more pervasive and pernicious than sheer entertainment. The figure of the stealthy trans woman fuels the notorious “trans panic” defense that seemingly every murderer of a trans woman seeks to defend themselves. Unsurprisingly, it is nearly always almost an enormous bloody lie, the evidence frequently conclusively points to murderers having known their victims were trans and then cold bloodedly killing them.

What remains profoundly foreign to this trope, of course, is the perspectives of trans women ourselves, that being born forced to attempt to live in a male gender role and sexed body might have been far more a profound lie that living as women.

So, these tropes seem to in one sense be wildly opposed – in one, transness is immediately apparent, in the other, it is a secret. But in another sense, they work together, because one can easily move from one to the other, because a cis view of trans people tends to scrutinise, looking for signs of inauthenticity, of our “real” genders. So, trans women are placed in the double bind of coming out – either come out and have your gender disregarded and ridiculed, or remain stealth and risk being exposed as a deceiver.

Both, I should point out, have incredible risks of violence.

What is more incredible is how they can both appear at the same time. Trans women are ridiculed for the obvious and apparent inauthenticity of our genders – massive bloody attention is paid to appearance, to make-up, clothing, shaving, to shoulder size, to Adam’s apples. See, for instance, this article about the murder of Sanesha Stewart:

Stewart, more than 6 feet tall, was known to wear stylish, provocative outfits with towering high heels, neighbors said.

Stewart also apparently had undergone surgery to give him larger breasts and other female characteristics, neighbors said.

“She looked like a girl but when she turned around, you knew it was a man,” a 17-year-old neighbor said. “She had a big jaw and an Adam’s apple.”

And yet the original title of the story, I should point out, was “Fooled John Stabbed Bronx Tranny” (until GLAAD complained and the title was changed). The article proceeded typically, without any evidence whatsoever besides the fact that Sanesha Stewart was a trans woman of colour, from the later-proved-to-be-faulty assumption that she was not only a sex worker, but a stealthy deceptive one at that. The incoherence of this, that she was somehow both immediately and obviously trans, and yet able to fool a man into thinking she was cis, should be immediately obvious to anyone with even a quarter of a functioning brain. And yet.

Transphobia doesn’t work on the level of literal sense, instead it proceeds along a path mapped out long before, relying more on a cis common sense of how things “should be” (and therefore are) than on any real knowledge of trans lives. And so, this trope appears again and again and again – in Kellie Telesford’s trial, she was described as possessing a man’s strength (ludicrously unlikely given the time she’d been on hormones), yet simultaneously she was able to deceive the defendent into having sex with her.

The point is then, trans women do not have stable position in cis-sexist discourse, moving instead through incoherently contradictory counter-propositions as needs permit, but all the while denied an authenticity and truthfulness for our identities which cis gender normative people take for granted.

The Link (http://www.questioningtransphobia.com/?p=740)

Julia Serano on the topic

As a transsexual woman, I am often confronted by people who insist that I am not, nor can I ever be, a “real woman.” One of the more common lines of reasoning goes something like this: There’s more to being a woman than simply putting on a dress. I couldn’t agree more. That’s why it’s so frustrating that people often seem confused because, although I have transitioned to female and live as a woman, I rarely wear makeup or dress in a particularly feminine manner.

Despite the reality that there are as many types of trans women as there are women in general, most people believe that trans women are all on a quest to make ourselves as pretty, pink, and passive as possible. While there are certainly some trans women who buy into mainstream dogma about beauty and femininity, others are outspoken feminists and activists fighting against all gender stereotypes. But you’d never know it from the popular media, which tends to assume that all transsexuals are male-to-female, and that all trans women want to achieve stereotypical femininity.

Trans people—who transition from male to female or female to male and often live completely unnoticed as the sex “opposite” to that which they were born—have the potential to transform the gender class system as we know it. Our existence challenges the conventional wisdom that the differences between women and men are primarily the product of biology. Trans people can wreak havoc on such taken-for-granted concepts as feminine and masculine, homosexual and hetero-sexual, because these words are rendered virtually meaningless when a person’s biological sex and lived sex are not the same. But because we are a threat to the categories that enable male and heterosexual privilege, the images and experiences of trans people are presented in the media in a way that reaffirms, rather than challenges, gender stereotypes.

