Transgender Woman Needs Your Support In Texas

[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.

Originally Posted by Dallas Voice

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


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


Dylan

[Liam]

Originally Posted by Dylan

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

Click Here


Dylan

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

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

[firie]

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

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

[Arwen]

Originally Posted by firie

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

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

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

[firie]

Originally Posted by Arwen

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

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

[Heart]

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

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Dylan

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

Click Here


Dylan

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

[Dylan]

Here's the press conference after the hearing on Friday





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

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

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

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

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

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

Ergo, this issue affects transpeople everywhere.

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

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


Dylan

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Dylan

Here's the press conference after the hearing on Friday





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

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

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

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

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

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

Ergo, this issue affects transpeople everywhere.

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

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




Dylan

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


ETA: Maryland it seems so as well.

States that DO recognize transsexual marriages as valid heterosexual marriages:

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

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

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

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

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


source

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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


ETA: Maryland it seems so as well.

States that DO recognize transsexual marriages as valid heterosexual marriages:

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

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

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

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

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


source

Thank you so much!

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


Thanks Again,
Dylan

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Dylan

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

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


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

[Dylan]

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

The Link


Dylan

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by Dylan

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

The Link


Dylan

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