Marriage equality is about trans people too. Here’s a statement that explains the issue in Texas:
A 1991 Texas court case defined gender in the state as determined by three factors, gonads, genitalia and chromosomes at the time of birth.
So reads the last paragraph of the United Press International (UPI) article Alleged transgender widow benefits frozen. That’s right, the headline says “alleged.”
A Texas judge ordered a firefighter’s widow, who was alleged to have been born a man, not to spend or collect any death benefits from her husband.State District Judge Randy Clapp issued the temporary order Friday when allegedly transgendered Nikki Araguz revealed she had received $60,000 of the expected $600,000 cash payout from the death of her husband, Wharton County firefighter Thomas Araguz, in a July 4 farm inferno, the Houston Chronicle reported Friday.
Here’s why the money was frozen. From Today’s THV article Transgender widow of Texas firefighter wants to keep husband’s death benefits
Eight days after Thomas Araguz died battling a fire in Wharton County; his mother filed a lawsuit to block Nikki Araguz from receiving any of his death benefits. Texas law suggests Nikki is not entitled, because she was born as Justin Graham Purdue in 1975, a man.Attorney Chad Ellis says, “The courts of appeals have looked at this issue, and have basically said that you are what you’re born as.”
That argument centers on this case, Christie Lee Littleton in San Antonio who was denied the right to sue a doctor for her husband’s death because she too was born a man. Courts ruled her marriage invalid. But some legal analyst says that case was never ruled on by the Texas Supreme Court
Professor and legal expert Gerald Treece says, “And those people are arguing they have civil rights too. And this is going to be almost a perfect law school model testing that very premise.”
It’s a premise Araguz will test with attorney Phyllis Randolph Frye, who went through the stigma that comes with becoming transgendered more than 30 years ago. She says, “I don’t want other people to put up with what I had to go through. And that’s pretty much been my life’s story since then. So it is personal.”
It should be noted that ABC News has reported:
The family of Thomas Araguz III, of Wharton, Texas, has alleged in a lawsuit filed eight days after his July 4 death that he had been separated from his wife Nikki, nursing feelings of betrayal after learning that his wife of two years had been born a man.“He was distraught. It was overwhelming,” said Chad Ellis, a Houston lawyer hired by Araguz’s mother. “It was extremely difficult for him.”
The widow has said she did not commit fraud:
“I am absolutely devastated by the loss of my husband…and horrified at the horrendous allegations accusing me of fraud because they’re absolutely not true. And that’s all I have to say.”
I will once again quote what Mara Keisling has said about trans people and marriage:
Every trans person who’s in a relationship, regardless of what their gender is or ever was they’re either in a same-sex relationship or in an opposite sex relationships that somebody could claim was a same-sex relationship.
What Mara said is still true; marriage equality is still a very trans issue.
~~~~~
Related:
* Sabrina Hill’s Story Reminds Us Why Marriage Equality Is A Transgender Issue Too
* Question At The Marriage Chapel: “Are you a transsexual?”
* Profile: Join The Impact’s/San Diego’s Kelly Moyer
* NCLR’s Shannon Minter at the Cali Transgender Leadership Summit: “Sure! I am a transgender man.”
* Trans Woman Denied The Fundamental Right To Marry In Reno, Nevada
* Open thread for Prop 8 hearing




58 Comments


Just one of many ‘legal analysis’ inaccuracies
I wasn’t even in law school yet in 1991, but I must have missed that case.
In fact, even the judges who (mal)decided Littleton v. Prange in 1999 must have missed it, because in 1999 they were under the impression that Littleton was a case of first impression in Texas (if they were accurate in that assessment, it likely would be the only thing they were right about; there were rumors that some Texas appellate court or courts may have gotten hold of the issue long before Littleton and ruled differently, but hid the decision(s) by not publishing them, but lets not quibble.)
Don’t worry Autumn, I know you didn’t make the mistake. I saw that item elsewhere. It just goes along with the pronouncement by the Houston Fox station’s ‘legal analyst’ that Littleton had been ruled upon by the Texas Supreme Court.
Sadly, these cyanide capsules that have been lobbed into the well of public opinion regarding Mrs. Araguz’s case won’t be the last.
appropriationThere are a lot of GLB trans folk for whom same-sex marriage is an important issue, but I get a irritated when transgender issues get appropriated in order to support same-sex marriage.
