San Antonio: not as mature as their children

Views: 1453
San Antonio adults standing up for their right to discriminate.

For the past month, the adults of San Antonio have been wringing their collective hands in very public displays of “concern” over a city ordinance that would extend equality to *gasp* trans citizens. While the notion of trans/cis equality has set the adult’s tongues awaggin, their children already extend this equality to trans children.

San Antonio ISD has, for some time now, had a trans-inclusive policy in place and you know what’s happened? Nothing. Not a damn thing… other than trans and cis children living side-by-side (and yes, even using the hygiene facilities) as equal citizens. Apparently being as mature as their children is asking way too much from some San Antonio adults. In response to the bigoted hyperbole pushed by the radical right, policymakers have recently added a provision to the proposed “equality” ordinance that will preserve the right of cisgender people to have transgender people jailed for using a restroom.

[soundcloud url=”″ params=”” width=” 100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /] [box]

I feel for the council member’s (CM) aid as she tries to defend the CM’s “compromise” on San Antonio’s LGB(t) equality bill. Acting as a secret shopper, I pose as a well informed Texas-style bigot trying to make sure that the CM doesn’t violate my “right” as a cisgender person to have transgender people arrested for emptying their bladders.

The purpose in my role as a secrete shopper was to reveal the bigotry and cisprivilege inherent in the CM’s “compromise.”


I guess this is what passes for “equality” for some San Antonio adults. While San Antonio kids have no issues with trans/cis equality, the adults are ready to take to the streets if it means an end to trans/cis segregation. I know it’s strange to think that you don’t get to lock your trans neighbors in a cage when they pee, but the folks at GetEquel want you to support the idea that adults need to be at least as mature and rational as their children. I know… The concept is totally wackadoodle, but there you go.

“If you look up the Texas vs Littleton case that might give you the information that you’re looking for… To, um, have gender specific bathrooms that are permanent” – Council member’s aid

The same San Antonio councilwoman who was secretly taped plotting against gay people, was – as it turns out – thinking about how best to use trans people and equivocation to fear monger:

Jeff: You get the most political points by standing up for traditional values with this one. It’s not an economic argument. This isn’t a small government argument. This is a social, cultural argument right here and this is how you… And you’re going to score the biggest points by taking that stand.

James: I agree with that but to play devil’s advocate, you could try to swing the conservative gay vote, who are, they’re conservative in their beliefs but…

CW Chan: No, I don’t think that’s…

James: It would be way fewer points though.

Roger: But if she’s, if you’re in a Republican primary against anyone that you could conceivably be against, they’re also going to be opposed to gay marriage. So that means that anyone who is gay, that’s their only issue.

CW Chan: You know, I voted no when that was put on the Constitution about a marriage should be between a man and woman.

Roger: Yeah.

CW Chan: Okay? And I’m telling you, that’s how… That’s okay if you want… This is my philosophy, guys. Whatever you want to do in your bedroom, that’s none of my business, but do not impose your view on other people, especially become a policy. And I’m, that’s all. Because personally, I think it’s just disgusting just to even think about. All the… definitions…

Jeff: But, but if you are, but if we are going to write something, I suggest it, to score the most points, it be, you know, a pro… It doesn’t have to be anti-gay, but pro-traditional values.

CW Chan: okay, I’m for that, but I don’t want to go against, necessarily… I don’t want to beat up anybody.

Jeff: No, you’re not going to beat up… That’s what I’m saying. It’s not anti-gay, it’s profamily.

Roger: And then the other thing I think you should do..

CW Chan: Maybe what we can do, can we maybe throw some questionable confusions like okay, this transgender… Because this definition is so broad, we don’t want to go into detail, but if you, I look up, I had a… Maybe I say I was not educated on what transgender is about. I look up the, the Wikipedia, whatever, and I’m very surprised how broad the definition can be and it can cause a lot of troubles. What is the, would that, in other words start to have a lot of questions. Would we be discriminating someone if a person go to uhh, uhh, go to a female bathroom?

Roger: Yup.

CW Chan: Because the person that I am…

Jeff: I feel like I’m a woman.

CW Chan: … I feel myself that I’m a woman…

James: That gets down to, umm, what’s on the driver’s license. In some states, you can get, if you have…

Jeff: In the state of Texas, identifies you with what you were born as.

James: By chromosome, right?

Jeff: It’s about what you were born as. By the equipment you have at birth…

CW Chan: Exactly!

And it seems that her plan is going off without a hitch.

San Antonio isn’t the only Texas town with cis/trans equality policies that kids have no problems with. Here in Houston, our trans youth have full access to everything that their cisgender counterparts have access to. Yes, that means restrooms, sports, and changing facilities… And you know what? It’s been that way for years and if you haven’t noticed yet, the doom and gloom the radical right is forever forecasting hasn’t materialized.

No chicken little, the sky isn’t going to fall.

Texas Attorney General wrote to San Antonio mayor urging him to crush equality or risk everyone’s right to religion.

Apparently San Antonio children are far more capable of dealing with trans people than their parents and by gowd, many adults seem to like it that way.

Nikki Araguz, Jewel Thief Extraordinaire

Views: 7796
Nikki and her husband Thomas

I’ve largely stayed out of the ruckus over the whole “Nikki’s a jewel thief” meme going on because it had little to do with the trans community. However, it’s gotten to the point where I think that bias has come into play. As many of you know, Nikki just spent 15 days in jail and was just given 50 additional days in jail for her role in the supposed theft of a watch.

The facts of the case are that Nikki and a lady went out drinking. Then, depending on who you believe, the drunk lady traded watches with Nikki or, if you believe the drunk lady,  Nikki took this lady out drinking as part of a plot to secretly drug her so that Nikki could then steal her watch… and in a stoke of genius, Nikki replaced the stolen watch her old watch.

My opinion is that the lady she was out drinking with made a drunk-trade (it happens). Under Texas law, you have 72 hours to back out of a contract (verbal or written) and from what I can tell, the drunk-trade lady wanted to back out of the trade within the 72 hour time limit. However, by then the watch had already disappeared.

So, instead of taking this to some small-claims court like any normal person would, the drunk-trade lady begins to ham it up in the media. She actually claimed to be the victim of a nefarious plot wherein she was suspiciously drugged and the jewel thief’s (Nikki) best and brightest idea was to replace the stolen watch with the thief’s own watch. The media pounced on the story without question and MANY people actually thought that this was the best, most probable explanation for what happened that night.

I suspect that this wouldn’t have turned into a 3-ring circus had the drunk-trade lady made a trade with just some random person that night and I’m sure that Nikki isn’t the first person to show up to court late. In the end, I think Nikki was guilty of not knowing the 72 hour rule, for being late to court, for not having the cash to pay for a criminal defense in this case and therefore having to instead accept a plea deal…  that’s all.

Is spending the better part of a quarter of a year in jail plus paying the ‘victim’ several thousand in restitution a reasonable outcome in this case? I’m thinking no… I can’t help but notice that there seems to be this sense that Nikki should pay for something… that she’s guilty of something and that it’s good that she’s finally getting her comeuppance. That collective feeling is called bias.

I mean, if people are really going to buy the  “drunk-trade lady is a victim of a nefarious plot” scenario as being the most reasonable explanation to what happened, then that seems (at least to me) to be a clear-cut suspension of critical thinking due to bias. I’m not sure that Nikki has ever had any real shot at not being automatically seen as some demon hell-spawn who eats mewing kittens for breakfast. Where did that bias come from? Well, these ideas were manufactured through the hard work of print and television media.

From August 2010:

Do you think that media treatment just impacts Nikki? Well, you’d be wrong: 

Therefore, I wanted to make a quick post and simply encourage people to use their critical thinking. She wasn’t found guilty; she has no money, can’t pay for a criminal defense and took a plea deal. Did any evidence ever arise supporting the idea that the drunk-trade lady was drugged? Nope. Was the reaction of the judge normal for folks who turn up late to court? I don’t know; I’ve never been late to any courtroom… but I’m betting that being late isn’t a rare occurrence. How common is it to know about the 72 hour rule? I don’t know… Did you know about the 72 hour rule?

Here’s an example of the way most of my conversations go when I talk about Nikki:

Random Person: It’s only right! This “woman” lied to her husband about being born a man! (Seriously, they’ve actually made the air quotations with their fingers)

Me: Actually Thomas knew, he used to accompany Nikki to my transgender clinic.

Random Person:  Erm, uh… Well, she left her poor husband!

Me: Actually, it turned out they were living together. Here’s a copy of their new lease signed just weeks before Thomas died.

Random Person:   Uh… okay… But she wants to steal the kids benefits!

Me: Actually, Nikki worked to get the kids their benefits – which they now have.

Random Person:  Okay… But her birth certificate clearly says she’s a man!

