Skip to content

Comments for Thursday am (16. July 2009) [Trigger Warning]

January 31, 2010

[Trigger Warning: Violence against trans women, LGBT people]

NB: As I’m in the process of shifting blogging formats/locations, I’m also reposting some writings that were housed at my previous blog.


Originally posted 16 July 2009


As of this writing, the trial of Dwight DeLee has gone to the jury for deliberations.


Laura Vogel of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund (TDLEF) has been posting thorough summaries of the testimony. At the moment, I’m not inclined to discuss much other than pointing folks to the summaries, which describe in graphic and uncomfortable detail the events of November 14. Here are links to TDLEF‘s summaries for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

Here are a couple of observations for future consideration:

In both the defense and the prosecution’s closing statements, attorneys referred to Star using a male name (presumably her birth and/or legal name) followed by her name. All attorneys used female pronouns in reference to her.

The defense attorney stated that on the evening of November 14, Lateisha Green [referred to using her birth name] was wearing nothing “that says this is a person a different sexual orientation.”

Chief Assistant DA Doran reminded the jury that the hate crimes statute is written to include crimes based both on actual and perceived sexual orientation: “It’s not about whether [Lateisha Green] was gay (we know he [sic] was).”

I need to let a certain amount of time pass before I write anything substantial, but I do want to make the observation that there is no reason why attorneys could not simultaneously respect Lateisha Green’s identity while simultaneously seeking a hate crimes conviction on the basis of perceived sexual orientation. The lack of nuance on the part of those who ridiculed Mark Cannon, Teish, and Star is neither inconsistent with the application of a hate crimes enhancement, nor is it justification to disrespect Lateisha Green’s identity.

My perception is that the attorneys’ decisions to refer to Lateisha Green as if she were a gay man is either strategic or related to their interpretation of their duties as professionals. I find the whole situation infuriating, and at some point may make more pointed comments about the judge and attorneys, and a legal system imbued with cissexual privilege. I want to challenge that privilege and those who perpetuate it, but I also am convinced that all parties involved were acting in a highly professional manner, and in a very respectful manner (within the context of that privilege).

Also, I want to voice my annoyance at seeing the local media refer to Lateisha Green as a transgender person or transgender individual. These statements are true, but it offends me to see media outlets avoid referring to her as a woman, either through ignorance or otherwise.
Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: