Comments

1. Hey, Cristan.

   You're doing a great job of keeping these issues int he media and countering misinformation.

   One thing I continue to get, though, is the impression that Ms. Frye's primary argument is that Nikki wins becaseu the change in the law in 2009 made the marriage legal. However, I seem to recall that was an argument in the alternative, and I think that the primary, winning argument is getting underplayed.

   The fact is that Texas law, prior to the Littleton case, permitted an amended birth certificate to establish the sex for marriage. But Ms. Littleton did not have a new birth certificate issued until after her husband's death. so the Littleton case stood for little more than that a marriage entered into out of state with ID establishing documentation that did not satisfy the requirements of Texas would not be recognized. It did not establish that an amended birth certificate would not establish the ID of the person for marriage, and trans men and women were able to present such birth certificates post Litttleton and be legally married, even in the circuit that followed the Littleton case as precedent.

   The change in the law in 2009 merely ensured that those people born in a state that would not issue a new birth certificate could still establish the new sex for purposes of marriage. That's all it really did.

   And THAT'S why Nikki wins. She presented a birth certificate that established her identity as female for purposes of marriage. That's what was required. But that message seems to keep getting lost behind this impression that Texas law changed in 2009 to permit trans people, FOR THE FIRST TIME, to be recognized as the new sex in Texas for purposes of marriage.

   I'm hoping that you might be able to make a push to get the correct message out there more clearly. Nikki wins becasue she complied with the established Texas law to establish her identity for purposes of marriage as female. Her case does not hinge on whether the 2009 change in the law rendered her female for purposes of marriage. That's just another way she can win.

   Log in to Reply

2. Cristan. I like the work you are doing, and your heart is truly in the right place in all that you do. Thank you. I used to live in Houston, so the area is near and dear to my heart. Regarding why there are not more trans people beating their drums and making more noise about the Nikki Araguz case, I think many are hopeful of a positive outcome in the case, but apprehensive about Nikki's potential to have a negative impact on the larger Transgender community's struggle for acceptance and equality as a whole.

   It has been widely reported, and not refuted, that Nikki was arrested seven times, and convicted five times for theft. The records came from the Harris County Court if I remember right, and there are public records complete with Nikki's mug shots that were plastered on public TV. Theft isn't a victimless crime. Having a minor criminal record is one thing, but being a repeat offender, stealing over and over and over again, both prior to and after transition, casts serious doubt on one's character. Her arrests and convictions spanned a good period of time in the 90's and even up until 2002, when she was last convicted. In addition to this, she even appeared on Jerry Springer. Her decision to appear on Jerry Springer, where we all know the classiest trans people go for "positive" exposure, was another in string of dubious decisions that cast doubt on her character.

   Why do you think this might alarm some in the transgender community? Because while equal marriage rights in Texas is a worthy cause, we are all as a community fighting for the overall goal of equal rights at a national level, not just for marriage, but for employment, housing, freedom from violence, equal health care access, etc. (as you well know, because you are admirably fighting the fight in Houston). The problem Nikki poses to his overarching goal and struggle for transgender equality, is the more exposure Nikki gets through the media, the more she becomes the "face" of the transgender community, and her character taints us all in the eyes of the straight people who have never met an honest hard working transsexual. They become intimately acquainted with Nikki and her questionable character through the media exposure, with a media culture that is all too eager to point out the negative aspects of any person caught in their camera lens. Even if Nikki wins (which we all hope she does, because it is a victory for transgender marriage equality), we stand to lose quite a bit in public opinion about transsexuals around the entire nation due to her over exposure, and the lack of exposure for honest, hardworking transsexuals that would be more palatable and convincing when it comes to removing the negative stigma that is already associated with transsexuals in their eyes.

   I for one am watching the case with eager anticipation, and hopeful it will be a victory in the end for transgender marriage rights in Texas, and by extension, perhaps have a positive influence elsewhere. However, I am also watching with apprehension the media exposure of Nikki's character flaws, and dreading the potential negative impact it will have on our bigger goal of winning acceptance among the straight community. The less media exposure of Nikki, the better. With or without media exposure, the case will ultimately be won or lost in the courtroom based on the legal merits of the case, and the transgender community wins or loses a marriage equality case, period. No additional media exposure is necessary to bring closure to the case. If she wins, the victory will be publicized widely enough at that time, and will be wonderful news well received by all in our community. Applying more pressure for more media coverage, more rallies, more LGBT support, more exposure of Nikki is not necessary, and not wise given the little help the media exposure will really have on the winning or losing the case, and the potential harm more exposure of Nikki will do to our larger national cause in all states across this nation, and even other countries. I've read this sentiment a few places online, and happen to agree strongly with it. Again, her marriage equality case is worth fighting, but it can be fought and won without more public exposure.

   Now, if the publication of Nikki’s arrest records with mug shots as well as convictions were all falsified, and there is evidence none of it is factual, and Nikki isn’t a Jerry Springer alumni, that might be a different story, and I’d be happy to know the truth.

   Log in to Reply

3. @Sandra Yes, she does have a past that's almost a decade old.

   I freely admit that I'm an alcoholic and drug addict on my site. The only reason I quit was because I was busted. While in my addiction, I was a thief. If this was me instead of Nikki, you bet the media would be all over it.