THE TWO CHOICES
Media depictions of trans women, whether they take the form of fictional characters or actual people, usually fall under one of two main archetypes: the “deceptive” transsexual or the “pathetic” transsexual. While characters of both models have an interest in achieving an ultrafeminine appearance, they differ in their abilities to pull it off. Because the “deceivers” successfully pass as women, they generally act as unexpected plot twists, or play the role of sexual predators who fool innocent straight guys into falling for “men.”

Perhaps the most famous example of a “deceiver” is the character Dil in the 1992 movie The Crying Game. The film became a pop culture phenomenon primarily because most moviegoers were unaware that Dil was trans until about halfway through the movie. The revelation comes during a love scene between her and Fergus, the male protagonist who has been courting her. When Dil disrobes, the audience, along with Fergus, learns for the first time that Dil is physically male. When I saw the film, most of the men in the theater groaned at this revelation. Onscreen, Fergus has a similarly intense reaction: He slaps Dil and runs off to the bathroom to vomit.

The 1994 Jim Carrey vehicle Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, features a “deceptive” transsexual as a villain. Police lieutenant Lois Einhorn (played by Sean Young) is secretly Ray Finkle, an ex–Miami Dolphins kicker who has stolen the team’s mascot as part of a scheme to get back at Dolphins quarterback Dan Marino. The bizarre plot ends when Ventura strips Einhorn down to her underwear in front of about 20 police officers and announces, “She is suffering from the worst case of hemorrhoids I have ever seen.” He then turns her around so that we can see her penis and testicles tucked behind her legs. All of the police officers proceed to spit up as The Crying Game theme song plays in the background.

Even though “deceivers” successfully pass as women, and are often played by female actors (with the notable exception of Jaye Davidson as Dil), these characters are never intended to challenge our assumptions about gender itself. On the contrary, they are positioned as “fake” women, and their secret trans status is revealed in a dramatic “moment of truth”. At the moment of exposure, the “deceiver’s” appearance (her femaleness) is reduced to mere illusion, and her secret (her maleness) becomes the real identity.

In a tactic that emphasizes their “true” maleness, “deceivers” are most often used as pawns to provoke male homophobia in other characters, as well as in the audience itself. This phenomenon is especially evident in TV talk shows like Jerry Springer, which regularly runs episodes with titles like “My Girlfriend’s a Guy” and “I’m Really a Man!” that feature trans women coming out to their straight boyfriends. On a recent British TV reality show called There's Something About Miriam, six heterosexual men court an attractive woman who, unbeknownst to them, is transgendered. The broadcast of the show was delayed for several months because the men threatened to sue the show’s producers, alleging that they had been the victims of defamation, personal injury, and conspiracy to commit sexual assault. The affair was eventually settled out of court, with each man coming away with a reported $100,000.

In the 1970 film adaptation of Gore Vidal’s novel Myra Breckinridge, the protagonist is a trans woman who heads out to Hollywood in order to take revenge on traditional manhood and to “realign the sexes.” This apparently involves raping an ex-football player with a strap-on dildo, which she does at one point during the movie. The recurring theme of “deceptive” trans women retaliating against men, often by seducing them, seems to be an unconscious acknowledgment that both male and heterosexual privileges are threatened by transsexuals.

The Link (http://www.juliaserano.com/outside.html)

GLAAD Blog about an article in Seventeen magazine about a 'lying' FTM and how he 'deceived' a poor innocent young woman (two actually). Click here (http://glaadblog.org/2009/10/27/call-to-action-seventeen-magazine-needs-to-apologize-for-transphobic-article/) If you want to read the article that was published in the magazine, there's a link from GLAAD's site.

This 'lying' and 'deceiving' trope is used allllllllllll over the media...even when reporting the deaths of transpeople at the hands of those they (allegedly) 'deceived'. It's classic. And, as has been pointed out, it's been used to justify the 'trans-panic' defense (anyone remember the gay-panic defense after that Jenny Jones show aired?).


Dylan

[AtLast]

Just want to thank the OP for the thread- it is a matter of human rights and this isn't relevant to Texas only. Or, even queer communities.

