Transgender Woman Needs Your Support In Texas

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by JustJo

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.

Originally Posted by Melissa

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

Melissa

Originally Posted by JustJo

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]

Originally Posted by JustJo

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]

Originally Posted by firie

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]

Originally Posted by Melissa

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]

Originally Posted by cybersuebee

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]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

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]

Originally Posted by firie

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]

Originally Posted by JustJo

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]

Originally Posted by JustJo

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]

Originally Posted by firie

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]

Originally Posted by JustJo

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]

Originally Posted by Stearns

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]

Originally Posted by JustJo

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]

Originally Posted by firie

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]

Originally Posted by JustJo

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]

Originally Posted by firie

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.

[Stearns]

Originally Posted by JustJo

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]

Originally Posted by Stearns

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Stearns

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.

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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.