   Waiting around while a pristine TG comes along who has no past (no ex-SOs, no addiction issues and no drama for the media to twist) is just ludicrous IMHO.

   Whether I like it or not, this case will decide my legal status. If it becomes case law, it will grow like a cancer throughout the states. Each time one of these TG cases comes along, the opposition will use this case to deny TG people of their rights and legal standing.

   There's no doubt that the spin the media is choosing to give this story will be a momentary PR issue for the trans community. When compared to the good that will come from a win or the bad that will come from a loss, the PR issue is simply transient. If that's what folks are concerned with, then they're concerned about the rude nature of the shark that's busy eating them alive. To be frank, if folks are content to have their rights stripped of them because they are worried about PR, then they deserve what happens. I, on the other hand, am more than willing to fight this case – warts and all – because it's your butt on the line as well.

   Log in to Reply

4. I have been keeping up to-date on your You-Tube videos about Nikki and find your assessments right on the mark. I couldn't ask for a better spokes-woman than you, to speak for all of us. This case is very clear to me, but you are the person who will make it clear to the world.

   Log in to Reply

5. This case is huge!!I feel so helpless here in Washington State. Texas is my home state and I remember Wharton being nothing but a fucking speed trap. What can I do? Tell me .I will picket, I will write, I don't care…and you are right, it is not bout any one in this case, it's decisions effect all of us. HOLY CRAP!!!!

   Log in to Reply

6. Cristan, I think you missed my point, although I tried to make if very clear. My apologies for having to repeat: This is an important cause. The outcome of the case will have either a positive or negative impact on your rights in Texas, and will most likely have an impact on other states right's. The cause for transgender marriage equality is important. Hopefully that is clear. Where we differ is the benefit of more publicity of Nikki, and the benefit derived from the publicity. The case will be won on the basis of the legal merits of the evidence presented, period. The evidence will decide this case, period. More media exposure of Nikki has no impact on the outcome of the case. To the contrary, media exposure of Nikki affects public opinion, that is all that it does. You and I are both concerned about the case, but it goes on without more media, and that is fine by me. The case isn't waiting for a "pristine TG", as you put it. The case is moving forward, the case will be tried regardless of whether you think your voice has an impact on the case.

   Reviewing history, and hopefully learning from it, we see similar social issues from the civil rights battles that were similarly waged in court. The leaders of the civil rights movement were educated in the value of public opinion and aware of the larger goal of national civil rights, and wisely used their discretion on when to drum up supporters for marches and attract media attention. They wisely let some cases proceed in court without much fanfare due to the awareness of negative exposure potential. They wisely chose to be vocal and visible for cases where the defendents had somewhat unimpeachable character, such as Rosa Parks, and the results were that public opion switched to the correct side of history, and the public broadly began to support the adoption of civil rights across the country. We need to be wise as well, definitely support our fellow transgender people in their cases, but be wise about which cases are used for broad public exposure, and who is seen as the "standard bearer" for the transgender community. It is possible to support a cause quietly, not every single case has to be tried in the court of public opinion without due consideration of the impact.

   Log in to Reply

7. @Sandra Gotcha. We do differ in this view: "The case will be won on the basis of the legal merits of the evidence presented, period."

   Never forget that the judge is also a politician. In Texas judges run for their seats on the bench. This sets up an inherent conflict of interest. When his constituents go to the polls, this will be the case they will associate with him.

   It's important that doing the right thing won't become a political liability for this judge. If he sides with the poor widow who fought and overcame alcoholism years ago, that carries a certain political weight; if he sides with that nasty, dirty tranny, that also carries a certain weight.

   In some very significant ways, this is a PR battle. The other side knows this and it's why they went negative and as sensationalistic right out of the gate in the beginning. Remember, our side tried to keep quiet for two weeks when this came out and the media eat her up and spit he out. That initial impression still haunts her to this very day.

   The lasting effect of this PR battle will be a blip on the TG time-line but it's importance can't be overlooked in the here-and-now and it we certainly can't pretend that it won't impact the outcome of the case. We must match the negative PR with reality so that Texas transfolk have a fighting chance.

   While I get your point, your comparison to Rosa Parks somewhat misses the point because it's analogous to saying that because both a baseball and an apple are round, we should eat baseballs. To be a true compassion, the black community would have needed to have already made huge leaps forward so that their equality was already acknowledged by the legislature (as in this case). In other words, the comparison would be valid if the Rosa Parks case came out of the blue and threatened to practically eviscerate every accomplishment of the past 30 years.

   The Black community wasn't in a position of having already achieved their rights to only have Rosa Park's case threaten to eviscerate all of those rights. The Rosa Park case **was** about strategy and PR. It was a targeted and purposeful effort to knock down a law in much the same way that Lawrence sodomy case (from Houston that overturned all sodomy laws throughout America) was about strategy and PR. Both cases were planed and executed well.

   This is more like Stonewall in that Stonewall came out of the blue and had history to fuel anti-GLBT media mills. Stonewall had it's warts and the original media spin was focused only on irrelevant minutia and stereotypes instead of focusing on the actual issues of the case. While this isn't a perfect comparison, the point still stands that we don't think of the mafia and prostitution when we think of Stonewall – even though that's the slant the media ran with initially. What changed the image of Stonewall was GLBT PR. Had the community decided to let the Stonewall Inn incident run it's course through the courts while the media had their way with the community, it would have been a set back for our community.

