What’s in a name?
This story in the Greeley Tribune makes my blood boil. Not, surprisingly, the coverage itself, but the defense tactics in the Angie Zapata trial:
The first few times, it almost seemed like the public defenders were misspeaking.
But then, those watching the murder trial of Allen Andrade started muttering under their breaths. Witnesses on the stand continued to correct the attorneys questioning them.
Family members and friends echoed repeatedly, “my sister,” “Angie,” one by one on the stand Friday as public defenders Annette Kundelius and Brad Martin questioned them about “Justin.”
Ok, so got that straight? The defense is ungendering Angie Zapata by using a male name and pronouns. Hammering home that she had a “male” body. That she was “really a man.”
Well, what’s the difference, some more clueless cissexual people might wonder? First, this is a matter of respect. Angie lived and died as a woman. Her family and friends were adamant about that, even in the face of persistent ungendering. Of course, this is a criminal trial, not generally regarded as a place for respect. But neither is it supposed to be a place for poorly reasoned argument. Make no mistake, this is a cheap, dirty tactic.
More importantly than respect, this sets up an impossible standard for trans people to meet. Even if we out ourselves–as Angie Zapata clearly did–we are nevertheless “proved” to have been lying. It means that living her life as a woman, having the name of Angie, of itself constitutes an act of deception. In the trial’s mini-opening statements, the defense said:
“This case is not about judgment of a lifestyle,” Martin told the jury. “It’s not about whether Justin [sic] Zapata’s lifestyle was right or wrong. It’s about a deception and a reaction to that deception. … Justin’s Moco Space profile was that of a female, not of a transgender, and it certainly wasn’t that of a man.”
This article here lays out the reasoning in its title “Andrade: Stunned Victim or Homophobe.” Here, Andrade is improbably conjured as the VICTIM, not the woman he brutally bashed to death. Because obviously, a trans panic “victim” couldn’t simply walk away, couldn’t simply have been mistaken, couldn’t go “nope, sorry, not for me.” No, he’s so victimised–traumatised–by Angie’s sheer existence as an embodied trans woman with a penis, that he was forced to kill her. No. Sorry. That’s bullshit, and illogical bullshit at that.
Martin’s defense disclaimer aside, this quite clearly is a judgment about “lifestyle” and it is about painting transgendered women as deceptive, and it is about a form of simplistic cissexism that forever precludes trans women from being legitimately female. The notion that Angie’s profile was truthful needs is one that I think a jury needs to be aware of. Because she was a woman, one accepted and loved by family and friends.
Quite obviously, this clears the way for the inevitable “trans panic” defense, a form of victim blaming that only appears to have legal credibility when applied to trans people. So yes, I realise it is the defense’s job to cast doubt onto every piece of evidence that the prosecution raises, and even to attack the credibility of the victim and any material witnesses. But this is not doing that. It does not raise the question of whether Angie was of good character or not–it suggests from the start that she never could have been. This is pandering to the worst in cissexist biases, and painting transness of itself as deserving of death.
This is hate speech legitimating hate violence, pure and simple.
h/t to Helen
and the fact that the judge doing nothing about this is very telling… this shit wouldn’t happen to a cis person under the same circumstances. Dammit, this whole trial wouldn’t happen under the same circumstances. Ugh.
I hear though that the “Andrade didn’t know Angie before this” defense is being shot to pieces, which gives one hope.
z
April 18, 2009 at 3:21 am
z: I hear though that the “Andrade didn’t know Angie before this” defense is being shot to pieces, which gives one hope.
Yes, the court has now heard that he knew about her history at least 36 hours before the alleged murder, which kind of knocks a trans panic/crime of passion/heat of the moment defense out of the window.
Except, of course, it doesn’t, this being a trans woman…
Helen G
April 18, 2009 at 5:09 am
i thought that the *defense* was doing the ungendering, and that the two bags of shit “lawyers” are the defense?
is the prosecution ungendering her, too?
GallingGalla
April 18, 2009 at 5:21 am
to clarify, i’m asking about “Ok, so got that straight? The prosecution is ungendering Angie Zapata…”
the things i’d like to do to those worthless meatsack “public defenders”, well i don’t think i can even say here.
