New women's pharmacy in Vancouver...excludes trans women.

I do but I won't.

How are they supposed to tell?

Well Rosa L, I will dive in with this example from Vancouver, which is related:

Do former men have a right to be rape counsellors?

That's true, RosaL, and I apologize for that remark.  I agree that it probably doesn't set a very welcoming tone for questions and discussion.

You're right about that - thx Caissa. A few commenters there mentioned the Kimberly Nixon case that I linked to up above and most agreed with the decision. There was mixed feelings on this particular case.

In this case though, how would they even know if someone is a trannie or a "born" woman (aren't women born as girls)? Wouldn't cross-dressers make it in anyways? On the other side of the coin, one would assume that a lot of the services that women would want a woman-only space for (thinking of my personal feelings here) would be for emergency contraception, discussions of various birth control . These are things that a transexual woman would not need.  I am assuming that "born women" who had F to M sex changes are also excluded.

Quote:

A transgendered woman is physically different than a non trans gendered woman (even if on the surface the body is physically the same it does not operate the same as a non trans gendered person's body).  If she is looking for information about her body, questions about her body and information on how medication would effect her body going to a women specific clinic that specialize in how that happens within women's bodies might not be the place to go.

And an older woman's body is different from a younger woman's body and a poor woman's different from a rich woman's. I think that you will find that at the root of all anti-trans arguments is a baseless assumption.

Feminism has historically been plagued with racism, classism and every other form of oppressive tendency that is cultivated in our colonial society (as are all social movements). This is just the latest chapter.

Hello Tehanu! (waves back)

Good points; I also disagree with excluding trans women.  But I also disagree with excluding men.

If the trouble with the other local pharmacies is that they were "hostile" places, surely many vulnerable people - women, men, transpeople - would benefit from a pharmacy that incorporates more caring values, looking after the whole person rather than just dispensing pills.

And hey; what if I dropped off my script for Tamiflu, and my case of swine flu subsequently took a turn for the worse - would my husband be prevented from picking up my script?

Just don't see the need for a gender-specific pharmacy.

And how would they know all their customers are "women born as women?"  Proof of double X chromosomal status, like the Olympics?

FWIW, I agree with what seems to be Sineed's implicit point that the discussion around the right (or lack thereof) of women to exclude transsexuals (or transverstites or women-identified men) is really akin to those about excluding men, the one about women's right to define their space. I also agree with RosaL's point that in both cases, objections raised should not be reduced to accusations of defective psychology, e.g. -phobia.

It was my impression that there would be questions directed to counsellors and medical personel in regards to medications affecting the body, questions about how someones body works specifically and general information about womens bodies that someone who specializes in womens bodies wouldn't be able to offer to someone who is transgendered because their bodies would react differently to medication (just as womens bodies react differently to mens, and likely women who are transgendered react differently to men as well), questions about the mechanics of their body (and the mechanics of a women who is transgendered is different) and general questions about women's bodies (which again would be different). 

When you  are talking about women who are of varied age or socioeconomic status you are talking about factors which effect the way a womans body works but if you are talking about a transgendered women you are not talking about factors which effect you are talking about a women that has a body that is different.  That doesn't make them more or less of a woman but it does make their bodies different.

Any services that are denyed outside of these services I think would be stupid and like I said, I believe that they should fight to get someone in there who can answer any questions that fall within the different mechanics of their bodies or questions they may have about their bodies so that they could still be served at the clinic but the reality is that the people at the clinic providing the services just may not have the answers to the questions right now. 

The reality is that if there are 2000 people who go to the clinic they have somewhere between 20 and 30 women attending that would be transgendered and would require specialized services for certain areas which is more than enough to bring in someone who specializes in any ways in which a women who is transgendered may need different answers.

Women who are transgendered are women first and foremost and deserve all services as a women recieves.  But just as a women who has had to suffer the horrors of genital mutilation (and I am sure that some women who are transgendered would likely say that having to grow up in a mans body is a horror) would need specialized services for some areas, some questions and some concerns but by no means all areas of their life because their bodies are physically different from other womens bodies.  Their questions about sexuality, urination issues etc would need different answers than someone who was able to escape genital mutilation.