   Here's a case whereby our rights are on the chopping block and the person holding the knife is a politically vulnerable judge. Allowing the media to have their way with Nikki just so they can sell sensationalistic headlines is NOT (IMHO) the way to deal with this situation. If Malcolm X's criminal and past or MLK's sexual escapades didn't wreck the black movement, Nikki's past won't wreck ours.

   Log in to Reply
8. Pingback: All Texas Trans People Forcibly Detransitioned? at Questioning Transphobia

9. Thanks Cristan, for your well written and reasoned response.

   We'll have to agree to disagree on the merits of more exposure for the Nikki Araguz case (and perhaps the apple and baseball analogy, that was harsh!). One thing I want to clarify, though, is the intent of my Rosa Parks comparison. I agree that her case was about PR, she was seen as a good candidate to use for widespread exposure to public scrutiny because of her relatively unimpeachable character, and the PR was extremely effective. That is why I mentioned her. Black leaders had considered other cases to use as a public test case for dismantling Montgomery's unjust segregation laws, but they were deemed too risky for public opinion. My reference to the Rosa Parks case was done to illustrate an instance where the civil rights leadership was extremely wise in choosing when and where to maximize exposure.

   You are correct in pointing out the risk to elected officials. Winning the battle of public opinion, all across this land, I think is (or should be, IMHO) the number one priority for the transgender community. The individual victories we have won so far in separate states and municipalities have been through legislative efforts by elected officials, supported by positive public opinion (their voting constituents, as you point out). Majority public opinion is not on our side yet at a national level, nor in many individual states, but I do think we are making significant progress. I would like to see the positive momentum in public opinion of the transgender community continue, and prefer not to see any reversals, no matter how short you think they might be.

   Media exposure, marches, demonstrations, etc., are effective tools that can positively influence public opinion, but only if we use them wisely, as did the leaders of the civil rights movement. Like any tool, they can just as easily cause damage when used incorrectly or for the wrong job.

   Thanks again for all that you do. I really am a fan, despite our differences here. We just happen to disagree on some aspects of Nikki's case. In the end, sharing different viewpoints and opinions helps us all (as long is it's done in a civil manner, of course!).

   Log in to Reply

10. @Sandra: Going back to the imperfect PR Stonewall analogy, the Mattachine Society is now looked at at being a courageous but sadly misguided group of folks who conceded to society's homophobia. Everyone has warts and they wanted to pretend otherwise.

    Watch the grandfather of the GLBT movement (who has his warts) talk about the birth of the modern GLBT movement and the Mattachine Society's need to present the gay community as being without warts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gwcp0PDttIM#t=4m&1…

    About the Stonewall Riots, Randy Wicker of the Mattachine Society said "screaming queens forming chorus lines and kicking went against everything that I wanted people to think about homosexuals … that we were a bunch of drag queens in the Village acting disorderly and tacky and cheap."

    The Village Voice went right into yellow journalism by spinning the story with descriptions like "forces of faggotry," "limp wrists" and "Sunday fag follies" – these descriptions were all sort of true. This was a rebellion by gender queer people. They did set up a high-kick chorus line to mock the riot squad's lines of attack. The Village Voice continued to spin the story against the community until a mob showed up at the doors of the Village Voice demanding that they end their yellow journalism tactics or else.

    The Stonewall Riots was a reaction to an effort to target and take away the rights of gender queer people (transgender people like butches, fems, drag queens and transsexuals). This is a case whereby TG people are being targeted in an effort to take away their rights.

    It was dead wrong of the NAACP to allow Claudette Colvin to have her rights trampled upon. The Rosa Parks case would have happened with or without selling out her civil rights. Parks was a staunch supporter of Colvin even after she was raped. To support Malcolm X, MLK (folks who had warts upon their warts) and openly employ communists, atheists, gays and socialists – but balk at the rape of a young girl is nothing short of deplorable. There was nothing honorable in what they did.

    Bemoaning the fact that Nikki – like many trans folk – suffered from addiction and then overcame it in a 12 step program is like Randy Wicker and Mattachine Society bemoaning the fact that the gay community actually does have gender queer folks in it. The way to deal with reality isn't to run from it or pretend it isn't so in some schoolyard effort to get the popular kids to see that we're just like them so they will quit beating us up. That tactic just doesn't work.

    First of all, we come from an oppressed community:

    – For decades we've been sold – literally – into sexual slavery. The TG Center works on human trafficking case all the time.

    – Just like all oppressed communities, we suffer a really high addiction rate.

    – We suffer a really high HIV infection rate (due to human trafficking).

    – We are regularly denied employment, housing, social services and even medical care.

    – We suffer an inordinate amount of learned guilt, shame and fear rooted in transphobia – which tends to lead to addictions.

    Our community has warts. That's a reality. It's up to us a community to demand that news focuses on the real news – which is oppression – instead of the sensationalism (the above). The above isn't the story; the cause is the story. As long as we shy away from dealing with this, we will be tethered to the whims of a culture that does not have our best interests in mind. Harvey Milk understood this well.