GallingGalla
April 18, 2009 at 5:26 am
Like I commented over at Bird of Paradox, I find this mis gendering of Angie really quite upsetting because it makes me feel like the lawyer is trampling on her families’ memories, which is all they have left of her.
I don’t think the trans panic defence should be allowed at all in trials, like I said I think it should be viewed in the same way as rape trials where the victim’s sexual history is not allowed to be mentioned (these days). It should be considered just as irrelevant to mention a trans person’s birth-assigned sex.
Because as you say it buys into the idea that a trans person is somehow doing something wrong – not even just wrong, but so wrong that the person deserves to die! – simply by the very fact of existing!
At least, the jury now know that Andrade knew Angie was a trans woman way before he murdered her, so hopefully that knocks the trans panic defence out. Hopefully. Although you don’t know for sure, the defence will try anything.
I do know that even the worst people imaginable have the right to a fair trial, and I agree with that. What I don’t agree to is them using hate speech to get their point across.
msruthmoss
April 18, 2009 at 5:28 am
GallingGalla: is the prosecution ungendering her, too?
Not as I understand it, quite the reverse, in fact. I gather the prosecution has been meticulous in using the correct pronouns; also that her family (who testified yesterday) have been correcting the defense lawyers every step of the way.
Helen G
April 18, 2009 at 5:31 am
@GG No. Woops. I’ll change that.
queenemily
April 18, 2009 at 5:34 am
I’m not surprised Andrade knew Angie’s status. Not surprisingly, this was discussed previously here on QT.
It’s total bullshit that the judge is allowing the defense to float this confession-as-defense as viable (thus justifying the murder of trans women as a reasonable reaction to our existence) or the defense’s tactic of insisting that Angie was really a man.
Lisa Harney
April 18, 2009 at 5:45 am
To be fair, queen em’s mistake above is a natural one to make, since there isn’t really a prosecution and a defense, here… there’s a prosecution trying to convict Andrade of murder, and another prosecution trying to convict Angie of being a deceptive freak who deserved to die.
Claire
April 18, 2009 at 6:42 am
Not only is the defense’s tactic insidious, it also seems ill-founded legally. The defense is not trying to set up the fact that Angie wasn’t transgender. Isn’t her status a legal fact? They’re actually trying to set up the inference that Andrade was surprised. It seems legally idiotic to keep insisting to use the male gender while Angie’s family patiently corrects them, making themselves look very sympathetic to the jury. If it weren’t for the pain it’s putting the family through to hear Angie called ‘him,’ I would say ‘Go for it, defense! You look like an ass!’
herong
April 18, 2009 at 10:06 am
Playing devil’s advocate (almost literally here) the defense could argue (I have no idea if this is really true) that if Angie never got around to legally changing her name, or gender marker on any documents, then it would be ok to ungender her, regardless of what her friends and family refer to her by.
I obviously think its odious; I’m just trying to air some thoughts on it.
Amanda in the South Bay
April 18, 2009 at 12:52 pm
*vomits*
If I was a Colorado citizen, I’d be using every lever I could to get hate speech, contempt of court, whatever(!) charges filed against that lowlife defence team!
…actually, I have relatives in Colorado….
(I’m guessing this isn’t actually possible thou, aside from the miniscule possibility of contempt of court charges being issued by the Judge. AFAIK the courts over her in the UK give the lawyers handling cases actual or de-facto immunity on whatever bullshit they might wish to spout.)
Jessikat
April 18, 2009 at 1:47 pm
The point is – or so I thought – that a man is on trial accused of first-degree murder, automobile theft and identity theft (amongst other things).
Angie Zapata isn’t on trial, her status is utterly irrelevant (as z says in the first comment here, this wouldn’t even be an issue if she’d been cis) and serves only to deflect attention from the one single question that matters: Did Allen Andrade murder her, yes or no?
Helen G
April 18, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Clearly, Andrade confessed many times and in many ways.
Lisa Harney
April 18, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Of course, the defense has an alternative to the sudden panic theory. So far it looks like the McInerney defense is going to be that living out of the closet is akin to harassment. Either way, Andrade’s defense is going to be that Angie triggered his fears regarding a topic that’s highly political and emotionally charged, and he’s being victimized by overzealous prosecution.