[AtLast]

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 (http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/100727-transgender-drama-seeps-into-courtroom)


Dylan

[SuperFemme]

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 (http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/100727-transgender-drama-seeps-into-courtroom)


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.


:explode:

[Dylan]

Wait until you see this one! Absolutely fassssssssccccinating reporting by faux news.

Linky Loo (http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/100719-lawsuit-dead-firefighter%27s-wife-is-a-man?obref=obinsite)


Dylan

[SuperFemme]

wow. just wow.

[BullDog]

The "reporting" of this story is the absolute worst and most bigoted reporting I have ever seen in my life.

[Dylan]

Alright, here's the letter I've written. I'm just going to use the same letter for all of the stations. Please feel free to use it and send it.

Also, if you see any typos please let me know. I've checked it, but I also know I have a propensity to screw up there/their/they're and your/you're...oh and it's/its. Damned contractions.

The addresses for Fox and khou (the station that did that heinous interview) are listed below.

Thank you

Oh, and please don't be put off by the 'what may seem over-dramatization of disrespect to Texas'. We take Texas vurrry suriously here. Texans first, THEN Amuricans.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing in response to your recent coverage of the Nikki Araguz story. Your reporters have stooped to not only misrepresenting the actual facts, but also blatantly lying about the facts. This, coupled with the injecting of personal opinion, makes for just poor reporting. When watching the news, I don’t really care about the personal opinion of reporters who are too incapable of or too lazy to check facts and write impartially. To be succinct, I am appalled by your coverage of this story

Attacking this woman, who is mourning the loss of her husband, is completely abominable and reprehensible. I am wondering why you have decided to give us absolutely no information whatsoever on the husband’s family. Why have we heard nothing from you about their characters, criminal histories, family disputes, etc? Your one-sided, attacking, maligning coverage of this story is so blatantly prejudicial and biased that I can hardly believe anything your station reports anymore. And your sensationalized headlining exemplifies perfectly your tabloid-style, ‘glam’ reporting.

I am absolutely sickened by the way your station has handled this story. This type of reporting keeps the rest of the country thinking Texas is full of nothing but bigoted, small-minded simpletons. I am ashamed that Texas is being represented in this manner. Your station’s ignorance of the issues of oppressed groups including, but not limited to, members of the transgender community, and your blatant disregard for fact-checking comes shining through in your coverage of this story. Your reporting has sunk to a new low. Again, this representation and opinionated, biased coverage makes Texas look bad to the rest of the country. I am deeply ashamed to have these stories representing the Great State of Texas.

While I would love to see your reporters come back with an educated, truthful, and fair story based on actual facts, I have little faith that your station is capable of educating itself. The least you could do is apologize publicly to not only this woman, but also those of us who have been subjected to your shoddy, unscrupulous coverage. Honestly, I am outraged that you call yourself a news station. This is not news. This is obnoxious gossip-mongering and tabloid-sensationalism designed to generate ratings. It is flagrantly disrespectful to your viewers and assumes we are dim-witted morons incapable of seeing through manipulative, slanted hogwash. Breeding this type of intolerance and hatred of transgendered people only leaves your station culpable for the violence perpetrated against this already oppressed group. You have fallen on tropes and stereotypes to “report” on an issue of which your station and reporters are clearly very ignorant.

Please be aware that I will also be writing letters to your sponsors regarding the horrible, attacking coverage you’ve provided. I cannot support companies who would financially support this type of sophomoric and distorted reporting.

Sincerely,

KRIV FOX 26
P.O. Box 22810
Houston, TX 77227

KHOU-TV Channel 11
1945 Allen Parkway
Houston, TX 77019
(713) 526-1111


Please feel free to pass this around to anyone you think would be willing to send a letter. Emails don't do diddly. Another route is to sign up to be able to comment on their stories on their websites...altho, I haven't been able to figure out how to do this yet.


Dylan

[Dylan]

Well, finally, we have some info about someone OTHER than Nikki. Here's a video talking about the attorney for the husband's family, and how he was Nikki's attorney before he divulged her trans-status and other personal information about her

THc4xKN4-ok



Dylan

[Stearns]

Alright, here's the letter I've written. I'm just going to use the same letter for all of the stations. Please feel free to use it and send it.

Also, if you see any typos please let me know. I've checked it, but I also know I have a propensity to screw up there/their/they're and your/you're...oh and it's/its. Damned contractions.

The addresses for Fox and khou (the station that did that heinous interview) are listed below.

Thank you

Oh, and please don't be put off by the 'what may seem over-dramatization of disrespect to Texas'. We take Texas vurrry suriously here. Texans first, THEN Amuricans.



KRIV FOX 26
P.O. Box 22810
Houston, TX 77227

KHOU-TV Channel 11
1945 Allen Parkway
Houston, TX 77019
(713) 526-1111


Please feel free to pass this around to anyone you think would be willing to send a letter. Emails don't do diddly. Another route is to sign up to be able to comment on their stories on their websites...altho, I haven't been able to figure out how to do this yet.


Dylan

Dylan,

Just curious. Why do you say that emails are essentially worthless? I may have to rethink the way I do things, if you know this to be true. GREAT letter, by the way.

[Melissa]

Well, finally, we have some info about someone OTHER than Nikki. Here's a video talking about the attorney for the husband's family, and how he was Nikki's attorney before he divulged her trans-status and other personal information about her

THc4xKN4-ok



Dylan

Is that even legal? This sounds like a big hoo doo on the part of this lawyer. Interesting stuff. I wonder if someone will make a complaint against him.

Melissa

[Dylan]

Dylan,

Just curious. Why do you say that emails are essentially worthless? I may have to rethink the way I do things, if you know this to be true. GREAT letter, by the way.

Emails can be (and are usually) ignored.

I mean, emails work for getting your message to people, but they have proven not so effective in changing people's minds/activism. Basically, they're a 'lazy' tool for people.

I think there was something written about the psychology and effectiveness and how people respond to getting a critical email vs getting a critical letter...like they took the letter more seriously than the email, because of the fact that someone actually took the time to write a letter. I'm not making much sense.

Firie has way more info on this than I do...maybe she can explain it better (hopefully). I think she actually has stats or something.


Dylan

P.S. Thank you for the feedback on my letter. Please send a letter if you can.

P.P.S. I'm only posting my letter in case folks don't have time to write one of their own. There's been many times I said I was going to write a letter, but ran out of hours in the day. I would have been more likely to actually send one if there was one already written up.

[Dylan]

Is that even legal? This sounds like a big hoo doo.

Melissa

Maybe we should call him on his cell and ask him?

I'm going to ask for the opinion of an attorney friend of ours. And then, I may be writing another letter to the Texas Bar requesting an investigation. Or perhaps another letter to fox 26 and khou asking why they haven't run this story.


Dylan

[Stearns]

Maybe we should call him on his cell and ask him?

I'm going to ask for the opinion of an attorney friend of ours. And then, I may be writing another letter to the Texas Bar requesting an investigation. Or perhaps another letter to fox 26 and khou asking why they haven't run this story.


Dylan

I think the woman who made the video is filing a grievance with the Bar. Yes, give the info to the news stations and see what they do with it. They could at least report on the atty's previous suspension from practicing and subsequent probation.

[Soon]

Nikki Araguz: Lawyer Representing Her Husband's Ex-Wife Faces State Bar Investigation (http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/07/ex-wifes_lawyer_investigated.php)

The case of whether a fallen Wharton firefighter's benefits should go to his transgender widow just gets exponentially weirder: Frank Mann, the lawyer representing Thomas Araguz's ex-wife, is facing investigation by the State Bar of Texas's disciplinary office for a possible ethics violation related to an e-mail he sent "outing" the widow, Nikki Araguz, during her mayoral campaign.

Mann represented Araguz and her first husband in a 2002 bankruptcy case. Earlier this year, he represented Heather Delgado, Thomas Araguz's ex-wife, in a bitter custody dispute, and is now representing her in a motion to void Nikki's and Thomas' 2008 marriage.

In an April deposition of Nikki Araguz, Mann got her to admit that she was born Justin Graham Purdue; he also asked about her medical history. Mann then used the information in a May 6 e-mail titled "Public Information on Nikki Araguz who is running for Mayor of Wharton, Texas."