    Where would we be without the Compton's Cafeteria & Stonewall gender queer/street hustler riots which were followed by the community's demand for media to cover the truth? Where will we be if we choose to allow the media to focus as much as it likes – egged on by Frank Mann – to be as sensationalistic as it pleases?

    Log in to Reply

11. I somewhat come down on Sandra's side on this.

    Unless one is simply blinded by, and sympathetic to, ANY thing, ANY body who is even slightly transgender says (as is often the case with trans activists who support some of the most ridiculous TG position imaginable), the interviews Nikki gave early on were anything but positive and will no doubt come back to haunt her.

    As well, the TG Center and you personally should keep out of it and leave any media exposure to her attorneys. Your bias in you YouTube videos is legion. Specifically, the one referencing being "Quote Mined" with regard to her saying she hated the word transgender was simply an attempt to spin…I saw that live interview; there was no quote mine.

    Nikki has made it plain as can be that she is a heterosexual female and does not want her case to be used by any group for a "cause." Yet, the TG Center at every opportunity portrays this case as a "transgender" issue and a case that will define the future of same-sex marriage. If Nikki wants to prevail in this she should continue an heterosexist approach and disavow all association with the GLBT…including the Houston TG Center. I'm well aware of your YouTube video in which you checked her on this and the recorded phone conversation. Not withstanding, what did you expect her to say…she surely realizes that she is being supported by you all and, at least to my understanding, is being represented gratis by Phyllis Frye. Nonetheless, if either the Houston TG Center or Phyllis Frye really care for Ms. Araguz, any support that is given to her will be given to her as a heterosexual female fighting for her legitimacy, NOT as "transgender" anything. From the Washington Times:

    “Shannon Price Minter, legal director for the National Center for Transgender Equality, said the national push for gay marriage has unintentionally hurt transgendered people and resulted in cases like this.”

    “I think it’s very unfortunate that, perhaps because of the visibility of lesbian and gay couples seeking marriage, that transgendered people have been caught up in that frame and have been hurt by that and have actually, in some respects, are more vulnerable now than they have been in the past,” he said. “I think it’s really only in the past few years that we see pretty ugly cases like this coming up because people are, I think, exploiting homophobia.”

    There are many of us who are heterosexual and long term post ops and have seen our long standing rights compromised by the GLBT in their associating any issue that arises with true transsexualism to their organization in general and all things transgender in particular. The GLBT should stay out of this media and publicity wise…the transgender and their advocates should particularly stay out of this; if Nikki has even one shred of sense she will insist that be the case.

    As for this statement:

    "So, in the interests of being really, really clear: If Nikki loses this case, you and/or the people you care about will be legally detransitioned."

    I think that is simply a ridiculous comment. If Nikki Araguz doesn't prevail – and I sincerely hope that she DOES prevail – but, if she doesn't, life will go on. If ultimately this goes to the highest Court it will be just another precedent that will enter case law. It will no more detransition one than the New Jersey and Louisiana rulings enable one to transition. It will be a strike against Texas heterosexual post ops who would like to marry here.

    If Nikki does lose this case and if the Houston TG Center and Texas trans activists are REALLY concerned about this issue, they will sever GLBT political ties and lobby for a change in the laws that concentrate on legal standings of post ops with regards to their target sex. They will come to the realization that the issues of heterosexual post ops are not the issues of the GLB nor the transgender and lobby on that basis. Personally, I doubt that will happen for, almost to the one, most trans activists and a huge portion of the transgender identify as either gay or lesbian and continue to link their issues to the heterosexual post ops thus relegating them some form of homosexuality. As well, many, many of the transgender are not post op nor even interested in having GRS…and so the plight of Nikki and others like her is confused with some form of "same-sex."

    At one time, society had a very firm understanding of the difference between true transsexualism and transvestism (everything else BUT true transsexualism)…it was during that time that (mid 60s – very early 80s) the vast majority of legislation allowing transsexuals to change our birth certificates was passed. But the political formation of the GLBT in the mid to late 80s put an end to that progressiveness and their has been little if any pertinent state legislation passed legitimizing post ops as their target sex since that time. We have the GLB and the all knowing, all encompassing transgender to thank for that.

    If Nikki wants to win her legal defense needs to disassociate from anything transgender and GLBT…if the GLBT WANTS Nikki to win they will stay away on their own.

    Log in to Reply

12. @Susan: "I saw that live interview; there was no quote mine." Did you not listen to what Nikki herself had to say about that? Prior to the cameras being turned on, she and the reporter had been talking about how her pain had been side stepped and that her life, her business, her family – everything – had been overlooked in favor of focusing on the sensationalistic. The comments were part of that overall context… which brings me to my biggest issue with this: the context is usually left out.

    After that you said, "Yet, the TG Center at every opportunity portrays this case as a “transgender” issue and a case that will define the future of same-sex marriage" This is a straw man. We've not once mentioned "the future of same-sex marriage". You've literally made that up.

    As to the conversation, I expected her to say what she said. She began volunteering in the transgender community a decade ago, regularly attended transgender support group meeting, regularly attended transgender events like the TG Unity Banquet, went to a transgender clinic and worked for a queer news magazine. She's a long-time member of the local transgender community. Think for a moment. The 15 year old FOX shows her self-identifying as trans. You saw a FOX quote mine and you apparently swallowed it.

