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

How are they supposed to tell?

Well Rosa L, I will dive in with [url=http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid23234.asp] this example [/url] from Vancouver, which is related:

Quote:

 

 

Suzanne Jay of Vancouver Rape Relief said she had not read the full appeals court decision but was pleased nonetheless. "The decision of the appeal court is a great victory," she told the Post . "It's confirmed our right to determine our membership."

In August 1995, Nixon was denied the chance to train and serve as a volunteer peer counselor for the nonprofit organization. They rejected her after discovering she had been born a man but in 1990 had undergone sex-reassignment surgery. Nixon filed a human-rights complaint, saying she'd been devastated and humiliated by the decision, and a British Columbia human rights tribunal found that she had been discriminated against, awarding her $7,500 in damages, at the time the highest amount ever awarded in such a case.

The society appealed, and British Columbia supreme court justice Robert Edwards found Nixon had not been discriminated against, setting aside the award. Nixon then appealed the ruling, but a three-member panel of the appeals court ruled that the society was protected in its discrimination by the so-called group-rights section of the code. (Advocate.com)

 

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.

Caissa wrote:

This isuue is being discussed heatedly and respectfully at EnMasse.

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.

Le T wrote:

Refuge wrote:

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.

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.

martin dufresne wrote:

The ultra-liberal diktat in these matters is Unionist's implicit prohibition of any "segregation" in health care (What is the use of rhetoric if one can't let rip now and then, eh?), damn any substantive difference in needs. And yet, people born women and people born men do have different, specific needs.

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). 

Boze wrote:

Is there really a problem of men claiming trans identity to infiltrate women-only spaces? Like, does this ever happen, anywhere?

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.

Refuge wrote:

I went to the Women's College Hospital in Toronto before the amalgamation (haven't been there since it bacame independent again) but I am not wealthy, I am not religious and didn't feel or see anything past the normal chapel to go pray in and I did not feel like a commodity, in fact just the opposite, I felt very supported as a person and a woman.

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. ([url=http://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/about/history.html][color=red]Source...).

In 1961, the WCH started admitting male staff members where qualified women weren't available ([url=http://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/about/history3.html][color=red]sourc...).

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

Quote:

Physicians, staff and other health professionals in the WCH Mental Health Program treat, support and care for [b]women and men[/b] who suffer from depression and other mental illnesses every day.

Quote:

“I’m thrilled to announce that WCH will house our very own Wellspring Centre,” said Kathy Lennox, former Vice President of Community and Ambulatory Care at WCH and a Wellspring Board Member.  “Wellspring is about helping people live with cancer. Its services – such as peer support, much-needed information and supportive programming – are available to [b]women and men[/b] with cancer and those who care for them.”

Quote:

Women’s College Hospital Foundation launched its newchapter program this fall. Co-chaired by WCHF board members Gillian Riley and Ryan Wiley, the newchapter program gives [b]women and men[/b] – professionals, entrepreneurs and those from all walks of life – an opportunity to make a meaningful difference in their community through networking and philanthropy.

[url=http://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/about/news.html][color=red]Source for the above quotes.[/color][/url]

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.

KeyStone wrote:

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?

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. 

Quote:

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.

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?

Maysie wrote:

RosaL, thank you for your post. I'm going to try to answer it as best as I can....

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.