He would not say how many people he sent the e-mail to, but it became public during Araguz's race for Wharton mayor this spring.

Mann's e-mail kicks off with "Occasionally you get a case that makes the papers or Jerry Springer," and just gets classier from there. "...I am sending this to you because you are a friend of mine and the deposition is public knowledge. I think the citizens of Wharton Texas should know this information....Nikki Purdue Araguz is the stepmother in a case of mine and she gave testimony that she is a transgender. She is a he. Her birth certificate states that she is male. She has multiple felony convictions in Harris County...and is on probation in Wharton County for possession of a controlled substance."

That bit in ellipses? That's where he disclosed a portion of her medical history. Hair Balls isn't going to do that because we only act like assholes when it's called for.

Mann signed off with, "If you would like to discuss this with me, call me on my cell..." (You can see more discussion on this e-mail on the YouTube page of Cristan Williams, executive director of the Transgender Foundation of America).

Nikki Araguz filed a complaint with the State Bar of Texas. It appears the complaint was initially dismissed, but that on June 29 the Board of Disciplinary Appeals granted Araguz's appeal and issued her a letter stating it would "return the case to the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel for investigation and a determination whether there is just cause to believe that the attorney has committed professional misconduct."

The Board's letter indicates that the investigation would center on rules 1.05 and 1.06 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, which deal with client confidentiality and conflict of interest. (The paperwork indicates that Mann has 30 days to respond to Araguz's complaint before an investigation would begin).

It's not Mann's first dance with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel: in 1990, Mann agreed to a fully probated 36-month suspension for "misrepresentations of fact concerning the dates of his hospitalization for alcohol and substance abuse in an affidavit offered in support of a motion to retain." (The suspension was stayed; he was allowed to actively practice, but was placed on probation.) The Office of Disciplinary Counsel also ruled that, in one case, Mann "assigned away 100 percent of any attorney's fees" and then "intervened in the pending lawsuit, claiming an interest in attorney's fees."

In 1997, Mann was suspended for five and a half years and was not eligible to practice for the first 36 months. In that case, among other things, the Counsel found that Mann's paralegal "affixed [a] client's signature from a prior document to a proposed modification, without the client's consent." Mann wasn't in the office at the time, but he was "responsible supervision and instruction of his staff and for ensuring that his staff follows the law and the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct."

Mann told Hair Balls that all of the information in his May 6 e-mail was gleaned from the deposition, and not from his earlier representation of Araguz and her first husband. He said all the information was public and he was only releasing it because the people of Wharton had the right to know about a mayoral candidate's criminal record. (Although Mann told us he was more concerned about Araguz's drug and theft convictions and not her sexual identity, the e-mail itself indicates otherwise.)

We're not clear on what a person's medical history has to do with running for mayor in a town of 10,000. We're also not clear why Mann felt obligated to share this information. Lastly, we wonder if he regularly e-mails his pals about shit that comes up in depositions and invites people to call him on his cell for more gossip.

"I think that people needed to know information about her background of felony convictions for theft....the people in Wharton, Texas, did not know anything about her background," Mann said.

He also said that, when he represented Nikki Araguz in the 2002 bankruptcy, he did not know anything about her sexual identity and only focused on financial matters.

"I was informed from my client, Heather Delgado, about rumors about Nikki," Mann said.

[Soon]

THc4xKN4-ok&feature=player_embedded#%21

[Nat]

zMjTnupw6Ys

[Melissa]

I just wondered if anyone had been keeping up with this story and how things are going for Nikki?

Melissa

[SuperFemme]

http://www.fbherald.com/news/article_25f4d1d6-b259-11df-a964-001cc4c03286.html

[Melissa]

http://www.fbherald.com/news/article_25f4d1d6-b259-11df-a964-001cc4c03286.html

Thanks for the link. Well the headline says it all and the media is still its typical horrible job covering the case. Does anyone know about the 2009 law in Texas regarding birth certificates and marriage? Its mentioned in the very last paragraph of the article.

Melissa

[SuperFemme]

Thanks for the link. Well the headline says it all and the media is still its typical horrible job covering the case. Does anyone know about the 2009 law in Texas regarding birth certificates and marriage? Its mentioned in the very last paragraph of the article.