CBrachyrhynchos
April 18, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I don’t think the trans panic defence should be allowed at all in trials, like I said I think it should be viewed in the same way as rape trials where the victim’s sexual history is not allowed to be mentioned (these days).
word. gay panic either for that matter. any “panic.”
funny how you never see the “het/cis/male panic/the fucker was asking for it by slinging his priv all over the place” defense.
gosh, I wonder why.
belledame222
April 18, 2009 at 2:35 pm
seriously, can we all send the defense lawyer a fuckload of Twinkies or something? “here, in case you run out of ideas.”
belledame222
April 18, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I wonder what would happen if prosecuting attorney started referring to the D.A. by the wrong gender, as a tactic. probably called up on contempt in short order. eh, I’ve probably been watching too much TV.
belledame222
April 18, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Okay, even if simply existing as a trans or otherwise gender queer person makes you a liar (which I don’t think it does — if you’re living your life as the person you feel you are, you’re not lying and most importantly you’re not lying to yourself) that doesn’t justify murder or any other type of violence.
Rachel S.
April 18, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Quoted for extreme truth:
To be fair, queen em’s mistake above is a natural one to make, since there isn’t really a prosecution and a defense, here… there’s a prosecution trying to convict Andrade of murder, and another prosecution trying to convict Angie of being a deceptive freak who deserved to die.
voz
April 18, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I been following this on twitter…and every time it comes up I get annoyed…I understand the exact reasoning behind it. It is to build up confusion in the jury to make them question her gender and make it more likely that they will buy the panic defence.
Follow/subscribe to the RSS feed of these for in court reactions.
http://www.twitter.com/JusticeForAngie http://twitter.com/GreeleyTribune
Shaded Spriter
April 18, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Claire’s absolutely right – the defense’s tactics, basically, are to prosecute Angie for the “deception” inherent as existing as a trans woman.
Whether Andrade is guilty of murder or not is irrelevant to this trial – I mean, he’s admitted it. Clearly, all that needs to be decided now is whether or not Angie *deserved* it.
Unbelievable.
Aishwarya
April 19, 2009 at 11:06 am
[...] strategy the defense is using is to repeatedly misgender Angie by referring to her by masculine pronouns and a male “legal name” which she herself did [...]
Trans Panic Defense Underway in Trial for Angie Zapata’s Murder : The Curvature
April 20, 2009 at 11:03 am
Just a reminder that misgendering comments will not be approved. Comments that demand a greater burden of disclosure from trans people than cis people will not be approved. Comments that compare sex with a trans woman to being raped will not be approved. Go troll free republic or something.
Lisa Harney
April 20, 2009 at 5:01 pm
I’d love to see the day when a “Trans(or gay) Panic” defense will be entered as an automatic guilty plea.
Jessica
April 20, 2009 at 5:55 pm
[...] in that it affirms Angie’s humanity after it had been so brutally stripped from her, and after the defense attorneys continued to deny it to her–I am bursting with joy over the ruling. To be honest I didn’t really have that much [...]
What is Justice? For Angie Zapata « Taking Up Too Much Space
April 23, 2009 at 1:46 am
I’ve been feeling very glad, more relief than the world ought be causing in me, that the prosecution has so consistently and insistently been referring to Angie Zapata by her right name and pronouns. But I have not been able to shake the nagging unease that they do so only because to cement her identity in the minds of the jury as a woman* and to distance her from being seen as trans might make the court more likely to rule fairly.
Perhaps I only worry so because I have avoided following the trial closely, not wanting exposure to transphobic commentary on it, and am ignorant of how genuinely respectful the prosecution has been. Still, and if it has not been so, I do hope there will someday not be cause to wonder if accurate reference is from strategy than respect. I hope I am being silly in this case.
*Not so comfortable with phrasing here, as I feel it can easily read as ‘woman by default = cis’ when I am trying to convey something more like ‘minimising the trans in “trans woman” might make the court treat her more as a person deserving justice’ and concerned again that stressing the latter might be disrespectful to Zapata if woman were much more important to how she saw herself than trans.
aesmael
April 27, 2009 at 4:33 am