Nikki is a woman and should not have to enter a same-sex marriage as a man in order for her marriage to be recognized.
Nikki should be fully recognized as a woman, and her marriage should be recognized as a valid opposite sex marriage. Period.
theres WAAY too much misinformation…its hard to tell which way is up with this case…
no matter what, its horrible what shes going through
the guys knows…he finds out during a custody battle.. she had the surgery AFTER they were married, they cant even get her status strait i’ve heard she trans, intersexed, and even AIS, usually one can read several sides of the story & figure out the general truth. Not so much here, however, i would find it EXTREAMLY interesting if she had AIS, altought i doubt it since AIS would mean she would nvr be classified as a male w/out a genetic test. if shes something other than trans it would make the dynamics of this case ALOT more interesting, as it wouldnt be simply “those damn dirty deceiving homos trying 2 steal our EXCLUSIVE rights”. thusly bringing a great deal of bigotry and hate construed out of the dark depths of the bible to the light of reality
Folks might be interested in a couple of YouTube clips from Cristan WilliamsShe’s with the TG Foundation in Houston and was at the hearing today.
One of the links addresses the hearing itself.
The other is a bit of ‘gotcha’ with someone who thought it would be cute to leave an anti-Nikki phone message.
From my piece……is this quote from Mara Keisling:
And if you read my post, I said “marriage equality,” not “same-sex marriage.”
Marriage equality is curently issue for trans people (and/or those who identify as women of transsexual history, classic transsexuals, or with Harry Benjamin Syndrome) because many people and some courts don’t consider post-operative trans people to be their target sex — so heterosexual marriges of trans people are not necessarily recognized as heterosexual marriages. And too, there are trans people who identify themselves as both trans and lesbian, gay, or bisexual, and so while one state may consider a particular marriage to be a heterosexual marriage, another state may consider the same marriage to be a same-sex marriage.
This isn’t appropriation. This is a commentary regarding the state of the law in the United States regarding gender and marriage, and that marriage equality is a trans issue because of that state of the law on gender and marriage.
“Alleged” because she hasn’t been convicted of being trans yet?It should be noted that she’s been prevented from entering the home for fear that she might remove anything from it, all their assets are being frozen, every effort is being made to ensure that she can’t afford to fight this case.
She will need financial help, or this will be over before it’s even begun.
There’s 600K at stakeSurely some enterprising lawyer in this down economy can take this case on contingency. ButI see she has Phyllis Frye as representation. I doubt that Ms. Frye will let her go without representation, even if it means she represents her for free. Heck, if I din’t have to get permission from my law firm, I’d offer assistance too.
That Poor Woma Your husband dies a heroes death, and before he is even in the ground, your inlaws (who should be spending day and night consoling you) instead try to rob you of your property.
This is exactly like interracial marriage. If gay is like black, transgendered is like interracial, under miscegenation laws an interracial person could marry nobody since he would be committing miscegenation with a black or white partner. This is the same here, if the dead firefighter was a woman, family could say that they were in a gay marriage and still deny inheritance. Sick.
Question, has anyone posted the private information (e-mail, phone #) of the mommy in law and ex-wife? I have a thing or two to share with them (not a threat of violence, just a desire to tell these people what I think of them).
Re: From my piece…Whether it’s “marriage equality” or “same-sex marriage” is beside the point.
Nikki is a woman who was married to a man. She would have had to lie about her gender in order for marriage equality to have helped to her. Of course, many trans people do this because they have no other options, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s a shit work around.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m entirely for marriage equality, and until everyone can have their gender identity recognized I fully support trans people having and using any work arounds available.
But the bottom line is that no one should have to deny their gender identity in order to get married.
What ‘marriage equality’ actually means
You seem to be unclear on the concept of marriage equality. It appears that you think ‘marriage equality’ means that both parties must be of the same sex.
Equality means that the gender of the parties to a marriage is moot. She would not have had to lie about anything. Whether she is considered a man or a woman, or her partner was a man or a woman, it wouldn’t matter since marriage equality means a marriage is between two consenting adults, regardless of their respective genders, gender identities, physiological sex or chromosomes.
This is why marriage equality is definitely a transgender issue, whether you are straight, gay or bi. It is also an intersex issue as well, which there seems to be hints that that might be a factor here.
If this happened in Canada or one of the other 9 civilized countries, there wouldn’t be any case at all, since it wouldn’t matter in the slightest what gender the widow was or “used to be”.
that caught my eye tooand i’d say this case represents a larger issue than even marriage equality. the state needs to get out of the business of “defining” gender. equal rights for all, all the time, is what we should have, according to our Constitution, which applies even in TX. i understand that there are certain cases in which it is legally relevant to know a person’s gender. but marriage shouldn’t be one of them. the only qualification someone should need to get married is being a single human being. i can see how such a strict definition for determining gender will screw over trans people and the intersex in lots of other cases in addition to marriage.
just wonderingWhy weren’t any of the assets (or liabilities) listed in both of their mames (or were they and noone is saying)? Wouldn’t that prove ownership rights? Just curious is all…
Just One DropYou’re forgetting the vile “just one drop” principle. Under miscegenation, someone who was part black – even if it was 1/4 or less – would be legally black, not white, so could only marry a black person. This is true for all non-white races, not just blacks – under the old miscegenation laws, Winston Churchill was Iroquois as he had a distant Iroquois ancestor through his mother.
However if you had two mixed-race parents who are both 1/4 black, it’s quite possible their children would appear to be 100% white. Such a child wouldn’t be able to marry a white person because they’re black by descent, and wouldn’t be able to marry a black person because they’re white by appearance.
for y’all with a lil x-tra cash in your pocket…
http://www.tgctr.org/2010/07/2…
there is also an FB support page for her http://www.facebook.com/pages/…
that i caught over @ the griot…
Addendum…if you read the linked artical they are more than just the benefits but EVERYTHING the two had ownership of. So, it appears her personal(joint) bank accounts are frozen as well. fruckin vultures
Seriously…“A 1991 Texas court case defined gender in the state as determined by three factors, gonads, genitalia and chromosomes at the time of birth.”
What kind of supporting documentation do they need to make that determination? Photos? Biopsy? Karyotype test? Or do they ‘assume’ that the people who filled out the application for live birth did all of that?
Because I know that in my case, there was no Karyotype test available at the time. Biopsies weren’t done on new borns and who the hell photographs a new born baby’s junk to prove anything and if they did where would they put it? In cases of a newborn with IS/DSD very often either the doctor or the parents make the call on if they want a boy or not. Some times they do say one thing, then change thier minds. Just so long as the paperwork isn’t filed changes can be made…
Like me, I was ‘Darla May’ [a non-white female] for my first days before they changed the paperwork to read my current name [as a white male]. Sadly, the entire south is lacking on common sense and is ruled by bigotry.
Where does Nikki ever define herself as “trangender” ?Just because the media use that term does not mean she considers herself that way and I find it a bit hypocritical that Autumn would use that term in this article when she is so hell bent on correct terminology in other cases. Lest you forget, some of us consider the “transgender” label as insulting as others consider “tranny”… Nikki is a woman, a heterosexual woman and nothing more. When you label her otherwise you impede her fight to be recognized as such.
My concern, thoughis that she has to live on something in the meantime. She’s possibly being denied that by the conditions being placed on her.
Yeah:The fact is, for transpeople, we’re often treated in the least-favorable way possible whenever there’s a legal issue about our marriages.
Historically, being in what would ‘become’ a same sex marriage has been a problem regarding transition itself: often divorces at least used to be required, even if the marriage itself is working fine.
So it really is everyone’s issue: basically, without marriage equality we can’t really marry anyone and have the same rights as cisgendered people, as this case demonstrates.
Don’t give them any ideasThey will be shooting Polaroids left and right. Gluing them to the back of the Birth Certificate right next the inked foot prints.
I find it gratingthat Sky states “transgender issues get appropriated in order to support same-sex marriage.” Excuse me? Yes, Nikki is a woman. She is a transwoman. Why in the hell should she or any other heterosexual woman or man, trans or not, get a privilege that gay men and lesbians do not? Is it fair what she is going through? Of course not. It is equally unfair that lesbians and gay men can’t get married either. You think it’s unfair that transgender issues get appropriated? I think it’s unfair that a heterosexual transwoman can get SRS and then marry her male lover when I can’t marry my lover because she is a woman. I don’t think it’s fair at all that any man or woman can marry simply because their fiancee is the opposite sex and gays and lesbians are left in the cold. Autumn is correct. Marriage equality is the key.