Melissa

i'm pretty sure that is the law that states that a person in texas is the sex that they are biologically born with, and that chromosones are the deciding factor. regardless of srs surgery, name & gender changes etc. which is pretty damning and now this case brings a lot of fear to the trans population of TX.

[DMW]

First, I recall this happening, i have not read all of the posts here.
Second, i wonder what the final outcome of this case was? Hoping that i
make the time to find out.
Lastly, Always make a 2nd beneficiary(that is not your partner obviously) on the life insurance policy. Someone whom is trustworthy to do what you want and to speak for you when you are
no longer here. Always make a 2nd beneficiary on a 401k, and a pension if
your company allows same sex or fill in the blank(human beings).
Hopefully, the 2nd beneficiary can be a sibling that you trust and outlives you.
There is No Way a court can refute that. None that i know of anyway.

(One time...i purposely put my younger sibling as the primary beneficiary with legal documation
that sibling was to follow out my wishes. Because, legally, that is what i had to do inorder for
my girlfriend to get what i had.)

Also, every state's laws are different. Even heterosexual couples, that are not married, get the shaft. But, at least they have a legal choice to marry in all states.

To comment on the case...i am speechless for now. Other than...absolute disgust with how humans treat other humans.

[DMW]

This also goes for joint owned property and bank accounts. Insurance with a named beneficiary does not count and if there was a will then the property would be divided according to the will. The judge has frozen everything (but technically, as far as I can figure out, if Nikki was named beneficiary of a life insurance policy it should not have been frozen). Also, as far as I know, bank accounts are not covered by a will. You have to name a beneficiary on the account and through your bank. So I'm not sure why her bank accounts were frozen unless there was no named beneficiary on the accounts.

The inlaws are going after everything claiming the marriage is not valid. They are not content with the 50% but want the lot. On the upside for couples, if there is a will then this could ward off what is happening to Nikki because contract law will take over. We also read somewhere, and this is for couples, that it is good to have a witnessed letter in your documents stating that the husband or wife is fuly aware her/his partner is transgendered/transexual. You have to have two witnesses to this letter. I would also suggest having a lawyer draw up the letter. This can help if, again, family comes along and argues the deceased spouse did not know and was defrauded.

As usual, gay, lesbian, trans people and partners have to have all kinds of documents to protect the relationship. And we have to think of any possible eventualities that might happen and try to ward them off in case they do.

From what I've learned, a will is your best protection. I've also learned about something called right of surviorship when it comes to property. If both names are on a property make sure you set it up as right of survivorship this way, when one of you passes away, the other automatically gets the property and the property does not have to go through probate.

Melissa

I don't know how i could go on and not find out about the ending to this.
Maybe i did and moved on. Never got to spend the time to read up more on it. I do remember seeing Kristen on youtube and following her updates.
Wills really are the best thing to have to protect all property assets.
Always include 2 beneficiaries. That is what i have learned.
Another important factor is to have a witness(not just primary or secondary beneficiary) or two at the signing. And yes, a Will doesn't control a bank account. A separate contract has to be drawn up at the bank.

So tragic what people have to go through just to live.
I wanna thank everyone who voiced their opinions and support etc.

[Nadeest]

The 13th US District Court of Appeals is going to make a based on the arguments submitted for evidence, and will not be hearing oral arguments. This is the current information that I have, as of last Wensday. Nikki is planning on taking this to the US Supreme Court if necessary, and it appears that it will be needful. :(

[Nadeest]

I talked to Nikki briefly last friday, but didn't get a chance to confirm this info any further. Sorry. The info that I have and posted is from a Facebook post of her's.

[Nadeest]

As of a court document dated 3 Aug 12, the US 13th District Court will now be hearing oral arguments on this case. Nikki just posted this info today, with a copy of the court document on Facebook.

[Nadeest]

I beg everyone's pardon. This case is still in the Texas judicial system, at present. It is the Texas 13th District Court of Appeals that the case is at now.

[Nadeest]

This link is from a blog that a member of the Houston TG community wrote. She is also a Director of the Trangender Foundation of America (Houston). http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/2012/08/20/nikki-araguz-case-trans-marriage-update/