I think by ignoring the differences people actually do these women a disservice because when people bring up the issues they don't have ready answers like well you need to have someone in your clinic who can service me if you can't answer my questions and you need to include this book, this book and this book so that your library can service my needs as well.  They deserve to be treated at the clinic just like every other women is treated at the clinic, their needs are different and this needs to be admitted to and addressed and any areas where their needs are the same as any other womens than it shouldn't be an issue.

They could have avoided all this silliness if they'd opened a pharmacy specializing in women's care, but not excluding anybody; kinda like the methadone-dispensing pharmacy where I used to work, that had a small number of customers who were not on methadone.

Speaking of gender-specific healthcare, men on the average have a life span that is five years shorter than women.  So it could be argued that it isn't women who need specialized care.

I have no idea what the process was behind opening this clinic, but I'm currently doing work with a client that provides community health care services to very specific communities and they are embarking on an expansion of their clinic into a specific area of health care needs. They've mandated the consultants to gather information in the community, including medical professionals, community workers, and the potential clients/patients themselves. We call it a needs assessment and any/all future funding will demand that there is a need for this service, via a thorough and well-done needs assessment process.

So. Assuming that this happened and the need for a separate service for women was established to a critical enough point to satisfy criteria of the Ministry of Health in BC, which is a safe assumption, I wlll now assume that neither questions were asked about including trans clients, nor were trans women or trans men asked about the creation of this clinic, and were thus excluded.

Such an exclusion is about transphobia.

If there was a deliberate non-inclusion of trans clients, for any number of reasons, this too is transphobia, and a pretty vile kind might I add.

[A note about terminology transphobia and homophobia. I hate these terms, as they are inaccurate and indicate a psychological state/evaluation when really these terms are used as the equivalents to "sexism" or "classism" or "ableism". Using them as in "You're being transphobic" is not to say "You are experiencing an irrational fear of transpeople" but rather "You're being offensive and exclusionary and hateful towards transpeople."]

Vancouver feminist organizations sadly do not have tons of credibility when it comes to trans issues. I understand that the situation of Kimberly Nixon v.VRR as far more complex than I once thought it to be, but nonetheless, assumptions were made about trans women, assumptions that remain intact. The most pervasive is the lie that there is this entity called "A Real Woman" and that trans women are not, and will never be, and can never be, "A Real Woman."

I've had my own struggles, personally and politically, with issues of transphobia and trans inclusion. It's a very challenging politic to understand on an intellectual level. So I do have compassion and understanding for those who see that it's just fine to include only "women-born women". I first heard that phrasing from the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, and there was a fierce debate at that time about their trans-exclusionary policies. I think this was back in the early 1990s? But I moved past it, and since trans folks' lives and health hang in the balance, it's a pretty vital piece that feminists, and others, need to get a handle on, PDQ.

Those are my Sunday morning thoughts.

P.S. HI TEHANU!!!!

Uh, yeah.  Except transwomen aren't "guys".  And feminists who are opposed to transphobic policies like this don't have a problem with female-only spaces otherwise.  So, nice try, Martin.  Your attempt to smear feminists who oppose transphobia by linking them with men's rights activists doesn't hold up.  And it's pretty offensive, too, if you ask me.

Women don't need separate pharmacies. Some women, in some locations, in some situations, may need a safe place for certain purposes - and that must be identified and provided. But should all women have a right to go live in women's shelters - irrespective of need? How about women-only apartment buildings; schools; hospitals; shopping malls?

No way, martin. We "ultra-liberals" believe in equality, in an end to all subordination and harassment and oppression and objectification, in being allies of women when they stand up and emancipate themselves. Segregation? Never.

Sorry, martin, it won't wash. Where needs of safety, security, privacy, etc. exist - they should be accommodated. But not this stuff. Otherwise we are treated to this shameful spectacle of trying to define who is a "born woman" and who is to be excluded for being trans. How deeply offensive. Women's hospitals? Schools? Sure, for the wealthy and the religious who like to treat women like commodities. They really provide a fine example of "protecting" women.

"Women" is not a universal category. "Women" encompasses a huge range of people.

As stated upthread, and sticking with the topic of women's health concerns and a woman-only pharmacy (an idea I support, by the way, not sure if that's clear) the health needs of: older women, women with specific health concerns, young mothers, young women in general, women who have health issues that have not been addressed in their lives for myriad reasons, pre- and post-menopausal women, poor women who may not have had access to quality and respectful health care, and more, are vastly different from each other.

