Questioning Transphobia

Over at Pam’s House Blend, Autumn Sandeen has an interesting post – What Does “Justice For Angie” Mean? – about the possible sentences that could be handed down to Allen Andrade should he be found guilty of Angie Zapata’s murder. I recommend reading the whole article – link here – which arose after a lengthy discussion that Autumn had with Beth Karas (Senior Reporter with Court TV and formerly an assistant district attorney in New York City). Ms Karas explained ‘what the prosecutor is aiming for, what the defense is aiming for, and the punishments would be for the for just the murder change’.

All of which is an absorbing read of itself, but I was interested to note a distinction that Autumn draws, between ‘justice for Angie’ and ‘justice for the broader community’:

If we’re looking for justice for Angie, having her admitted killer spend the rest of his natural life in prison would be justice for her and her family — and that’s according to Angie’s family. [...]

If we’re looking for justice for the broader community; however, then one of the other charges we haven’t talked about yet — the bias motivated charge — becomes important.

The sentence that Autumn refers to as being justice in the eyes of Angie’s family is what’s termed an F1 sentence – life without for parole for first degree murder. However, there are two lesser felony charges, F2 and F3, which – depending on whether the habitual offender enhancement is included – could range from 10 years to 96 years.

As Autumn notes:

[...] if Colorado is unsuccessful in convincing a jury that this was a bias motivated hate crime against transgender people, many trans people will be wondering what set of facts will convince a Colorado jury that a bias motivated crime against a trans person was committed against a trans person specifically because the killed person was trans.

In other words, justice for Angie may not necessarily equate to justice for the trans community – and there could conceivably be significant longer-term repercussions for the trans community if a conviction excludes the bias motivated crime count:

If there isn’t a hate crime conviction in this case, the broader communities are going to have to rethink how hate crime laws are written so that “gay panic” and “trans panic” strategies put forward by defense attornys don’t nulify the intent of the hate crime laws.

—————

Cross-posted at Bird of Paradox)

Voz has kindly agreed to cross-posting my recent piece Human rights violations in U.S. jail (link here) at her LJ as a way to facilitate a trans only discussion.

Any trans people who’d like to join the discussion should click here to go to the friends-locked post.

The Olympian (link here) and On Top magazine (link here) both carry the story of Antonia Lara, who has told about the mistreatment of trans women by prison staff at the Twin Falls County Jail in Idaho.

Ms Lara, who was arrested in February for providing false information to police, says she shared a cell with Majid Kolestani, another trans woman, for a week after she was first arrested. Prison officers have for months denied Ms Kolestani hormone treatments, a regimen she’s taken for over five years and refused to provide her a bra. Medical staff at the jail are aware of Ms Kolestani’s needs, Jail Administrator Captain Douglas Hughes said.

Ms Lara and Ms Kolestani were identified as men by their jailers and placed in a cell separate from the general prison population. Ms Lara said jail officials also made disparaging remarks toward her while booking her:

“They were making comments the whole time, bringing people by the window so they could laugh at me like I was some freak show. These people are the people who are supposed to serve and protect.”

Ms Kolestani is charged with the first-degree murder of Ehsan Velayati Kababian, who died from a bullet to the head while in a parked car near the apartment they shared. The police, who found Kolestani in the apartment suffering from a gunshot wound, allege she is the murderer. Ms Lara says that Ms Kolestani is despondent over the loss of Mr Kababian, eats little, prays often, and cries frequently.

Twin Falls County Jail Administrator Capt. Douglas Hughes said the transgender inmates were classified as men when they were taken into custody, and so they were not put in cells with female prisoners. The transgender women were placed in a cell by themselves as a precaution, because in the general jail population “they become preyed on,” Hughes said.

“We treat them as they need to be treated, and we offer them the kind of treatment that is needed by law,” he said.

It strikes me that any law which condones the withholding of medication – hormones, in this case – is not only an unjust law, but also in breach of a fundamental human right.

Defense attorneys unsuccessfully attempted to move Kolestani’s trial to another county due to publicity surrounding the case.

Lara said the county suffers from transgender bias, which would make it difficult for Kolestani to have a fair trial.

“Whether Idaho wants to face it or not, we’re here,” Lara said. “I think gender’s a sensitive issue. When you’re challenging someone’s definition of normal, they get scared, and fear nurtures ignorance.”

Prosecutors and judges have also referred to Ms Kolestani as a man during hearings on the case, whilst public defenders for Kolestani have referred to her as both male and female. This misgendering of trans people by members of the legal profession is commonplace – but that doesn’t make it right.

For all the new administration’s promises to make improvements in the way non- gender conforming people are treated, it seems that the necessary attitudinal change is a long time coming to Idaho.

————

(Cross-posted at Bird of Paradox)

Further to my post earlier this week (Convicted rapist wants state to fund transitioning – link here), I’ve just been reading an update on the canada.com website (link here). The usual caveats about cissexist misgendering by the media apply.

Paying for a sex change assessment for a convicted rapist living in a maximum-security psychiatric facility is not the responsibility of the Ministry of the Attorney General, an Ontario judge ruled Friday.

The Ontario Review Board, the agency that oversees individuals found not criminally responsible, does not have the authority to order the ministry to pay $15,000 for Shauna Taylor to be assessed for his candidacy for a sex change, the court found.

Still Taylor, who legally changed his name from Vance Egglestone, will undergo an assessment and the review board will likely pay through funds provided by the Ministry of Health, said Taylor’s lawyer Michael Davies.

“There is a bit of a shell game going on between the different departments of the government,” said Davies.

[...]

In 2007, lawyers for Attorney General Chris Bentley went to court arguing the review board exceeded its jurisdiction when it ordered Taylor, 53, to be assessed, and directed the attorney general to pay for it.

The case was settled last August when an Ontario Superior court quashed both orders, ruling the board acted outside its authority.

Only weeks later, the review board appointed an expert to offer his opinion on whether surgical intervention or sex reassignment surgery is necessary or advisable for Taylor’s health and welfare.

This time, the attorney general wasn’t contesting the assessment order, only who should pay for it, said Davies.

“The attorney general said the board should pay and the board said the attorney general should pay,” he said, noting up until now the question of who should pay for review board-ordered medical assessments has been “up in the air.”

[...]

In addition, the Toronto Sun (link here) carries an interview with one of the rape survivors:

“When I first saw the (Toronto Sun) news article it almost sent me over the edge,” said the woman, who goes by the name of Tina because her identity was banned from publication in court.

“At this point I would volunteer to do the surgery myself and it would not cost the taxpayers a dime.”

[...]

In last week’s Sun story, Taylor apologized to his victims, saying “I’m so sorry for what I have done.”

But Tina said the apology brought her little comfort.

[...]

Tina said while officials are spending thousands in court costs to argue over how her rapist’s request for an assessment should be funded, no one has shown concern for the victims.

“This psychopath was only out a few months when he attacked me,” said Tina. “It was a conditional release. What were the conditions–’call us if you feel the urge to rape?’ … and what was I when they released him — their f—ing test subject?”

————

(Cross-posted at bird of paradox)

I’ve just read an article in the Toronto Sun which raises some difficult and emotive questions.

Should a convicted rapist who’s serving a sentence at “an institution for the criminally insane” expect to benefit from the same civil and legal rights afforded to others? Human rights should be available to all, shouldn’t they? Even those who have been found guilty of crimes which may, in their execution and outcome, have restricted or denied the human rights of others?

What if that same convicted rapist was then diagnosed with gender identity disorder, and asked the state to pay the financial costs of transitioning? That is the crux of the report in the Toronto Sun (link here).

I’ve talked elsewhere about the trans-misogyny of including details of trans peoples’ gender presentation, and about the cissexism inherent in revealing pre-transition details as if one’s post-transition life only achieves any validity in the context of what went before. And I’ve also talked about that problematic phrase “a woman trapped in a man’s body”.

The article itself is predictably and unhelpfully couched in the usual histrionic manner and loaded words favoured by the mass media, but having been unable to find any other perspectives on it, I’m assuming it’s at least fundamentally accurate:

Rapist wants us to pay for sex change

An inmate of an institution for the criminally insane who insists she is a “female trapped inside a male’s body” is begging for a $15,000 assessment that would qualify her for a government-funded sex change.

“I’m going to fight this to the finish,” Shauna Taylor, 52, said outside court yesterday, as three guards from the Oakridge division of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre stood by.

Wearing a skirt and high-heeled shoes, Taylor — formerly named Vance Egglestone until she got a legal name change — began transitioning into a female in 2000, with extensive hormone therapy, nose surgery and $15,000 worth of permanent hair removal.

But now she wants an orchidectomy — the surgical removal of her testes — and she wants the province to pay.

In 1976, Egglestone was found not criminally responsible by reason of insanity of the brutal rape of a woman. Since then most of her time has been spent at Oakridge.

Eggleston was released for a brief stint in 1985 and was again charged with aggravated sexual assault, forcible confinement and choking of another female. He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of sexual assault and was re-incarcerated.

“I don’t like talking about my past — I’m ashamed of it,” Taylor said. “I am terribly, terribly sorry for what I have done.”

She blames her gender identity disorder for her criminal behaviour and believes that having the orchidectomy to complete her transition into womanhood will go a long way in her treatment.

“I was a female trapped inside a male’s body,” she said. “I started acting out in ways that I thought a male was supposed to act … my head was in a spin back then.”

But before she can qualify for the surgery under OHIP, she must go through a battery of rigorous testing to determine whether or not surgical intervention is necessary for Taylor’s health and welfare.

That assessment would cost $15,000 and lawyers for the Attorney General and the Ontario Review Board, the independent provincial agency that oversees people found not criminally responsible, argued in court over who should foot the bill for the assessment.

Justice Clair Marchand will give a decision next week.

Thoughts?

ETA: At the moment I’m thinking about this from the human rights pov. I think it’s fair to say that gender dissonance is a condition which causes deep distress and anguish – so shouldn’t Ms Taylor have the right to access appropriate treatments for that? Otoh, she has inflicted sexual violence on two women and in the process denied them their human rights. But Ms Taylor is serving a lengthy custodial sentence for the crimes of which she has been convicted, thereby curtailing her rights to such things as freedom of movement – so is that sufficient mitigation in itself? Do two wrongs make a right? And is the logical outcome of following a strategy of an eye for an eye, a society which is unable to see?

————

(Cross-posted at bird of paradox)