Texas is a community property state, which establishes broad presumptions about joint-ness in ownership
I’m not sure about now, but…in the mid-1990s video that the local Fox affilliate acquired (I leave it to you all to speculate on the ethics and/or legality of the person who made it turning it over to Fox) and has shown (likely selectively) edited portions of, she uses several T-words in describing how she was coming to terms with herself, including ‘transsexual,’ though I don’t recall if ‘transgender’ was one.
Well…The conflict arises from the fact that she was (allegedly) born male, and therefore the stupid state of Texas is trying to rob her of her property. I am not sure how you can report on the story without mentioning the fact that she is transgendered.
No, I couldn’t disagree more that it’s besides the point.In my mind Nikki, whether it’s described as same sex marriage or marriage equality isn’t besides the point — that is part of the point. If the law where you live doesn’t recognize the sex and gender of an trans individual, then marriage to someone the state doesn’t recognize as an opposite sex partner is seen as a same-sex partner.
Marriage equality means that that not only lesbian, gay, and bisexual people should be able to marry the people who they love without the state interjecting themselves into the validity of their marriages, the same is equally true about trans people.
Yes Autumn, but…
The problem is with people who assert (1) that ‘marriage equality’ take precedence over all other issues, and (2) that ‘marriage equality’ by itself is the solution to all aspects of trans people’s lives, ignoring the fact that trans women being allowed to marry men while being legally designated men is no ‘victory’ for trans people as trans people – even trans people in relationships and who want to marry – and is, in reality, a step backward for trans people in non-marital aspects of life, such as using sex-designated public accommodations.
Overall Issue The overall issue is who we are should not be up to a state to say. Here is one state that stands out because the “sex” of a human is determined at birth by visual means. Other states let the “sex” be corrected, but with strict rules. And, now we have our federal passports with our correct “sex”, but only with a certain type of doctors letter.
This should not be a state determination. Is there a reason for gender on the birth certificate anymore. Women are supposedly no longer chattel, so we do not need to differentiate based on physical characteristics seen at birth. Often times those are not easily identifiable anyhow.
This is one case that may end up in the SCotUS.
Ya I just donatedIt was easy.
Marriage Equality, Not Gay Marriage, Not Same Sex Marriage Sometimes the most important part of the fight is in how the goal is framed.
I used to kid that if the marriage issue had been framed as lesbian marriage instead of gay marriage and we had used Victoria Secret models as spokespeople framing it question in terms of, “Would you really deny this loving couple the right to marry?” we would have won this fight solely on the lecher vote.
George Lakoff pointed out how the right uses meme, slogans and framing to their advantage. By using only marriage equality we might be able to shift the debate to what is actually going on and that is the right wings use of LGBT/TQ folks as scapegoats by denying us the same equality enjoyed by straights.
The problem with that argumentIs that it accepts validity of gender identity as a false premise.
In other words, it buys into the argument that a heterosexual woman who happens to also be transsexual is actually a man. You see, if the premise that she is a woman were accepted as true then as far as marriage is concerned as things stand right now, she already has marriage equality.
They are two separate issues. One concerns same-sex marriage the other concerns the very legitimacy of transsexual gender and sex identities. Please do not conflate them. This is a matter where a subset of transsexuals already has marriage equality, what they do not have is recognition of sex.
Every deconstruction of gender and sex up to this point refutes that marriage equality would include heterosexual transsexuals. Gay, Lesbian and Bi transsexuals, sure. The vast majority of transgender people, probably. But not heterosexual transsexuals. This is one of those cases where the T stands for Transgender but does not include all Transsexuals. It may seem a subtle distinction, but it is one that is very real.
Please do not continue down the slippery slope that you are building, as it can only lead to the unravelling of whatever recognition as our identified sex and gender transsexuals have gained so far.
From the Press Release:
It’s not looking good IMHO. I bow to the legal expertise of those who are actual Texas Lawyers, but I’ve heard some opinions on the subject that the relevant statutes in Texas law don’t specifically cover the situation. That there’s room for any transphobic judge to rule any way he pleases.
One possibility is that the Judge is truly protecting the assets from being raided to pay for a deliberately destructive case designed to burn up the estate, rather than distribute it. But it’s hard to see how an insurance policy that could be issued regardless of marital status could be considered part of the husband’s estate. It’s not just the husband’s assets that are in question, it’s all joint property.
It appears that the claim is based on two contradictory premises: that the estate is joint marital property, an indivisible whole rather than a contractual or commercial partnership which may be split equitably; and that conversely, the marriage is null and void, so the next-of-kin, the deceased’s mother, is the heir to all the joint assets, as if she were his wife and a joint contributor. Such an obvious contradiction and injustice would seem to be against both the letter and spirit of Texas law, but I’ve learnt never to underestimate the power of transphobia to give bizarre rulings. As in Littleton or the Kantaras appeal.
The marriage law regarding parties in most states is absurd, anywayWho is a man? and who is a woman? My wife and I got married last November, legally, in New York. A perfectly legal lesbian marriage.
Why?
Because the law in New York (and federally, these days) with regard to sex assignment is fraught with conflicting definitions.
Under DMV regulations, a medical or mental health professional certifies in a letter as to an individual’s predominant gender. (I’m female for DMV purposes.)
There is a similar rule federally since June 2010 regarding passports. (I don’t have one yet.)
Prior to October 2002, one could show social security that transition was commenced, and sex designation could be corrected. In OCtober 2002, the revised regulation called for surgery to be complete, but never defined what surgery is required, leaving social security offices throughout the country interpreting the regulation differently. (Female there – since March 2000)
In New York City, birth certificate sex designation corrections require proof that “convertive” surgery has been completed. (So, still “male” in that regard.)
I’m currently challenging that regulation as being arbitrary and capricious – I’m trying to establish that trans people don’t ever really belong to their birth-assigned sex, and that the current regulation, still largely based on a blue ribbon medical report from 1965, should be seen as arbtrary and capricious in light of the advances in medical knowledge since then, particularly since 1995.
Marriage equality is relevant to trans and intersex people, but you’re right, it is not the whole enchilada.
As I indicated, I have a legal lesbian marriage, though it is because my birth certificate erroneously states “male.”
Meanwhile, heterosexual trans people are barred from getting married because they’re presumed to be same sex (pre-op in most cases, and post-op in at all or parts of least three and possibly more states).
In San Antonio and surrounding counties in Texas, the courts ruled on the basis of a melange of the bible and junk genetics (the presumed gross shape of Christie Lee Littleton’s 23rd chromosome pair – the record of that case does not have any actual genetic evidence, not even a simple barr body test, just unfounded presumptions).
So, Kat, I’m fighting the good fight on the issue you’re concerned about, and i’m working for marriage equality at the same time – these issues are not exclusive of each other.
Still, you’re right – marriage equality, while still important for trans and intersex people, is NOT the only issue.
And then look at me – I’m a trans woman, and I have a *legal* marriageThe non-equal marriage laws are even more absurd than most people think -
I can have a legal lesbian marriage to my wife in New York, when straight trans women can’t get married to theor husbands in New York (thought they can go to Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, etc.)
Assigned male at birth . . . . . . is the issue. That court in San Antonio made the assumption that the original birth certificate was an accurate depiction of Christie Lee Littleton’s actual sex at birth. Unfortunately, the court heard no evidence whatsoever relating to the error in the original assignment – it came down to ignorant judges thumping their bibles at the issue and giving a thin veneer of junk science (the gross shape of the 23rd chromosome pair).
Law stuff[Keep the following in mind: Though I do know the lawyer who is representing Nikki, I know nothing of the legal strategy being prepared and I know nothing of the factual specifics beyond what has been set out in the various media outlets.]
My comment about community property was specifically in response to the query as to why there wasn’t more in the way of documentation. It, of course, is predicated on the existence of a marriage.
As for the claim by the in-laws to “all marital assets,” that smells like their lawyer throwing everything against the wall and hoping that at least some of it sticks (and, likely, like many lawyers who represent people/entities against trans people, presuming that the trans person on the other side of the legal action won’t be able to find representation and will lose all but by default.)