This huge range of what it would mean to serve women's "pharmaceutical needs" is something I understand as very broad and wide. The inclusion of trans women or trans men (who were, in fact, born women) is not a stretch, for me, to include. Their percentage in the population is quite small, statistically, and the implication of inclusion is in fact huge, as Boze said.

And for the record, I need to state my general and overall dissatisfaction with the medical model, the psychiatric model, and the over-use of drugs and medication to "fix" what ails women (and men). 

There surely is not such a problem.

Just out of interest.

Why aren't transvestites allowed? Aren't they women born into male bodies?
Why should they be excluded? Why does the operation make such a difference?

I'm not really sure of the intention of the pharmacy.

Is it meant to specialize in women's needs such that there are specialists, and supplies that aren't often available in regular pharmacies? Or is it meant to create a safe haven where women don't have to worry about men? Does this mean that a man won't be able to come into the pharmacy to buy aspirin? Would it be alright if a man came into the pharmacy to pick up a prescription for his wife because she is too ill to come down? Or would he have to wait at the side door, for the pharmacist to deliver the medication to him? All in all, it's quite a curious concept.

Perhaps the only exception they will make is to allow men in late at night to mop the floors and empty the wastebaskets.
Now, that's progress!

Thanks, Le T.

I think it's important to recall that the Women's College Hospital was established in 1883 "to offer medically trained women the opportunity to practice medicine at a time when their access to the profession was limited" - that is, as an "affirmative action" project at a time when medical faculties in Toronto were refusing to admit women. (Source).

In 1961, the WCH started admitting male staff members where qualified women weren't available (source).

As for its services, it seems quite clear that they are not exclusive to women:

Source for the above quotes.

WCH pays principal attention to women's health needs and research, many of which are quite obviously fundamentally different from those of men. But it doesn't draw a sex (or gender) line through its staff or clients. That way, it doesn't need to decide whether to treat trans women as outsiders.

Isn't it significant that when women's organizations such as The Women's Health Collective and Women Against Violence Against Women exercise a right that is recognized by law and by jurisprudence, naysayers move to guilting and to defamation tactics to try and deprive them of that right? Only in the "progressive" community...? No they are joining in the public forum the men's rightists who also deny women's right to "non-inclusive" choices and space of their own.

I understand your point but I disagree. The association is real, both empirically and by the fact that this is about denyng women the right to only serve women in a patriarchal system.

OTOH, calling the WHC and WAVAW "transphobic" seems more of a smear to me, although I detest name-calling arguments.

This is what doesn't make sense to me: what is a woman except someone with a female body? What is a man except someone with a male body? I don't see how you can answer this without getting into stuff like, "women are more emotional and bad at math" or "women like to wear nail polish and high heels". I have asked myself if I'm a woman with a female body and the question makes no sense to me. I have a female body. That makes me a woman, I think, whatever my interests or lifestyle (and I am far from stereotypically "feminine"!) Any other answer seems to me to be dangerous to me as a woman.

If this is a really stupid question or offends people, I really am sorry. But I hope people will understand that it's an honest question and please provide some answers, without insulting me. I'll happily change my mind if someone can give me a good answer. 

Trans women are women Martin. You have now stated i think three times that you refuse to accept this. Check your head bro, you are transphobic and the way that you (as a man who enjoyes non-trans privilege I might add) define women stems from the patriarchal system that you spend so much time identifying in others' words and actions. MEN DO NOT IDENTIFY AS TRANS TO PENETRATE WOMENS' SPACES - there is not a sexist conspiracy going on. If you knew anything about what it is like to be trans in a patriarchal society that places extreme importance on an arbitrary gender binary you would know this.

LOLZ. "Some of my best friends are __________".

I am so glad you can have a little bit of fun with a difficult issue.

But you well illustrate my point about the inappropriateness of a personal, pop-psychological reading such as labeling individuals "transphobic."

But martin, you seem to love getting inside people's heads and speculating on their motives.

Why the cold feet, suddenly?  Don't care to support bigotry?  Wish it could be renamed something less... ugly?

Thanks very much, Maysie.  I'm going to think about this before I post again (about this) and if you have any links, I'd like to read them. 

Transgender issues is an area about which I know little, and haven't had much exposure.  I'm guessing there's not a huge amount of either learned or lived experience on the board here, so I hope people could keep their minds open.

Two weeks ago I was supposed to do a training with a  guy named Hershel Russell, who's supposed to be very good with this sort of thing, and I regret it was postponed 'til Oct. due to lack of interest on the part of my colleages.  This is disappointing.

