Cops on busted hooker: She was a he
By George P. Hassett
Vice cops investigating a prostitution operation at a School Street home got a surprise Tuesday, Aug. 26.
The suspect, who advertised her sexual services as a female named Giselle, was actually a 38-year-old man dressed as a woman, according to police.
“The implication was this was a female. But it was actually a male who had the outward physical appearance of a female,” said Police Captain Paul Upton.
Vice unit cops found an advertisement offering sex for cash in Somerville and called the number listed in the ad, police said. Detective James Hyde, posing as a potential customer, spoke with “Giselle” who quoted him a price of $200 for an hour of sexual services and led him to 251 School St., police said. “Giselle” who was, in fact, Walther Veravardas, greeted Hyde at the door and led him to a room detectives said was specifically furnished for the sex trade, police said. Hyde paid Veravardas $200 and received specific instructions from the cross dressing prostitute, police said. But before the transaction could be completed, Hyde notified an arrest team that put Veravardas in cuffs.
Detectives allegedly found 268 condoms in the room and took pictures of the used condoms they found in the trash. Veravardas was arrested and charged with sexual conduct for a fee.

I just wanted to drop a note to encourage you to please consider revising this story. It seems disrespectful to me that you would choose to disregard this person's gender identity presumably because she was working as a prostitute. If you were reporting about a transgendered doctor or taxi driver, I assume that you would respect the person's presenting gender. This woman should not be treated differently because of the fact that she has been charged with a crime.
From the GLAAD media guide to dealing respectfully with gender presentation:
If it is not possible to ask the person which pronoun he or she prefers, use the pronoun that is consistent with the person's appearance and gender expression. For example, if the person wears a dress and uses the name "Susan," feminine pronouns are appropriate.
http://www.glaad.org/media/guide/transfocus.php
Posted by: Erika Shira | September 01, 2008 at 08:37 PM
I wish we could focus more on the thugs mugging people on the bike path.
Posted by: The Patriot | September 02, 2008 at 01:49 AM
Hold on, Erika.
What you are saying, if some male pervert wants to follow you [I'm assuming you are a female) into a ladies room all he has to do is wear a dress and wear a name tag with "Susan" printed on it; plus any other "gender expression" that would "sell you" as he being a woman.
If a person has a penis, he is a male by any description. A male wearing a dress does'nt trump that anatomical fact. If a female is attacked in the ladies room by a male presenting himself as woman the female will quickly find out that person's true gender.
Use of a pronoun doesn't change a thing when a person is up to no good...and has in fact, broken the law as the subject arrested prostitute is (allegedly) being charged with.
If convicted and sent to jail, where do you think that person will be serving the sentence handed down....a men's or women's prison?
If a person has a vagina, that person is a female by any description. A male wearing a dress doesn't trump that anatomical fact.
Posted by: Y-NOT!!? | September 02, 2008 at 09:23 AM
Y-NOT, you might want to do a little research. There is case law indicating that people do have a right to have their gender identity respected in prison. There have been a few notable transgender individuals who had features published about winning the battle to be assigned to a prison that was consistent with their current gender. Not all transgender individuals in prison systems have had such luck though. Transgender individuals who are on hormone therapy have generally been provided with their prescriptions while incarcerated.
In Boston, Cambridge, and Northampton, there are clear laws on the books stating that no person may be denied access based on his or her gender identity or presentation. Restrooms, single-sex gyms, etc., are specifically mentioned as places that can't discriminate against someone for being transgendered. Massachusetts sex discrimination laws have also been successfully applied in cases of people who have been denied the right to use single-sex facilities because the owner was basing it on birth sex rather than current gender.
It seems that your comments are driven by fear of some "pervert" assaulting you. I'd urge you to look up statistics regarding stranger rape. It's very rare in general, and it's even rarer that it's perpetuated by transgender individuals. And regardless, there isn't anything keeping any person out of any restroom. If someone wants to walk into any restroom and assault someone, they don't need clothing, or an ID, or anything. They can just walk right in. But they generally don't. I've used many restrooms with varying gendered signage on them, and I've never had anyone walk in and try to assault anyone. Most people who enter restrooms are doing so because they have to pee. Transgender people have the right to pee just like you do.
Posted by: Erika Shira | September 02, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Let me get this clear. Cops are routinely arresting consenting adults who agree on having sex for a fee while at the same time they do nothing to enforce our immigration laws? It's about time to end stupid puritanism. If a person wants to sell his/her body for money, that is nobody else's business. Why are we wasting resources on this? My bet is that cops get a hard on by investigating these cases. And probably something else...
Posted by: Somerville n00b | September 02, 2008 at 10:29 AM
With The Patriot on this one. Busting prostitues, trans or otherwise, doesn't make Somerville safer, especially if they practice safe sex.
Posted by: cosmo.catalano | September 02, 2008 at 10:44 AM
So Erika, let me guess this straight, if I'm in Boston/Cambridge/Northhampton and I decide to get all lumped up, throw on a tutu and hit the ladies room then I'm ok? Even if I decide to indiscriminately whip the monster out and proceeed to relieve myself. I can "hang" in the ladies room and chat up a storm with the best looking muffs that walk in and you're ok with this? I can't get busted? And you're ok with this?
This, my friends, is why we need to stop the prgressives from getting any more power. They're out of control.
She was a he... it's disgusting.
Editor's Comment (JN): not for nothing, but sometimes the news is just news - if we have to start being politically correct about reporting a news story, then I think someone needs to poke their head out of the rabbit hole. it boggles my mind that the person complaining about the political "un"correctness of the story itself wrote more words about this complete foolishness than the story itself had. grow up, people - please.