    "I think that is simply a ridiculous comment. If Nikki Araguz doesn’t prevail – and I sincerely hope that she DOES prevail – but, if she doesn’t, life will go on. If ultimately this goes to the highest Court it will be just another precedent that will enter case law. It will no more detransition one than the New Jersey and Louisiana rulings enable one to transition. It will be a strike against Texas heterosexual post ops who would like to marry here."

    This paragraph seems to reveal that you have almost no understanding of this case. If I'm so out of touch, why is the entire GLBT leadership – and the entire Phyllis Frye firm – having a town hall meeting to discuss the very issues I raised in this video. After doing what I do for over a decade and after Phyllis doing what she does for almost 4 decades and us agreeing with everything I've said in this video – are you saying that you have a better grasp of the consequences?

    "If Nikki does lose this case and if the Houston TG Center and Texas trans activists are REALLY concerned about this issue, they will sever GLBT political ties and lobby for a change in the laws that concentrate on legal standings of post ops with regards to their target sex. "

    *Facepalm*

    Please, please, please, please watch my newest video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veyohNhlmaE

    Log in to Reply

13. Unfortunately your last post was arguing a point that I don't disagree with, but has also turned into somewhat of a diversion. It seems my original message has been spun into something completely different. Sigh. Perhaps I'm just not eloquent enough, but I will try to put my thoughts down again in an effort to remove the obfuscation of my concerns.

    I don’t like the term “wart”, but I’ll use that term since you prefer to define our issues as being somewhat similar to unpopular body lesions for the purposes of this discussion. The "warts" you describe (drug addiction, HIV rate), are in addition to a few I'll add myself: high alcoholism, high suicide, high prostitution. These are challenges we face as a community, yes, but they are largely problems we do to ourselves… i.e., the heroin was taken by the trans drug addict themselves. The HIV positive trans woman had sex without a condom. In these cases, there was no crime committed by the trans actor against another innocent victim. Now, before you go off on a tirade to educate me that the rates of these self inflicted injuries are much higher than the norm due to the oppression we face as a community from a privileged class who seek to deny our human rights… I get it, I got it, I agree, I agree again, and I will even agree one last time just to drive home the point that I agree we are being oppressed and that the oppression is in fact causing disproportionate rates of misery and death in our community. The high rate of these self inflicted warts, influenced and supported by oppression against us, are actually valid points that has been, and should be continue to be, used in the media to illustrate the disproportionate effects on our community of the injustice we face and the reason we are fighting so hard for our equal rights. These types of self inflicted "warts" influenced by the systemic oppression of our community (human rights violations against us) are absolutely not valid for comparison to my concerns about Nikki. Also, nowhere in my original post did I mention (or even know about) Nikki’s drug use, you did.

    My post is about two things that make Nikki's character very questionable:

    First and foremost: She was a career criminal involved in repeat crimes which were NOT victimless crimes. I was very careful in my original message to differentiate the fact that her crimes were not victimless. Again, she committed actual crimes against other human beings, innocent victims, over and over again. This is a much different category of "wart", and is perhaps not a wart at all. It is something much more sinister than a simple wart. She showed a willingness to repeatedly steal from others (and was convicted 5 times). Knowing the statistical rate of thefts which are caught and prosecuted is a very small fraction of the thefts that actually do occur, it is highly probable that her decade long career in theft (1992-2002) had a negative financial and emotional impact on a fairly large number of innocent victims. Her crimes may have gone on longer than 10 years, but this is all we know from the times she was caught and prosecuted. In my opinion, her criminal career is obviously enough to call into question her integrity and honesty, which are two key elements of her character that are relevant to the case, and can easily be used by the prosecution and trumpeted loudly by the sensationalist media, regardless of the fact she is the wronged party and was legally married and should be legally entitled to the $2 million dollar life insurance payout. Even if she wins, there will be doubt in many people's minds about the honesty of her story. Skepticism about someone is inherent in human nature, especially when a person spends a decade committing crimes against innocent victims. It takes time to earn trust once it has been lost, and Nikki hasn’t earned back that trust, yet.

    Secondly, but admittedly to a lesser degree, her decision to appear on Jerry Springer brings into question her character again. This time it isn’t about criminal acts against innocent victims, it is an act of self-character assassination, and by association contributes to the overall negative publicity of the transgender community, and hurts our effort to win acceptance and allies among the majority population. You may choose to chew up and spit out any assertion that her one act of appearing on Jerry Springer contributed to the negative impression many people have about transsexuals, but it is absolutely true that most people have never met an honest hard working transsexual (at least they don’t know they have). The vast majority of people’s views and perceptions about the transgender community are influenced by the only exposure to us they have every had: the sensationalist shows on TV such as Jerry Springer, as well as various newscasts that jump on any negative story involving transgender men or women in our society.