Thanks Maysie, I had not heard the term cis-gendered before and appreciate knowing, also for the excellent link.

I wish we had more acceptance of diversity, I wish our society was open enough to accept trans-gendered people.  I suspect there are many who live their lives without ever being able to acknowledge that they are trans-gendered because of fear of discrimination.

As to pharmacies, I don't frequent them and will withhold my comments regarding them.

IE won't open this page for me for some reason.  Tried on two computers. Could someone supply the gist of the post?

RosaL wrote: I have been uncomfortable with the societal gender role I have been supposed to perform based on my body for as long as I can remember

Ditto. I know very few people, men or women, myself included, who have always experienced such comfort.

OTOH, I know an extraordinary number of people who have "at some point not conformed to gender norms", which seems to be a widely accepted criterion of who can call hirself transgender, a label used to "pursue anti-discrimination legislation."

It is not for me to pass judgment on what people do with their body - indeed, this may be a non-issue as many transgenders demur from sex reassignment surgery -, but it is hard not to interpret an expression that casts such a wide net as scuttling the possibility of women-only spaces.

These are complex issues, calling for community-building and difficult decisions, and everyone loses out when we treat people with either name-calling or blanket assertions about their alleged lack of awareness and/or education.

RosaL, thank you for the questions you asked above and your honesty. I don't want to offend and am grappling with this issue as well.

What if one does not agree with "societal gender norms" as they are constructed? (These are different in various societies as well and aren't really defined on that blog.)

I don't and I definitely don't conform to them. I think a lot of forces within society do try and get people to conform to unrealistic and sexist gender roles. Is physically changing one's body through surgery and hormones to conform to these roles the best option? Do counsellors in this field advise clients that a man or woman does not have to conform?

ETA: I also resent the notion that one is a particular gender "between their ears". Misogynists have been using the whole male brain/female brain thing to discout women's abilities for freaking centuries. It is a myth.

Xtra:

Link includes video report.

Hmmm... Is it really that simple? For instance, what role is "the oppressive society" playing here? I doubt you mean that it is giving plenty of airtime to a public attack on a feminist organization attempting to provide an essential service to DTES women, possibly the most disadvantaged and dispossessed in Canada... 

I think we can recognize that oppressed groups may not and should not always be marshalled into "unity" over and above their principles, that feminist agency and principles such as freedom of association are entitled to resist pressure tactics, even couched in sweet talk about "opening one's heart".

The freedom of association argument doesn't stand up to ethical scrutiny, since it seems little more than an excuse to discriminate against trans women--a group of women who are, in the Downtown Eastside, certainly among the most marginalized women in Canada. "Freedom of association" is a right that has historically been abused to allow businesses and other organizations to discriminate against Blacks, gays, First Nations people, etc. In this sense, excluding trans women from a women's only pharmacy is a betrayal of the deepest principles of feminism.

Jesus, Martin, do you realize how contemptuously you're dismissing the needs, suffering, and marginalization of trans women?  When you wrote that "the very category (I'm assuming the category you're referring to is "woman") being replaced by post-mo doodlings in gender posturing, to phrase it less than diplomatically," did you realize that you were dismissing the entire phenomenon of transexualism and the impact it has on the lives of those who experience it? If this doesn't qualify as "transphobic", I don't know what does.

Okay, maybe I misread you. For the sake of clarity: Do you believe that transexualism is a patriarchal plot to infringe on women's rights? Furthermore, do you believe that trans women are women, or do you believe that they are men, or do you believe that they're neither men nor women?

Okay, so maybe you could clarify what you meant when you compared transexualism to "post-mo doodlings in gender posturing" and when, in the context of discussing transgender issues, you wrote that "Acknowledging it's a war may well be a necessary first step. Then we can identify its extent, agents, ideology, methods... Women's spaces and resources have been under attack - and successfully too - in a lot of places." I'm having a hard time reconciling these statements with the answers you gave in your reply to my questions. It certainly seems like you're dismissing transexualism and that you're describing it as part of an orchestrated attack on women's rights. Frankly, it seems that you're saying 2 + 2, and then denying that you said 4.

As for your question: I call someone a trans woman if that person identifies as a trans woman, the same way I call anyone gay who identifies as gay, and anyone First Nations who identifies as First Nations. In an intensely patriarchal culture such as our own, and given the horrific social costs that come from self-identification as a trans woman, I'm not terribly worried about a transgendered fifth column. 