Posted by: Imux | September 02, 2008 at 03:55 PM
Erika:
Not to get into a "peeing contest" (no pun intended} with you over semantics.
You obviously have a much deeper and broader appreciation of the subject than I do. I suspect you are more personally involved than I.
I have to respect your points.
I attempted to take you up on your suggestion "to do a little research" via googling the definition of "transgender" on the internet. Too many twists, turns, and spins on the subject that I care to (or could) intelligently address or expound upon.
But for my thinking, excluding a person desiring to be legitimately viewed as a gender not by birth, my concern is a person dressing as an opposite gender for a reason/purpose to escape detection viz: an escaped prisoner; or as a disguise in committing a felony as in robbing a bank, which has been known to be done.
Certainly a male person dressing as a woman to gain the confidence of an unsuspecting victim, particularly a child; cannot be labeled as "transgender."
In your original post asking that the media and/or police address the alleged prostitute as "she"...you're are assuming the alleged prostitute is "transgender" and not just dressed as a woman and calling himself/herself "Giselle" as an enticement for "business" purposes.
I don't believe we know that "transgender" is the proper label/term describing the alleged prostitute at this point in time.
When out and about, shopping, etc., we don't know if the arrested alleged prostitute dressed/dresses as a woman or a man.
Curious if the subject person is dressed as a man or woman while in jail, or when in a court-room before a judge.
"Cross-dresser" may apply; "transgender" and entitled to be referred to as "she", as you asked, may not apply.
Otherwise dressing as a woman for THIS person, strictly [$$$$$] business.
Posted by: Y-NOT!!? | September 02, 2008 at 04:35 PM
I say throw this pervert "Giselle" in the slammer and let Bubba and the boy's have at HIM but then again HE might like it !
HIS DNA proves that HE was born a MALE and will ALWAYS be one regardless of if HE wears a dress or even has HIS penis removed !!
That will be the day I address HIM as a HER.
Posted by: 2MUCH | September 03, 2008 at 06:42 AM
While I certainly respect the rights of transgendered individuals to represent themselves in society as they wish, I do think this article is actually reasonably sensitive in describing this individual's situation. Captain Upton's statement certainly seems factually inclined instead of judgmental.
I have to disagree with not focusing on prostitution as a crime, though. I'd be horrified if I suspected that another unit in my building was being used as a brothel. Heck, I'd be upset if I thought my neighbor's house was. Prostitution is also frequently co-resident with the drug trade and other illicit activities. I'm glad our police officers are making arrests in this area. I do wish that they would focus on the men and women who solicit prostitutes, though, instead of just on the prostitute. It seems like both parties are committing crimes and should be punished equally.
Posted by: SomervilleReader | September 03, 2008 at 08:52 AM
I'm with Erika. I don't think any malice was intended, but trans folk deserve to be called by their preferred gender.
This could be someone who was "just crossdressing" rather than a 24/7 trans person, but we have no evidence of that. So I think it's reasonable to assume the person prefers to go by.
If you think that's "political correctness," maybe you should get out more yourself and get to know a few transpeople.
Posted by: Zach Alexander | September 03, 2008 at 08:18 PM
It disappointing than anyone would be advocating the rape of an individual, male, female or trans and then go on to talk about how they would likely enjoy it.
We have to wait for our posts to be moderated each day, interrupting the flow of discussion.
I thought the purpose of this was to remove purely inflammatory or offensive comments....
Posted by: Warders | September 04, 2008 at 09:48 AM
I love Camberville. The only thing crazier than the residents are the criminals. Someone call the PC police. Erika, I respect your comments and the rights of individuals, but you are over the top on this matter. Only in Camberville do you see such blogging. GLAAD is an Equal rights orginization exspressing their opinion on the matter, not an organization with any authority or that creates definition of a matter. I thought the article was handled properly.
Posted by: I love it | September 04, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Erika is realy Eric. She/He is obviously damp in the head. Any chick with an Adams apple has issues. END OF STORY.
Posted by: Imux | September 04, 2008 at 04:52 PM
Sooo pathetic.. the web-site IMUX usually copy-pasts from must not have any hate speech around LGBT people?
Posted by: Warders | September 04, 2008 at 11:15 PM
While everyone here is beating the News over pc-madness, the Journal publishes a story calling the defendant a tranny. Is that respectful?
Posted by: The Journal sucks it | September 05, 2008 at 03:43 PM
Erika is right.
Posted by: Somervillen00b | September 05, 2008 at 10:25 PM
To "The Journal Sucks It"
What else would you like the Journal to call HIM?
How about a whacko?
Posted by: 2MUCH | September 08, 2008 at 11:32 AM
This is such a joke. You guys are right out of your mind. It is like the "guy on Oprah", he was a man who had a baby. It was a woman, had female plumbing, so it was never the first man who had a baby, because a man can not have a baby. Same thing here it was a man not a woman. Get a grip you PCtuchetts people.
Posted by: George | September 08, 2008 at 02:09 PM
"A SHIM IS A SHIM NO MATTER IF IT'S A HER OR A HIM " KEEP THE TRASH OUT OF SOMERVILLE.
Posted by: BORN AND RAISED IN SOMERVILLE NEVER SAW THIS KIND OF TRASH | September 16, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Jimmy went out for legs and eggs and only sausage was on the menu. Forget he/she just call IT. Is School Street in Prince Carl's district?
Posted by: Bonjour | September 17, 2008 at 10:31 AM