If the marriage is ruled to be valid, then all assets not otherwise designated (such as anything with a beneficiary designation unconnected to marital status) will pass by the niceties of Texas’ intestacy statutes (the ex-wife, as ex-wife has no claim to anything but, of course, as legal guardian of the kids would be able to exercise a good bit of control over anything that goes to the kids, either via intestacy or designation.)
If the marriage is voided, then there will be a battle over proof of ownership regarding each and every asset. It just seems unlikely that the Araguzes would be able to show that Nikki contributed nothing to any aspect of ownership of any of the items/assets that they purchased/owned/possessed together. Again, refer to my remark about parties/lawyers on the opposite site of trans people banking on the trans person in the case not having any representation at all.
Oh don’t get me wrong…I don’t think there’s any authority in the federal constitution for either the federal or any state government to prevent two consenting adults from joining together in an economic compact against the forces of the world (which, when you get down to it, is all that a marriage is – legally.)
However, nothing gets me angrier than hearing a non-trans gay lawyer – as I heard one do on a panel at the 2004 Lav Law conference – declare that once same-sex marriage is achieved, sex designations won’t be an issue.
Sadly…
Sadly, there was a time – the summer of 1968 to be precise – when Louisiana was more enlightened than all other states (except for possibly Illinois and Arizona.)
unless, of course…She uses that label herself.
Which she has.
So Susan’s research was rather incomplete, Leigh. Aside from ignoring several mentions in blogs well before her post.
How ya been?
YeahActually, it appears that in the proceedings so far, Nikki was actually the breadwinner in the relationship, (IIRC correctly, her husband was a volunteer firefighter: maybe he had no other work or something, I don’t know.)
But it makes the money-grabbing the more egregious.
She was a specifically-named beneficiary of life insurance, for one, in which marriage is irrelevant, but they still want: not only that, they apparently want to take everything she worked for, not just divide assets as a helpless widow, which would be bad enough.
Whatever the law says, or how much transphobia it allows, it should be clear just how total the injustice is here. The children, and their children, are provided for quite lavishly, even if Nikki wins outright: what this is about is the usual situation where some hostile relatives want money and control and to erase the marriage.
Note the element of probably wanting to believe, ‘Our son didn’t marry a one of those, …he was deceived, somehow!’ However ridiculous, and by report, utterly untrue that may be.
So just like the media, and the other clownswe must go by what was instead of what is?
All I saw was a woman, one that was grieving at the loss of her husband, the pain and suffering for her children, and fighting for her very existance and right to be recognized as a woman rather than a something else.
She is a woman. When we make it more, we are merely playing into the “you are what you are born” mentality, and othering.
Transgender can mean anything and nothing at all!
It spans the gamut between sissyboy to weekend crossdressing, to drag queens, tranvestism and all the way to medically defined transsexuality and even intersex.
That is why the term transgender does more harm than good as it leaves the uneducated reader clueless. Most people not in the know, when reading the headline will picture all sorts of wierd connotations, none of them in any way female.
And this case, if doing nothing else, highlights that reality and its effect on those of us that wish to have our surgeries and move quietly back into mainstream life in our corrected gender.
No Pam, the overall issue goesback to when being transsexual or intersexed became a subset of Gay and Lesbian. Granted there are many transsexuals and intersexuals that are gay or lesbian in their sexual preferences, but there are also just as many if not more that are heterosexual and hold no affiliation to the GLB.
The idea that being transsexual or intersexual automatically makes a person gay or lesbian, is what has effectively stopped them becoming one with their target gender.
This case highlights that issue. It is not about what Nikki is, its all about what she was and whether or not that makes her a gay man. Any idiot can see this is not the case with Nikki, all they have to do is listen to her speak, observe her mannerisms, and hear her tell her story. There is not even 1/10 male there.
The overall issue comes down to transsexuals and intersexuals being listed in this stupid and harmfull umbrella term of transgender which makes them first and foremost gay or lesbian, and by reference, what they were born as.
I think stories like this proveThat even doing that is no real protection.
Not if someone wants anything you’ve got, anyway.
It’s not about protectionit’s about perception… Is nikki Female or a gay man playing a part? Thats all it comes down to.
Backwards logic.Not being part of the civil rights movement wouldn’t mean ‘phobes wouldn’t still treat the straightest and most stealthy transwoman as ‘really a man’ if they knew.
