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."