Me: Actually, it turned out her birth certificate says she was born female. Here’s a copy of it.

Random Person:  Oh hell. Can’t we just hate her without facts getting in the way?!?

I get it; there’s a lot of people out there who don’t like Nikki and I’m betting that they don’t even know why anymore. And that, my friends, is the entire point of this post.

‘HIV? Die You Scum!’

Views: 4564

As some of you know, I’ve been involved in HIV prevention on the local and national level for a few years now. Today I’m in Atlanta, GA for a UCHAPS meeting and… I’m pissed. I’ve watched as cold-hearted tea bagging idiots have systematically sought to pay for corporate tax breaks with the blood of our citizenry:

Today I got to hear how Georgia has 2,000 people waiting to get on ADAP – the program that pays for HIV medications. Florida reported that they have 3,000 people waiting. While some of these jurisdictions have been able to get some temporary private funding to help continue their HIV drug assistance programs, these stop-gap measures are very temporary. Get this straight: without their medications, each one of these lives will be lost. In Florida, their Republican governor got a new law passed through their tea-bag controlled legislator that any grant of more than 50K must be personally approved by the his highness, The Governor.  You know what happened when the Florida jurisdiction asked for Federal money to pay for HIV services? The Republican governor vetoed applying for the Federal grant money.

In Texas, the Republicans tried to take HIV medication away from 14,000 people. They literally tied to kill 14,000 people by defunding the Texas HIV medication program. Rick Perry recently organized a political stunt to kick off his presidential run called “The Response.” He did this hand-in-hand with the American Family Association, an organization that calls for the imprisonment of GLBT people who are HIV+.



It was a hard fight, but Texas Democrats were able to lead the government in partially funding the Texas ADAP program. This means that if we continue to allow the cancer that is the tea party to spread, people I know will die because the program that keeps them alive will run out of funding.

How long will you sit on the sidelines? The people who feel okay with murdering and/or locking up our community members are the same people who, on a daily basis, attempt to maximize the suffering within the GLBT community.

We now live in an America where we will allow mega-corporations like Bank of America to not pay one buck in taxes and bestow upon them personhood but it’s okay to kill 1000s of citizens to pay for those Bush-era tax loopholes. This madness must stop. The Tea Party is just the newest incarnation of the Christian right wing and they need to be stopped!

Register to vote and vote damn it! Get 5 people you know to register to vote and get them to vote as well. The AIDS epidemic broke the back of the queer community in the 80s and we’re looking at reliving that nightmare soon if things don’t change. Is this the America you want to create with your indifference and silence?

Senator Williams isn’t happy with YOU!

Views: 2852

Can you imagine how frustrated this Senatorial bully feels? He’s done everything he can do to make your life and the lives of the people your care about more difficult and YOU have stopped him in his tracks!


Senator Williams (R - Woodlands)
Senator Williams (R - Woodlands)


He tried to sneak SB 723 through committee without alerting anyone and with only a 10-hour notice, we jumped into action. Six of us testified against the bill while nobody testified for the bill. I wish I could have taken a picture of Senator Williams; he looked as if he was sucking on a lemon!


All About SB 723 in 2 Minutes
All About SB 723 in 2 Minutes:


When the Senator Williams tried to bring it up for a Senate vote, we stormed the capitol with news reporters and documentary film makers shoving cameras in the faces of the bigots* in Senator Williams’ office. Additionally, we flooded the phone lines with calls. In the end, Senator Williams had to pull his bill for consideration.

After beating him once, Senator Williams came back for seconds last week and this time he went all in. Not only did he find a Democrat to support his hate bill, he got a number of right-wing organizations to mobilize their base in support of his bill:


Right-Wing Hate Machine
Right-Wing Hate Machine


And you know what happened? WE STILL BEAT HIM! Through YOUR actions, we were able to turn that Democratic Yes vote into a No vote. After we cost him the support he needed, he retreated to regroup.

Last Friday Senator Williams tried again to put his anti-trans bill on the “fast-track” (intent calendar) and by yesterday morning, he had to pull it off the table for consideration by the Senate… YET AGAIN! By Monday, virtually ALL Democratic Senators had publicly stated their opposition to the bill.

williamslogicNow, the only chance Senator Williams has to get SB 723 voted on is by getting it through a log-jam of bills by midnight THIS Friday night. Please don’t underestimate the right-wing’s willingness to ruin YOUR life by any means necessary. SB 723 is not dead until Friday at midnight!