I was romantically involved with a trans woman some time ago, Martin, and I've seen what our society does to trans women. The "rhetoric" that you're employing is part of a cultural narrative that has devastating consequences for such women.

So what were you referring to when you used the phrase "post-mo doodlings in gender posturing"?

And I hope you were being sarcastic about self-identification. Bernie Farber does NOT self-identify as gay: he wore a t-shirt as part of a homophobic joke. Or are you suggesting that there are a statistically significant number of people who inaccurately self-identify as gay?  Do you believe that there is some sort of social advantage that a person could obtain by misrepresenting herself as a trans woman, or that a person could obtain by misrepresenting himself as a gay man? 

Finally, it's been a bone of contention among many First Nations people that self-identification as being a First Nations person is NOT the criteria used to determine who is a First Nations person.  The history of the Indian Act is one of artificially deflating the number of "status Indians" by refusing to consider self-identification as being in any way legitimate.

I think, Boze, RosaL is talking about her own gender identity issues (read her paragraph that you didn't quote), and she has posted in the past about her own and other autistic persons' struggle with societal expectations about gender. You may not like her views, but I think they deserve respect.

I am surprised that people seem ready to disbelieve a priori the Women's Health Collective's explanation that they don't feel they have the capacity or the competence to serve transgenders.

The following comment from a Montreal feminist professional, specializing in women's health issues, seems to validate that concern:

""Women born and staying as women" have correctly blasted the use of HT (or HRT) for menopause, etc., but I've yet to see anyone asking about the real risks to trans folks re THEIR really heavy use of hormones: the "individual choice to take risks" is the likely response, but health may be being really messed up and there are no data on which to evaluate just what the risks may, or may not, be."

This is not to knock transgenders in any way, but to explain that - according to my contact's expertise - they apparently need highly specialized counseling and follow-up when it comes to drug therapy, something a regular pharmacist may well feel or be unable to provide. Is not taking this constraint into account really serving their interests?

And they — transwomen — don't know this? And need a pharmacy to deny them service because they can't make their own decisions regarding health care?

And yes, honestly, I do have a hard time believing that the "real" reason is because they cannot serve transwomen adequately and cannot trust transwomen themselves to understand this.

Me, I think it's got more to do with the penis, or remnants of one.

xtra.ca coverage.

The comments are interesting reading.

yes snert and it is an argument that martin repeated over in the Xtra thread on the issue.

Do you see the problem here, Martin? By your logic, it's simply impossible for trans women to be recognized as women.  Given that trans women self-identify as women...that the whole phenomenon of being a trans woman includes a need to be recognized as a woman...what you're doing is treating trans women either as a kind of third sex or--what is more likely, given your "post-mo doodlings in gender posturing" comment--as imposters.  So, no, you do not see trans women as women: the prefix "trans" seems, for you, to mean "fake".  This alone is evidence of transphobia, but then you take it one step further to argue, in effect, that any attempt that trans women might make to be included in services for women must be interpreted as a patriarchal attack on those services. You are generalizing from the experience of the women's centres on Montreal's anglo campuses to reject the ethical claims made by trans women on any and all women's services.  

Now, regarding your "cockfight" reference: again, I once had a lover who was a trans woman, and this experience sensitized me to the profound oppression that trans women experience in our society.  When I see blatant displays of transphobia on babble, I'm going to say something about it, in the same way that you, Mr. Dufrense, will likely respond to blatant displays of misogyny on babble, even if those displays are in the feminist forum.

They're not acknowledging any limit.  There's no reason they can't fill a trans woman's hormone prescription.  99% of a trans woman's pharmaceutical needs could be met by that pharmacy.  It's about transphobia.  It's about exclusion.  "All women...except these ones."  It doesn't matter if they think they're being transphobic or cissexist or not.  Cisgendered people do not get to decide what constitutes transphobia or cissexism.  The choice is very simple, accept trans people fully and do not exclude them or be labelled transphobic.  They have chosen the latter and that's their choice to make and yes they deserve to be dragged through the mud for it.

Lots of people didn't fully and unequivocally support same sex marriage and didn't think they deserved to be called homophobic for it.  "I have nothing against gay people" isn't enough.  Straight people don't get to decide what's homophobic.

When I was taking women studies about 8 years ago, I was taught that trans people are a 3rd, 4th or even 5th gender. Gender dichotomy is a false dichotomy and many cultures throughout history have recognized more than two genders. So, I don't think it is transphobic to recognize more than two genders, it is trans-positive.

Here is a question: Would this pregnant "man" be allowed into Lu's? Is he to be considered a third gender, a woman or a man just because he self-identifies as such? If he is to be considered 100% man, that means that men can get pregnant and men now have a right o abortion and a right to speak on this issue with authority.

I met a women who is trans gendered.  She did not think of herself as a 3rd gender, she thought of herself as a women, so I think in her case it would be transphobic to call her a third gender.  I did see an interview with man who was transgendered and he believed himself to be a third gender that was not either male or female but did appear more male than femal in day to day life so he identified as a male for society.  It would not be transphobic to identify him as a third gender.

edited to add: To me saying that gender dichotomy is a false dichotomy would be like telling a feminist they can't identify as a woman feminist because there really is no such thing as male or female.  We are not talking the ultimate level here, we are talking on a conventional level where people are identified and identify themselves as male or female for various roles including feminist.  We have to allow people to identify as male and female if that is the role that they choose to take on for part of their identity so that they can live in a conventional reality.

Terri Webb, a male to female transsexual who had sex reassignment surgery and an activist for 10 years, came to the conclusion that every  transsexual he has met is misguided and wanted to be other than they are so badly that they convinced themselves that they actually are other than what they were born.  Terri had these same feelings from the age of six so we are not talking about someone who came to a belated conclusion that they were really female. Terri had the surgery at the age of 40 so we are not talking about someone who made a hasty decision that they later regreted.  As an activist for many years I don't think it can be claimed that Terri is ignorant of the issues either.  Terri describes her activism as an attempt to get others to legitimize her fantasy. 

Do I have to agree with Terri because she has personal experience as a trans-gendered individual?  Am I "transphobic" if I don't agree with her?

http://www.womensspace.org/phpBB2/2007/08/21/criticism-of-gender-theory-...
(concerning Dr. Bailey)
"In his book, he argued that some people born male who want to cross genders are driven primarily by an erotic fascination with themselves as women. This idea runs counter to the belief, held by many men who decide to live as women, that they are the victims of a biological mistake — in essence, women trapped in men’s bodies. …

Other scientists praised the book as a compelling explanation of the science. The Lambda Literary Foundation, an organization that promotes gay, bisexual and transgender literature, nominated the book for an award. (*later rescinded)"

"Dr. Dreger is the latest to arrive at the battlefront. She is a longtime advocate for people born with ambiguous sexuality and has been strongly critical of sex researchers in the past. She said she had presumed that Dr. Bailey was guilty and, after meeting him through a mutual friend, had decided to investigate for herself.

But in her just-completed account, due to be published next year in The Archives of Sexual Behavior, the field’s premier journal, she concluded that the accusations against the psychologist were essentially groundless. "

He was attacked through having his views compared to Nazi propaganda and had his children's pictures, with sexually explicit captions, posted on an internet site. 

"He said that friends and family supported him but that some colleagues were afraid to speak up in his defense."

The actions of Andrea James and Lynn Conway are indefensible. Disagreeing with someone's viewpoint does no make it okay to persecute them and try to destroy their lives and even attack their children, not even to Lynn and Andrea despite their disgusting behavior.  The same type of attitude is beginning to appear typical of radical transgendered people and their supporters. There is an attempt to manipulate language and paint anyone who disagrees with them as transphobic. Anyone who disagrees is "attacking" them and "hurting them" and making places "emotionally unsafe" for them therefore we must accept their definition of "woman". Any woman who dares disagree is expressing privilege no different than patriarchal privilege so is now behaving like a man.  There is no room to express disagreement.  No man has any right to try to intimidate me into silence no matter how convinced he is that he should have been born with female body parts.

What we are all dancing around is the question: are people born with female body parts the same as people born with male body parts who think they should have been born with female body parts.  My answer is no, we are not the same.  Women only spaces were not created based on who gender identifies as a woman they were created for people born with female body parts.  Trying to redefine the term "woman" doesn't change that. Calling people who don't agree with you transphobic doesn't change that.  It's just an attempt at bullying and playing with words to get your way in order to force women to redefine ourselves to include people born with male body parts. If I don't agree that "woman" is based on gender-identity not physical body parts then I'm going to be framed as transphobic or privileged.  That's bullying.