People can find out just about anything, these days. Nor should hiding be obligatory even if people don’t expect a paper and credit trail every time you get a bank account.
Begging to be considered ‘Not queer’ does not mean that bigots will oblige.
The definitions we want aren’t always the ones we get.
While we’d be well-served with more awareness out there of the differences between people among those lumped into the ‘transgender’ category, when it comes down to it, if we don’t have our freedom, they can treat any of us as badly as they care to treat any other of ‘us.’
We’re very different from, say, drag queens, but if we don’t all have our rights, they’ll just say you’re the same thing.
Marriage shouldn’t depend on gender or sex in the first place. Her marriage was valid because she was committed to loving another person.
As a lesbian of history, I cannot get married. Is that okay, as long as I don’t rely on my past to get married? (Which will never, ever happen!)
Rights mean nothing Rowan.... we don’t ask for the right to be considered one way or another by the general population. One can never legislate the right to be considered a particular gender by anyone, you either are or you are not. If you are not considered the gender you might want to be considered, then perhaps you are just not convincing enough to the majority. I think it pretty obvious that nikki is female despite what she was assigned at birth.
If you think that you can force someone to think a certain way by making laws, you are dreadfully wrong. Phobes and bigots are created by the majority. The more you alienate the majority by forcing laws on them, the more phobes and bigots you create. The more you assimilate and win over, the less power the phobes and bigots have. Does that mean they will go away? No! But it does mean you can live your life with relative ease.
Are you claiming somehowThat Nikki Araguz doesn’t pass well enough? That the entire case of the bigoted plaintiffs: namely that she “fooled” her husband all along… just means she didn’t hide her past well enough?
That she doesn’t need the rights in a court of law to be secure in her own property as a human being, but only if she’s ‘woman enough’ for you?
It seems neither she nor I have problems ‘passing’ as you imply, but passing as what? Never having been transsexual?
What good does that do Mrs. Araguz here? Without rights?
Or is that your plan? Claim to be ‘I’m a real woman, it’ll never happen to me! I’ll just de-gender anyone that finds out that ain’t enough! ‘
Do you really expect your past to be that air-tight in this day and age? If you get exposed, will you say, ‘I guess I wasn’t ‘convincing enough?’ Oh, well.’
It’s just victim-blaming to say that people standing up for their rights are what creates the bigotry and injustice in the first place.
The only ‘laws’ anyone created here are transphobic ones that invalidated her legal rights long before this case came up.
You’re blaming the wrong people and the wrong things.
Promising only living in fear of just this kind of situation, too, whoever you want to blame, as well.
‘Perception’ Clearly ain’t lawyer-proof.
Not when money is involved.
That much is the human situationThe legal situation has implications for everybody: in fact, if marriage equality were a reality, she wouldn’t be dragged into the spotlight and ‘othering’ you so despise, because there’d have been to gain. For all we know, the family only found out about her history because they saw dollar signs and set a lawyer to digging.
Rights mean nothing?By your reasoning, we didn’t need the emancipation proclamation or the 13th and 14th amendments.
I want my rights. Nay, I DEMAND my rights. And I DEMAND the rights of all LGBT people.
How is it that you do not?
thats NOT what I said but I guess you just want to argue so….If you can’t read well enough there is no point to the discussion.
What is…… is not always what we’d like it to be, Leigh.
What is, Leigh, is that she is a trans person. If she was born with a biology that determines that, then that is, in the end, what she is.
Your contention is predicated on the idea that because other people place a stigma on being trans, trans people should not admit it.
You reverse cause and effect, blaming the subjects of oppression for their own oppression.
And, to date, you’ve never presented a decent argument to defend such. Not once. Nor has any of the others.
Assimilationist ideas work against freedom, Leigh, not for it.
color is difficult to describe in a black and white worldA good number of cisgender/cissexual people are clueless, and just because some of them happen to be gay, and even gay lawyers, does not mean they can see in our colors.
That was the equivalent of saying, “Pass the equal rights amendment, and sex designations won’t be an issue anymore.” That’s exactly what the opponents of ERA used to whip up their troops into fear of unixsex bathrooms – a well-used tactic that is being resurrected for anti-trans efforts (particularly on ENDA, GENDA and similar bills – calling them “bathroom bills” reflects an attempt to cash in on this almost primal fear).