Senator Williams expected to encounter a scared, apathetic and powerless group of people he could bully. Instead, what he found is that we are courageous, engaged and we can organize in ways that few groups can. What he found when he faced us was a COMMUNITY.

If you were active in calling, email, faxing and/or spreading the word, you are due some congratulations! YOU stood up to a bully! YOU were part of the largest Texas trans action in our history! YOU stopped hate in its tracks time and again! YOU proved that we don’t have to settle for being a second-class citizens!

The clock is still ticking. Senator Williams still has some time to try to pull a fast one. We MUST remain vigilant and we MUST act if the right-wing attempts to pull a fast one next couple of days.

While you’re doing warm-ups for your victory lap on Saturday morning, please take 2 minutes and add your name to this ANTI-723 petition:

Also, please think about thanking/supporting the following organizations that organized the Texas anti-723 campaign. They all worked closely together to stop SB 723:

SB 723: Resurection and Fallout

Views: 6827

Williams Knows Best

Senator Williams (R)
Senator Williams (R)

Texas Senator Williams (R –Woodlands) has made it clear that he is an extremist who believes that politicians should get to decide what sex you are. If your child is intersex, he believes that his opinion counts more than the informed counsel of medical, psychological and/or genetic specialists. He thinks he knows what legal sex an intersex child must be better than the child’s own parents.  In complex cases where a child is intersex, Williams wants to take away the power of a parent as well as Texas judges to make informed decisions based upon expert testimony.

In 1999, the Texas 4th circuit court of appeals used a 40 year old defunct non-American law as guidance to conclude that God made 2 immutable sexes which relegated all the Texas children and adults who undergo genital corrective surgery into a legal limbo.

“The deeper philosophical (and now legal) question is: can a physician change the gender of a person with a scalpel, drugs and counseling, or is a person’s gender immutably fixed by our Creator at birth?” – Chief Justice Phil Hardberger, Littleton v Prange, 1999

In support of Justice Hardberger’s logic, Justice Karen Angelini recognized the fact that Littleton v Prange is problematic for intersex people, saying:

[Because] we lack statutory guidance at this time, we must instead be guided by biological factors such as chromosomes, gonads, and genitalia at birth. […] such biological considerations are preferable to psychological factors as tools for making the decision we must make. I note, however, that ‘real difficulties … will occur if these three criteria [chromosomal, gonadal and genital tests] are not congruent.’ We must recognize the fact that, even when biological factors are considered, there are those individuals whose sex may be ambiguous. Having recognized this fact, I express no opinion as to how the law would view such individuals with regard to marriage. We are, however, not presented with such a case at this time.” – Justice Karen Angelini, (Concurring Opinion) Littleton v Prange, 1999

In other words, they knew Littleton v Prange would be problematic for intersex Texans, but they just didn’t care. Under Littleton v Prange case law, everyone is whatever your doctor said you were on your birth certificate and that can never be challenged no matter what gonads, chromosomes or natural gender you are later found to have.


By The Numbers: Who Does Williams Get to Sex?


If Sen. Williams has his way, Littleton v Prange case law will become State law and corrective genital surgery won’t matter for the one of the 1 in 500 Texans who’ve undergone corrective genital surgery each and every year. Yes, you heard that right: 1 in 500 Texans..

495,646 Texans are intersex; 1 in 500 undergo gender conferming sergeries
495,646 Texans are intersex; 1 in 500 (about 811 per year) undergo gender confirming surgeries (PDF:



Common Sense?


Sen. Williams seems to think that the lives of half a million Texans are his to toy with. He claims that his is a righteous effort to save heterosexual-only marriage. Ironically if Sen. Williams has his way, this man in the photo below will only ever be able to marry another man:


Should Senator Williams for this man to marry another man?Loren Cameron was identified as female on birth his certificate.


Yes, that’s right. In his misguided effort to prevent gay marriage, it seems that he may become the architect of  gay marriage in Texas. You see, the above man has a birth certificate that states that he was born female.  Under Littleton v Prange case law, this supposedly make perfect sense:

williamslogicYes, when Sen. Williams looks at the above two people, what he sees are two women that need to be married off to men. To Sen. Williams, the following female fashion model needs to be married off to a good woman:


Isis: was incorrectly identified as male on birth certificate.
Isis was identified as male on her birth certificate.