Throughout history women have been discriminated against based on the body parts we were born with, not our gender-identity.  What we have in common is being born with female body parts.  Women are born with female body parts not created through cosmetic surgery and hormones.  Female body parts = female, male body parts = male.  Being born with both means being intersexed. It is the gender roles forced on us due to the body parts we are born with that are wrong.  Gender identifying as a woman doesn't make someone female it just means they wish they were. It is just as much my right to express that point of view as it is the right of transgendered persons to disagree. My viewpoint does not make me "transphobic" anymore than the viewpoint of transgendered make them women-haters although I do wonder.

Thanks for  posts,  Infosaturated and Lee Lakeman. Infosaturated excellent link much much to think about there.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/jmichaelbailey/transsexual_smokescreen...

Even more there

While I don't want to get into the throes of the debate over here, I would definitely caution about using J. Michael Bailey as a source on transsexuals. Regardless of how we might feel about some of the techniques used to attack him, his book The Man Who Would Be Queen is not "science," regardless of the subtitle ("The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism"); it was not peer reviewed and Bailey himself intended it to be popular (and controversial), not academic. In fact, a lot of it is personal anecdotes.

The book was also considered deeply offensive by a wide swathe of trans people, gay men and allies. Offensive up to and including the cover. The "science" around transsexuality that he includes in it is largely based on Ray Blanchard's theories, which are very much questioned by both other psychologists, and by trans people themselves.

For people who are not familiar with Blanchard, he is at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, in their Gender Identity Clinic, diagnosing "gender identity dysphoria." For many years, this clinic acted as the gatekeeper for transsexuals who wanted to access gender reassignment surgery; without a recommendation from the Clarke, as it was then, transsexuals did not qualify for OHIP funding. Then Mike Harris came along and cut the funding anyway. (The GID program was so notorious it was known as "Jurassic Clarke"). OHIP funding has only just been restored, and the trans community is understandably concerned that CAMH is again being set up to gatekeep, although it seems the much more trans-positive Sherbourne Health Clinic is also being involved.

Anyway, Blanchard's research methods have been criticized as being fundamentally flawed. He based his work on transsexuality primarily on studying a relatively small sample of clients who entered his program, who had a vested interest in telling him what he wanted to hear, because he ALSO had the power to determine if they would qualify for surgery.

Feminists should be especially concerned about Blanchard's work, because he categorized trans women as likely to be successful if they conformed to the most egregious of gender stereotypes (submissive, very feminine, interested in traditionally female work and/or being a housewife. Seriously.)

He also is the main proponant of the term "autogynephilia" -- he classifies trans women into "homosexual transsexuals" (who transition early and are attracted to men; he doesn't think of trans women as women) or "autogynephiles" (who transition late and have an erotic fascination imagining themselves as women, and are attracted to women). If you're a trans woman attracted to women, you're not a lesbian, you have a "paraphilia." In other words, in this approach, trans people do not have identities, they are mentally ill. This is the approach of Blanchard, and Bailey is trying to popularize it. Anyone who does not fit into one of those two categories is, according to Blanchard likely lying. Lying! And he found his clients did fit into those categories. But think about it, he had immense power over his clients/research subjects, because he was not only studying them, he was approving their treatment. So if anyone was motivated to lie ... Even if you do not consider his research highly questionable in terms of ethics, you've got to concede it might produce some not very accurate results.

Needless to say, many, many trans women say they are not at all reflected in this dualistic (and, to most, offensive) model. Plenty of other gender researchers pay no attention to it. And yes, Blanchard has been extensively published, but almost completely in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour. Coincidentally, I'm sure, he's also on the editorial board. As is Michael Bailey. It was in that journal that the defence of Bailey written by Alice Dreger was published. You've got to at least wonder about conflict of interest. Kenneth Zucker is the editor; he, along with Blanchard, is involved in writing the gender identity section of the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and who believes in enforcing "appropriate" gender actvities on female-acting boys, in order to "cure" them of their gender identity disorder. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? I'm sure "ex-gay" people think this is just ducky.

Anyway, quite the cozy group.