I grant that in all ptobability the gay lawyer in 2004 wasn’t thinking along those lines. Still, black and white may resolve into gray, but what happens to the hot pink and baby blue when They interact with those pastel greens and yellows!
Well“However, nothing gets me angrier than hearing a non-trans gay lawyer – as I heard one do on a panel at the 2004 Lav Law conference – declare that once same-sex marriage is achieved, sex designations won’t be an issue.”
)
Well, there’s a little truth to that: a lot of our legal problems do have to do with the idea that transpeople regularly give the lie to the homophobic ‘preservation of marriage’ thing (Which is very profitable if someone wants something a transperson has and thinks they can get it in the courts) but no, a lot of gay people, men especially, don’t know what’s involved.
Cisgendered people, straight and gay, really do tend to think in terms of sex, and think that anything that may involve or imply sex is merely about sexuality: but then again, they take their own part in such things more or less for granted. Trans people may get all the stigma of LGBs, but it’s not just about who you relate to in those ways: it’s about who’s doing the relating and with what.
Being trans isn’t actually a ‘sexual orientation,’ as commonly-considered: it only looks like it to those who don’t have to consider how ‘orientation’ has as much to do with where you’re standing as where you’re ‘pointing.’)
(Probably why so many cisgendered people think bathrooms are about sex, somehow. I’ve observed the connection, but I don’t understand it. For transpeople it’s about safety, social and physical, and what position you pee in.
By the same token, these perceptions have real effects. A big part of the reason people think T people are ‘violating the natural order’ is because people see it as upsetting things about sex and the strings of wounded families that ‘phobes like to play upon.
Marriage equality for all may not fix all of the problems trans people live with on a daily basis, but it would sure help to un-load them. If not for the sex-related baggage, both the law and society wouldn’t feel to have so much at stake regarding our treatment and status.
I think you’re really not reading, yourself.Trying to place the burden of whether or not T people have legal rights, or ‘create bigots’ on ‘how convincing’ you are really doesn’t mean ‘there’s no such thing as rights.’
Trust my experience from when I was poor and quite open in my community about things: (Didn’t have much choice. ‘Supportive’ landlord with big mouth.) …some people’s definition of how ‘convincing’ you are often snaps from ’You’re the most womaney woman I ever knew,’ (Interesting assertion, really, in my case:) to ’This is a man! Deceiver!’ in a heartbeat the moment they figure out you won’t sleep with them, personally,
…never mind when there are fat financial spoils to be gained and your husband isn’t around to tell a judge differently.
Cases like this happen all the time even among regular people: they use everything. Being a class of people with no legal rights unless everyone in the process decides to ‘accept’ you as your own gender is like blood in the water to lawyers and hostile relatives.
Regarding“However, nothing gets me angrier than hearing a non-trans gay lawyer – as I heard one do on a panel at the 2004 Lav Law conference – declare that once same-sex marriage is achieved, sex designations won’t be an issue.”
I take that as a recognition that T peeps that fully transition had recognition in the new gender under the law before the GLB peeps attempts to obtain gay marriage rights created a political and legal backlash. I think it is probably true that, once GLB can marry, the focus of the religious right’s eye of mordor will no longer shine on the issue of whether T peeps are to be considered the new sex following surgical transition.
Of course, that does not resolve the issue of non-ops and intersex who seek freedom to designate the sex of their choice. Their needs also need to be addressed.
And also there is the need of the androgyne to be allowed to designate no sex, and to have the freedoms and privileges of either or both.
The real issue hereHere’s my take on this… marriage equality is certainly something that’s needed all around.
But the real issue in this case is that transsexual women should be legally recognized as women, period. And vice versa for trans men.
Even if marriage equality existed in Texas, the parents could still conceivable sue to have the marriage dissolved as a case of “fraud” claiming Nikki hid the fact she was born with an “M” on her birth certificate. (I’m not saying Nikki actually hid anything, only that the family might claim it in a lawsuit like they are now).
There are two forces at work here simultaneously – primarily transphobia (refusing to honor Nikki’s status as a woman) and secondarily homophobia (following from the first argument, if Nikki’s not a woman, she was in a same sex marriage).
This is not primarily a marriage equality issue. It’s a legal recognition of transsexuals issue.