    Regarding your Stonewall analogy, it is a huge stretch to compare an act of uprising against injustice committed by an oppressed and frustrated community, to Nikki’s repeated acts of theft against innocent victims, and somehow imply that the choices of media coverage between Stonewall and Nikki’s case are worthy of comparison. I disagree. An under privileged class rising up against oppression is not the same thing as a career criminal repeatedly stealing from innocent victims for a decade or more and then seeking $2 million in life insurance money. To compare them or their merits for media coverage is just simply not valid. This is sort of an apple and a baseball comparison (your terminology) in the truest sense, IMHO.

    Despite the diversion the discussion seems to have taken, my post to your blog was simply questioning the need and benefit for more or less exposure to Nikki’s case. As I said before, Nikki’s case will be won or lost based on the evidence in the case, without any additional pressure for more media coverage or national outrage. More public exposure of Nikki has no benefit for the transgender community, and in fact hurts the transgender community, IMHO. I do hope Nikki wins her case, but I simply don’t see the need for any more newscasts focused on the dodgy transsexual with the dishonest history and questionable character. I don’t believe public exposure of Nikki will help sway the opinion of the judge either, who is elected by his constituents as you mentioned previously. Indeed, I think more public exposure of Nikki works against her in the district where the judge must decide the case, and would more likely have a negative effect on his election if he rules in her favor. Less exposure perhaps helps the judge make the right decision, IMHO.

    I firmly believe our fight for equality will be won. It is currently being won due to the efforts of many, and I believe choices made wisely about how and where we engage in more media exposure will ensure the victory comes sooner rather than later.

    By the way, I too have “warts”. I too was a drug user, and I too have a criminal record, for drugs, and I too am now clean. If I were involved in a similar case, I would not be selfish enough to presume my case deserved mass support at the risk of negative public opinion setbacks for transgender community (and my “crimes” were not nearly as offensive to the public as Nikki’s). I made my bed, not I must live in it. Nikki has to do the same.

    Log in to Reply

14. "After that you said, “Yet, the TG Center at every opportunity portrays this case as a “transgender” issue and a case that will define the future of same-sex marriage” This is a straw man. We’ve not once mentioned “the future of same-sex marriage”. You’ve literally made that up."

    Made it up? Hardley…you can read it here —-> http://www.tgctr.org/2010/07/22/nikki/

    Log in to Reply

15. @ Susan

    You wrote that we said: “Yet, the TG Center at every opportunity portrays this case as a “transgender” issue and a case that will define the future of same-sex marriage”

    We said: "We face a long legal battle which will likely reach the U.S. Supreme Court and will define future law on transgender recognition and same-sex marriage."

    We used the term as a statement of fact once. You said that "at every opportunity" we do so. You made that up. You claim that we are pushing this as the future of same-sex marriage while we merely stated that it will… " define future law on… same-sex marriage." Which it will because the suit claims that Nikki is in a same-sex marriage.

    Your argument is a straw man precisely because you grossly overstate and misrepresent the context with which we used the term. Context is everything.

    This case will not define "the future" of same-sex marriage; rather, it will literally define future Texas law regarding same-sex marriage because her marriage is being attacked AS a same-sex marriage. The other side contends that this is a marriage between two men. Ours was a statement of fact, not one of the type of hyperbole you claim we engage in "at every opportunity".

    Log in to Reply

16. @Sandra K, let me take it one by one:

    1.) "Career criminal" Your term, not mine. First of all this is a fallacious characterization and turns your premise into a straw man. You're literally suggesting that her career was criminal activity. That's a straw man. It's hyperbole.

    We're in this because it's our ass on the line. This case will decide how the State of Texas deals with the transitioned status of trans folk and I will not stop calling out the press and encourage others to do so for focusing on the superficial.

    Nikki could be a satin worshiper who had a bad habit of clubbing small kittens to death with mallets and it would not change the fact that it's the trans community's ass on the line, that she's female and she was married.

    The press will do what the press will do. Again, worrying about bad PR is like worrying about the bad manners of the shark that's eating your leg.

    2.) Jerry Springer: Yup, that was stupid. I know a lot of 18, 19 and 20 year olds who would do stupid stuff like that. Don't you?

    3.) Stonewall analogy: Again, that's a straw man. I didn't say Nikki's case was like stonewall, I said both share a call to action in response to an assault on the rights of gender queer people. Police tried to arrest gender queer people; the State of Texas may take away the legal gender standing of all Texas transitioned people.

    4.) "I simply don’t see the need for any more newscasts focused on the dodgy transsexual with the dishonest history and questionable character." I agree. That's the old media narrative and that old narrative is changing right now.

    Log in to Reply

17. @Cristan: This is getting a bit ridiculous now.

    You said: [1.) “Career criminal” Your term, not mine. First of all this is a fallacious characterization and turns your premise into a straw man. You’re literally suggesting that her career was criminal activity. That’s a straw man. It’s hyperbole]

    I almost broke out laughing at the absurdity of this response. Hyperbole? fallacious characterization, and yet another straw man? Perhaps you should step down from your pedestal for a moment. "Career criminal" is frequently used to describe people who are repeat offenders, and anyone who wasn't blinded by their own obsession and reaching for straws to defend Nikki would understand the term and it's obvious relevance to Nikki. Here's a definition from the legal section of a popular online dictionary:

    career criminal

    One who repeatedly commits crimes, especially of the same type. See also habitual criminal.

    So I ask again: Hyperbole? straw man? I think not. There was no exaggeration here. Nikki repeatedly committed crimes (against innocent victims), and they were in fact the same type of crime. The shoe fits Nikki very well, now she must wear them.

    You said: ["…worrying about bad PR is like worrying about the bad manners of the shark that’s eating your leg."]

    That was actually a good example of hyperbole.

    It seems everyone who might have a different opinion than you is simply dismissed as being out of touch, full of hyperhole, and busy creating lots of straw men. If you weren't willing to listen and discuss the opinions of others, then perhaps you shouldn't have asked the question of why we aren't all beating our drums for Nikki in the first place.

    Since you have the only answer that you want to hear, there really isn't any point in discussing any other viewpoint or opinion. Fortunately, the transgender community is large and fairly independent minded, and for the most part not inclined to jump simply because someone says jump. Many prefer to look first and make an informed decision before jumping.

    Log in to Reply

18. @Sandra:

    We'll probably need to agree to disagree in your choice of terminology.

    The reason I referred to it as hyperbole is because the term is inflammatory in it's common usage. We tend to reserve its use for purposes of making a point, or sensationalism. In other words, we don't refer to someone who regularly breaks traffic law, smokes pot or takes home office supplies a career criminal even though they have a history of regularly breaking the law. In common usage, we generally reserve that terminology for extreme cases or in cases in which someone wishes to make a sensationalistic point.

    Worrying about her past when the real issue at steak is likely to impact the lives of every transitioned person in Texas is, IMHO, missing the point. That's what I meant when I said that "worrying about bad PR is like worrying about the bad manners of the shark that’s eating your leg." In other words you are (IMHO) concerned about the wrong thing.

    You wrote, "It seems everyone who might have a different opinion than you is simply dismissed as being out of touch, full of hyperhole, and busy creating lots of straw men. If you weren’t willing to listen and discuss the opinions of others, then perhaps you shouldn’t have asked the question of why we aren’t all beating our drums for Nikki in the first place."

    It isn't that I won't listen to what other people have to say, it's that if the reason you won't fight for your rights is that you're afraid of bad PR connected to Nikki's past, then my position is that you're missing the point. If the overarching concern for you or any other transitioned person is that Nikki behaved like an addict when she was in active addiction, then I have to say get over it. It isn't that I don't recognize that some of her past is problematic for great PR. I get that… but I also get that it's our asses on the line. When I stack that against the potential for the press to switch into yellow journalism mode, her past is simply negligible to me. Additionally, my perspective is colored by the fact that EACH AND EVERY person I've worked with (from the murder of Myra Ical to the gay-basing of Lace Reyna), the press seems to ALWAYS initially focuses bad PR of the trans person – no matter what. Lance was a honor-roll student working his way through school without one blemish on his record and the media still lambasted him. It's what the press does.

    "Fortunately, the transgender community is large and fairly independent minded, and for the most part not inclined to jump simply because someone says jump."

    Are you really saying that you don't care to fight for your rights because you're afraid bad PR might rub off on you? If that's what you're saying then I really don't understand that.

    Log in to Reply

19. No, what I said was quite simple: Not every battle should be fought in the court of public opinion. All legal battles that are fought in court don't need maximum public exposure. History is replete with examples of hurtful public exposure, and helpful public exposure. My posts have suggested the need for wisdom in making such decisions, hopefully having learned from history.

    Although you yourself admit the near certainty of yellow journalism in our society, you still insist this particular case must be waged with more public exposure despite the abundance of negative material to report about Nikki. I disagree whole heartedly with your approach. This is one battle in a war where many battles are yet to be fought, and your tactical focus would seem to come at the expense of winning the war. The best strategy for winning the war for our human rights is to win the battle of public opinion, which positively influences our elected politicians, as you mentioned yourself.

    In Nikki's case, I believe she is already receiving free legal representation (quite adequate representation I might add), and they are very capable of conducting her defense based on the merits of the evidence without more television cameras. Nobody said the case wasn't important or worth fighting, the only disagreement is the value of public exposure in this particular case. Additional public exposure has more potential for negative impact than positive impact for the judge who has to rule on the case, and it certainly carries additional risk to public opinion perceptions of the TG community. (It seems I’m being forced to repeat myself).

    The obvious risks outweigh the questionable benefit of public exposure of the "dishonest career felon who is fighting for $2 million dollars of the dead fire fighter's children's inheritance" (which is how it is, and will continue to be, portrayed thanks to the yellow journalism which you describe). It’s just simple risk/benefit analysis. The reasons to question Nikki's character is described previously, so I won't repeat it here. More exposure isn't going to make the accusations about Nikki go away, it just ensures more people see and hear it. It also won't help her win her case, she wins or loses, regardless. I believe we should let the free legal team do their work, and limit the negative characterizations to the water coolers and dining rooms tables that have already been exposed, and not intentionally widen the damage.

    My concern isn't with bad PR rubbing off on me. That's insulting, but of course you intended it to be. The issue is the impact to the community, the public support for the transgender civil rights movement. The movement is bigger than me, or Nikki, and yes, it's even bigger than you. This is quite evident in what I have written if you weren't a bit obsessed with dismissing anything that you didn’t agree with.