Yes, I have read Blanchard's articles in the original, and a lot of Bailey's book. As a feminist, one of the many disturbing things I find about both authors is a deep, strong undercurrent of misogyny. Anything female is, at some level, either frivolous, undesirable or contemptible. And they both are very, very much invested in reinforcing traditional gender roles. (Bailey also has some odd stuff in his book; he comes across as really sexually objectifying trans women, including having one of them on naked display for his classes.) I also find it interesting that Blanchard, and, especially, Bailey, have virtually no interest in trans men. They're invisible.

To put things in context, here are some other ... interesting ... things that Michael Bailey tells us:

- Female-acting (he says "effeminate") boys are likely to grow up to be gay men

- Gay men are generally not attracted to feminine men, lesbians are usually not attracted to masculine women

- Men either are either attracted to men, or to women, not both, most women are bisexual in sexual response

- Apparently he also said that at some point we may be able to screen for gay gene(s) so parents can choose whether or not to raise a gay child; according to his website he is still looking for a gay gene.

___________

There are a LOT of links and discussion about Bailey's book. Some are more measured than others. It's quite the interesting example of academic research ethics/academic freedom/academic integrity debate. Here is Lynn Conway's detailed review of the book as well as her investigation/attack on Bailey, versus Alice Dreger's article. Personally I'm not crazy about how the controversy was handled, because in my mind that took away from the very legitimate critiques of the actual book. But I can sure understand why people were upset by it.

Why feminists should be concerned with the impending revision of the DSM (regarding Blanchard & Zucker)

National Public Radio: Two Families Grapple with Sons' Gender Preferences (Zucker's treatment methods)

_________

Regarding the rest of this thread, I really don't want to get into a whole bunch of other stuff that's been said, because I've already posted extensively about this issue on enMasse. But I will say that there is also a long, sad history of hostility between some feminists and some trans activists. Personally, I find it dismaying there are so many stereotypes and assumptions out there about trans people, and trans people's realities, in spite of what trans people themselves tell us. As a feminist, if someone tried to contradict me about what my own personal experiences and reality were ... well, I wouldn't be all that polite in my reaction.

We are also still in very early days of research. Blanchard and Bailey represent the type of writing and research that not only transsexuals, but also all feminists, should be very wary about.

Infosaturated wrote, " I believe that "woman" means the same thing it has always meant.  People born with female body parts."

But this isn't exactly correct, is it? Many cultures acknowledge a gray zone between the sexes, and allow for certain people to switch from one gender to another. The "two spirit" phenomenon in many Indigenous cultures comes immediately to mind as an example of this culturally sanctioned gray zone. I know that Wikipedia is generally a poor reference, but in this case it's produced a rather nice precis on this matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender

The article I linked to talks about the cross-cultural phenomenon of the "third gender", but this "third gender" does not seem to prevent people born as men from being identified as women. The "third" in this instance appears to be a recognition of the inadequacy of gender dualism to encompass all cases: the third isn't so much another category as it is a sanctioned transcendence of available categories, a transcendence that acknowledges the provisional nature of those categories. 

It's this possibility of gender transcendence that Lu's Pharmacy's policy appears to deny--as demonstrated not only by their refusal to serve women born as men, but also their willingness, according to Jamie Lee Hamilton in an interview for the Georgia Straight, to serve men born as women.

The process of gender transcendence isn't without social cost--just ask the Hijras in India--but it exists and has existed for quite some time throughout the world. There have certainly been more options for people than the four mutually exclusive categories you seem to suggest...male, female, intersex, and people with paraphilias.

Given that your entire argument rests upon your a priori assertion that women have always been defined by the body parts they were born with, you may want to be a little more restrained in your accusations of "manipulation, semantics and deceit rather than reasoned argument."

How wonderful to see that after polluting a thread at another board, and getting a trans member to self-ban, Infosaturated has decided to come over here and make THIS board unsafe for trans people as well!  THAT'S JUST PEACHY!

The patriarchy sees and treats trans women as women.  Nobody cares if you do or not.  Nobody cares about your reservations or objections or prejudices.  KEEP THEM TO YOURSELF. NOBODY GIVES A SHIT.  Repeat: cisgendered people DO NOT get to define transphobia and yes, you are exhibiting it.  "I'm not transphobic, but...." And now you are referencing J Michael Bailey??!?! Really???

Circular argument.  No, the members of any particular group do not get to determine eligibility for that group.  Across the board.

Most Trans people reading this thread are probably going to feel that this is not a trans-positive space and that's a fucking problem.