Again, under Littleton v Prange case law, this supposedly make perfect sense:


Instead of using common sense and allowing medical experts, parents and Texas judges make determinations of sex on a case-by-case basis, Senator Williams thinks he knows better. You see, Sen. Williams doesn’t need chromosomal testing, genetic tests, FMRI scans or the informed consultation of any medical or psychological expert; he knows that each and every child born in Texas is always correctly sexed at birth. And yes, while the medical facts fly in the face of that premise, when compared to Sen. Williams’ misguided world view, the lives of the half million Texans who underwent corrective genital surgeries are apparently irrelevant.


Senate Bill 723: The Resurrection


For a quick overview of what Senate Bill 723 is, why it will destroy the lives of thousands and what you can do, watch this 2 minute video:


Watch HERE
Watch here:


The legislative intent of Senate Bill 723 explicitly states that stripping away a current trans-positive State law is appropriate due to Littleton case law which states that whatever sex the doctor put on your birth certificate is what you are forever and ever and can never ever be changed. In other words, if the doctor wrote “male” on your birth certificate, you’re male and if the doctor wrote “female” on your birth certificate, you’re female… no matter what. Passage of this bill will enshrine Littleton case law logic into State Law.


The bill (SB 723) won’t pass unless at least one Democrat votes for it. After the alarm about SB 723 was initially sounded, the support Sen. Williams thought he had evaporated and the bill was effectively dead.  However, the bill was resurrected Monday because Senate Democrat Carlos Uresti was persuaded to support it. Sen. Uresti comes from San Antonio and San Antonio is where Littleton case law comes from.

On top of Sen. Uresti’s abrupt change of heart, the right wing has been working hard to build support for this bill:


Derp #1
Derp #1


Derp #2
Derp #2


Here’s the inside scoop on Senate Democrat Carlos  Uresti’s betrayal:

I wanted to fill you all in with respect to my most recent conversation with a staff member for Senator Carlos Uresti. As you know, Mr. Uresti voted “Present, Not Voting” in committee, which allowed this bill to go to the floor.

I advised his staff that I was a constituent and calling with regard to SB 723. I inquired as to whether or not Mr. Uresti had declared his vote. I was advised that as of yesterday, his Chief of Staff was still unaware as to how Mr. Uresti would be voting, but the bill was simply a “clean-up” bill. I expressed my discomfort with the idea that the bill was a clean-up bill and told them that a yes vote or further abstention would be abhorrent and directly impact citizens of Texas. I explained the effect the bill would have on those born intersex who are assigned a gender by a doctor even when they have ambiguous genitalia and that a yes vote is an attack of persons born with a medical condition – even when it is later discovered that the doctor made a mistake in choosing the gender marker of that person. This seemed to resonate slightly with the staffer, but he never truly seemed interested until I advised of my position with GetEQUAL TX and that we are watching the Senator’s vote very closely.

– Cristan’s inside source

Now that Sen. Williams has found his turncoat, he’s put it on the Legislative intent calendar for this week. If Senate Democrat Carlos I. Uresti (or any of the other Texas Senate Democrats) refuses to stand up for the half million Texans who have had gender confirming surgery, Sen. Williams will succeed in his bid to legally resex thousands of Texans.


Re-branding and the Fallout


Senator Williams seems to like to talk out of both sides of his mouth. Sometimes he claims that SB 723 is just a “clean up bill” that will make life easier for county clerks. Sometimes he claims that this is his effort to save marriage from the gays. If you watched the above video, you can hear him say both. From Senator Uresti’s reaction, it seems like he fell for the whole, “it’s just a clean up bill” line.

Senator Williams claims that this bill is about preventing gay marriage. However, this seems to be a red herring since intersex and transsexed people will still be able to use their federal passports, etc to obtain a marriage license. SB 723 WILL NOT prevent trans people from getting married (even though that marriage could be challenged in the same way Littleton and Agaguz’s marriage was challenged). So, the real question is… if this bill won’t actually prevent trans people from marrying, what will it actually do?

Most of the media has reported that this is an anti-trans/anti-gay marriage bill. What they don’t seem to understand is the a bill has 2 pieces: the bill text and the bill intent. The intent is what gives any law context. Legislative intent is the thing that judges look at when trying to make a legal decision.

It is the legislative intent of SB 723 to ensure that Littleton case law logic becomes the context by which the State of Texas views the process of defining legal sex. Littleton case law states that whatever sex the doctor put on your birth certificate is infallible and can never be changed no matter what. Should this become the context in which the Sate of Texas MUST view legal sex, it will ruin the lives of thousands of Texans. Men will be forced to assume a legal female sex and women will be forced to assume a legal male sex. From the use of official Texas identification to the use of restrooms, SB 723 can purposefully cripple the lives of thousands of Texans who suffer from a valid medical condition.