    You tried to insinuate I don't care enough about fighting for our rights, and you have been quite dismissive of the opinions that Susan and I voiced here that didn’t agree with yours. Aside from being intentionally abrasive, your position that anyone who doesn’t see things your way is either uninformed or doesn’t care is a bit egotistical. Quite honestly, that dismissive arrogance and your insistence on beating the drum for more public exposure hints at elements of narcissism on your part. At this point I have to ask an uncomfortable, but honest, question: Is it really Nikki’s case that needs the exposure, or is it you?

    Log in to Reply

20. @Sandra "Although you yourself admit the near certainty of yellow journalism in our society, you still insist this particular case must be waged with more public exposure despite the abundance of negative material to report about Nikki." Ah, I think I see where you're coming from now. You believe that I'm the one who whipped up all the initial PR about Nikki. Right? If that's your perception, I can understand why you'd be upset.

    Please remember that Nikki didn't say a peep for almost 2 weeks thinking that things would blow over. Well, it didn't… which left 2 options:

    1.) Allow Frank Mann to be the only voice

    2.) Speak up

    Also, another possible misconception is that you seem to think that Nikki is getting free legal. While I admit that she's receiving help from us, there's no way we'll be able to cover her legal costs. Most of that 60,000 she got went to her lawyers. Should she win, a great deal of that will also go to her lawyers.

    "My concern isn’t with bad PR rubbing off on me. That’s insulting, but of course you intended it to be."

    No, that's you're perception. I made an effort to phrase things in a way that didn't assume your motivations:

    "Are you really saying that you don’t care to fight for your rights because you’re afraid bad PR might rub off on you? If that’s what you’re saying then I really don’t understand that."

    I asked you those questions because that was my honest perception. From my perspective you seemed to be saying that you were afraid of bad PR and feel that we should allow Frank Mann to be the one telling the public who Nikki is and what TG people are. That was my perspective and that's why I asked.

    "The issue is the impact to the community, the public support for the transgender civil rights movement. The movement is bigger than me, or Nikki, and yes, it’s even bigger than you."

    I know that you firmly hold that the potential for bad PR is the most important issue and that there's no need to point out the lies and note the bias in the media. It seems to me that you feel very strongly that this is simply a legal issue that's fought in the courtroom. Additionally, you seem to think that I'm off the reservation with what I'm doing.

    I know the initial bad PR seems scary to you, but I'm telling you that this is exactly how things go when a story like this breaks. The yellow journalism kicks into high gear and they only back off after their claims are proven false by calling them out on it. I know that's little comfort to you because it seems to me that for you, the fear of bad PR and what you feel it could do to the civil rights of trans folk is the big issue for you.

    "You tried to insinuate I don’t care enough about fighting for our rights, and you have been quite dismissive of the opinions that Susan and I voiced here that didn’t agree with yours."

    I've said that if you're reacting in the way it seemed to me you were reacting, then you're worried about the wrong thing.

    Just because I've rejected your conclusion (as I understand it, that we should allow Frank Mann to be our voice) does not mean that I haven't given thought and consideration to what you've written. I just don't agree.

    "Quite honestly, that dismissive arrogance and your insistence on beating the drum for more public exposure hints at elements of narcissism on your part. At this point I have to ask an uncomfortable, but honest, question: Is it really Nikki’s case that needs the exposure, or is it you?"

    *facepalm*

    Maybe I'm having an incredibility difficult time grasping the true meaning of your comments because I'm hard headed. If that's the case, I apologize for that and thank you for your patients.

    So that I understand your position clearly, please answer the following questions with a yes or no:

    1.) Do you think I have any real control over the media attention Nikki has?

    2.) Do you think I have any real control over the media attention I get?

    3.) Do you think I've acted without the full knowledge and support of Phyllis and her legal team?

    4.) Do you think I've acted without the full knowledge and support of the PR firm Phyllis hired?

    5.) Do you think that our side should remain quite and not say anything to any member of the press no matter what type of misinformation they might be printing as fact?

    6.) If you answered 'No' to #5, do you think it's actually feasible to accomplish this without having Nikki herself somehow address the misinformation?

    7.) Good PR is obtained by allowing things to play out because the media will accurately report the facts as they come out in court.

    Thanks!

    Log in to Reply

21. Are these TG men pretending to be women? Or true-TSs? If they are non-op TGs (a type of queer), they should have accurate records that denote their queer status and male genitals. If they are pre-op or postop true-TSs, then their birth records should reflect their true corrected sex.

    A TG is a sex-saturated man who lives wrongly as a "woman." He was born with male brain patterns but CHOSE to throw that away, degrade himself, and live as what he is not. This blogger shows his masculinity when he disrespects the wishes of these cisgendered women who were born with the wrong parts and have nothing to do with men in dresses and rapes and co-opts their identities.

    So if they are women with the birth defect of TSism and NEED hormones and surgery, call them TS women, and if they are non-op and part of the LGBT, call them TG men. When you call a TS a TG, you are negating their femininity and calling them men, and you degrade and defame them, like calling a loving father a rapist out of spite to harm his reputation.

    I am proudly not a TG, LGBT, nor pervert, and proudly a part of the cisgendered & TS community.

    Log in to Reply
22. Pingback: DOMA Unconstitutional! So, what does this mean for trans folk in Texas?