SB 723 is a cancer that will undermine the ability for every type of transgender person to function in society from the intersex child who was discovered to be male and has a female birth certificate to the transsexed young adult who, due to documented unchangeable brain morphology, undergoes medical treatment. SB will do what it seems to be intended to do: single out and wreak havoc in the lives of people suffering from a medical condition.


Nikki Araguz , SB 723 & the Domino Effect


Currently, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is waiting on the outcome of the Nikki Araguz case to issue an opinion on how Texas should determine the legal sex of trans people. If, through the legislative intent of SB 723, Littleton becomes the context by which all judges and state departments MUST view legal sex, Nikki Aaguz may very well lose her case.

If Nikki Araguz is declared legally male, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott will issue his opinion stating that Texas will not recognize the results of corrective genital surgery. With another pro-Littleton case ruling, an Attorney General’s opinion and the legislative intent of State law all supporting Littleton v Prange logic, Texas will become the most hostile environment for any type of trans person to live in the entire United States.

Should Texas take such an unprecedented anti-trans stance, it will only be a matter of time before the right wing in other states uses the solid anti-trans legal Texan framework to attack and erode the trans rights in other states.

SB 723 is the first domino and if it should fall, we can expect the rights of trans people throughout the State of Texas and beyond to fall as well.

Nikki Araguz understood this and it is why she went to the State Capitol to lobby against SB 723. In the following video you can see Nikki being thrown out of Sen. Williams’ office after challenging the whole “it’s just a clean-up bill” line:

Nikki before she is thrown out of Senator Williams office
Watch here:


What Can Be Done


We beat SB 723 once before and we can do it again!

All we need do is what we did last time… with one small difference: If you know of anyone living in San Antonio, get them to call the turncoat Sen. Uresti and demand that he vote AGAINST SB 723. He needs to hear from his constituents!

Priority One: Contact Sen. Uresti

Phone: (512) 463-0119

Fax: (512) 463-1017


Web Mail:

Demand that he VOTE and that he VOTES AGAINST SB 723!

Afterwards, call the rest of the Democratic Senators and tell them to VOTE AGAINST SB 723:

Mario Gallegos (512) 463-0106
Wendy Davis (512) 463-0110
Rodney G. Ellis (512) 463-0113
Kirk Watson (512) 463-0114
John Whitmire (512) 463-0115
Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa (512) 463-0120
Judith Zaffirini (512) 463-0121
Royce West (512) 463-0123
Leticia R. Van de Putte (512) 463-0126
Eduardo A. (Eddie) Lucio, Jr. (512) 463-0127
José R. Rodríguez (512) 463-0129

You can call day or night!

This is one of those majorly important things that will impact the lives of the people you care about. Take the 10 minutes and make the calls. PLEASE!

Nikki Araguz Case Update: April 2011

Views: 2425

This update covers what’s happening with the Nikki Araguz case:

  • When the next tentative court date is;
  • A review of what was recently covered in the media and how that compares to what was really said;
  • A PWN of Lisa Falkenberg of the Houston Chronicle;
  • Concrete proof that the other side lied to the media;
  • A reveal of Nikki Araguz’s REAL birth certificate; and,
  • A personal message to Ed Berwell, the ethically challenged attorney that is trying to legally detransition Nikki.

Watch the new video here:

My post on Lisa Falkenberg: screen capture 2011-4-12-7-58-47

Frank Mann’s telephone call to me that I recorded and posted to youtube:


Pt 1 –
Pt 2 –

In this video, Frank Mann – the other attorney that is trying to have Nikki declared legally male – claims that he’s for GLBT rights, gay marriage and is explicitly supporting of trans rights. Frank: If this is so, why are you working so damn hard to destroy the very rights you claim to support?

The AssHat video:


An open letter to Lisa Falkenberg

Views: 6678

I’ve attended the last two hearings in the Nikki Araguz case. I noticed that you weren’t there. I also couldn’t help but notice the editorial you wrote in the Houston Chronicle. Of course I’m miffed at your yellow journalist skills, but not to worry… You’re in good company!

A few days after your myopic opines, the Washington Times said, “At the time of Capt. Araguz’s death, however, the couple had been separated for months, and Nikki Araguz was interested in obtaining a divorce.”

washtimes copy

They echo they very story you spun only days before:



Lisa, you’ve apparently made the big time. You’ve managed to influence a paper owned by cult leader Sun Myung Moon (of the Moonies). Next thing you know you’ll be hosting Fox and Friends!

I find the journalistic company you keep interesting. What I find more interesting is the following:


What’s this you might ask? It’s a legal contract signed by both Nikki and Thomas Araguz in which Thomas identifies himself as Nikki’s husband (note Thomas’ initials at the bottom of the page). In fact, it’s a lease contract… that began just one month prior to his death.

I find that this seems problematic to the story you’re hocking. If Nikki and Thomas were on the outs, why would they be getting a new apartment together? Also, I suppose the sister-in-law failed to mention to you that both Thomas and Nikki were over at her place together just days before his death?

After the above misguided attack, you then make the case for Nikki-the-bad-guy:

“Nikki has expressed her love and concern for the children, even speaking directly to them in TV interviews. And she claimed to me Wednesday that she’s battling Thomas’ family for his death benefits partly for the children’s sake, saying she promised Thomas she’d help take care of “our children” if anything happened to him.

But the fact is that if Nikki prevails in her legal battle, she gets the money in dispute. If Thomas’ family prevails, the children get the money.”

Next time I encourage you to employ your critical thinking skills Lisa. When Heather Delgado started out with this suit, she was getting 300K. If she wins, she will still receive only about 300K after legal fees. For that, she’s outed her children in small-town Wharton. When the kids you claim such concern for go back to school, instead of being the kids of a fallen hero, they’ll be known as the kids of the guy who married a pre-op transsexual. Worse, everyone will know that the pre-op transsexual in question was, in fact, their step-mom – the very step-mom they lived with 4 days out of the week for most of the last 4 years. Heather’s doomed her kids to a life of schoolyard hell… and for what?!?

While you were urging people to Think About the Children™ why didn’t these two significant facts cross your mind? I’m guessing that it didn’t because you went into this story having made up your mind that the ethically challenged attorney Frank Mann was telling you the truth and that the tranny was obviously a faker.

You then build upon your rather dubious reporting with:

“It’s getting harder and harder to believe, though, that Nikki’s motives are really about the children’s well-being, or the marriage rights for transgender Texans, no matter how much transgender activists need her case to help their worthy cause. It seems increasingly probable she’s just out for the money.”

Are you suggesting that after caring for two children for almost FOUR YEARS that Nikki doesn’t care about the children? Are you really suggesting that Nikki – a person who was with the children more than their biological mother was and who paid the child support out of her own pocket – isn’t motivated to ensure the well-being of the children? Do you check your critical thinking skills at the door when you go to work?

No, Lisa. You’re just wrong.

If Nikki was in it for the money, why has she been working with Frank Mann – someone who’s under investigation for violating her rites and defaming her character – to ensure that the children receive their benefits ASAP? If Nikki was in it for the money, why has she said repeatedly that this is about civil rights? How is it that you can’t wrap your head around the obvious fact that the outcome of this case will decide her civil rights as well as her legal standing?

On a personal note as a transwoman, I’ve gotta say that when you flippantly wrote “… no matter how much transgender activists need her case to help their worthy cause” you pissed me off. I didn’t “need” nor did I want this case. The fact is this case WILL impact MY civil rights and define MY legal standing. Your dismissive tone seems to say to me that I shouldn’t be really concerned for what happens to my rights. Walk a mile in my sensible shoes before being so flippant about my rights as an American citizen!

After dismissing my rights, you then move forward with more mythical musings:

“Nikki brought on some of the credibility problems herself. She’s admitted to lying in a sworn deposition earlier this year in a custody case. She’s got a lengthy criminal record including theft and drug charges.”

Yes, she admitted that BOTH she and Capt Araguz foolishly lied in an attempt to ensure that Heather Delgado would not succeed in her bid to remove the children from Nikki and Thomas. How is it that you did not notice that this fact does not square with the Nikki-the-devil picture you’re pushing? If she doesn’t care about the kids, why would she be willing to risk so much to keep them around? While you were reporting on the many alleged crimes you alluded Nikki was found guilty of, why is it that you failed to mention that Nikki was never convicted said crimes?  I also wonder why you failed to note that practically every allegation that came out of Frank Mann’s mouth has been proven false?  In case you’re oblivious, here’s just a few of the Frank Mann gems that turned out to be false:

  • PROVEN FALSE: Nikki Araguz lied to Thomas Araguz; Thomas Araguz didn’t know about Nikki’s history. After witnesses, emails and texts turned up making it clear that Thomas knew, the Mann’s now claiming that the case is about Texas law.
  • PROVEN FALSE: “The law is clear” He consistently repeated the absolutist idea that Texas does not recognize sex changes when it comes to marriage. Unfortunately for Mann, he wound up with egg on his face since he apparently didn’t know that Texas law now recognizes “sex change” and that recognition is in the middle of Texas marriage law. Oops!
  • PROVEN FALSE: Nikki Araguz is a felon. Nope… proven simply untrue.
  • PROVEN FALSE: Nikki and Thomas were getting a divorce. See above.

Lisa… common now. Put that thinking cap on and let’s look at the track record shall we? How many lies did Nikki tell about her situation? What’s that? None? Well, isn’t that just inconvenient for the story you’re telling?

“And although earlier this week she presented an e-mail exchange with her late husband as proof that he was aware of her sex-change operation, Thomas’ mother told me he believed his wife was having a hysterectomy. Nikki said she never claimed this.”

Why not mention that Carolyn Bosma went on the record attesting that she, Thomas and Nikki discussed Nikki’s upcoming genital reconstructive surgery at the Transgender Clinic? Didn’t you think that was important?

Now you drop the bomb:

On Wednesday, Longoria’s pro-bono attorney, Chad Ellis, produced an affidavit that seems to support her contention. The document is signed by Cynthia Garcia, a Wharton County deputy district clerk, who says that on June 24 Nikki “came into our offices to make a payment for her court costs related to her criminal matter.” Garcia maintains that Nikki “asked me how much it cost to file for divorce. She informed me that (she) wanted to get a divorce from Thomas Araguz, III. She said she was ‘done with him.’ ”

Asked about all this, Nikki told me that no divorce papers were ever filed, and “Thomas and I were not talking about divorce at the time of his death.” Asked whether she told Garcia she wanted a divorce, she said “I don’t recall ever saying that.

Gee, after everything you’ve said about Nikki, this seems to take the cake! You’ve already painted Nikki as being a liar who had dumped Thomas.  Nikki, in an apparent snit, said that she was “done” with Thomas and wanted to know how much a divorce cost. Zing! Pow! Right in the kisser!


I bet you could hear the masses raising their collective voices to the heavens to exclaim, “Oh, no she di’int!

At this point I feel as if we need to talk a bit about the birds and the bees, Lisa. You see, the heterosexual population suffers a really high divorce rate. While it seems obvious to everyone I’ve talked with, let me let you in on a secrete: Most married couples consider divorce from time to time.  Most people who are married will inevitably talk to a friend or (god forbid) vent and even say words in anger (gasp!). When this piece of nothing you produced is viewed in context of the fact that they were renting an apartment together, emailing each other love notes and hanging out with each other… you know what I hear when I read your big revelation? I hear:

Yes, that’s right. I hear a lot of hot air.

You then hit home just how despicable you’ve decided Nikki is with the following:

Just as troubling, though, is Longoria’s description of Nikki’s behavior after Thomas’ death. Far from behaving like the grieving widow, Longoria said Nikki showed up at her house, and that of Thomas’ grandmother, the day after the funeral, demanding Thomas’ gun and truck. Longoria said Thomas’ father handed over the 9 mm Glock, but the family wasn’t in possession of the white Dodge pickup.

Nikki acknowledged to me having sought the items, saying that as Thomas’ wife, she was entitled to his property.

That may be. But demanding those things from a mother who’d buried her only son the day before shows us where Nikki’s priorities were that day.

This is well-deserving of a full-on facepalm.


Nikki was paying for the truck. Her in-laws stole the truck out of her driveway. Yes, god forbid that she dare attempt to get her truck back. Let me turn that last statement around: “Stealing a truck from a widow who’d buried her husband the day before shows us where the in-law’s priorities were that day.”

Why didn’t you know this? It came out in the first hearing.

Lisa: You are a yellow journalist and for that, you suck. May you be forever remembered for the hatchet job you chose to pull on a transgender widow.


View Lisa Falkenberg’s opines here:


With BS reporting like this, is it any wonder that your readers post such inane and vacuous replies?


UPDATE: On 3/25/11, the Judge ordered that the in-laws RETURN Nikki’s truck to her. Why you might ask? BECAUSE IT WAS HERS and the in-laws unlawfully took if from Nikki right after her husband died.