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

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
Kaspar Hauser

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:

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."

Maysie Maysie's picture

Closing, and continued here.

Refuge Refuge's picture

Infosaturated wrote:
My point is not to claim that Bailey's or Blanchard interpretations are correct, merely to illustrate that differences of opinion exist even within the trans community itself. Some trans people agree with them.

Interesting that you say that your point isn't that their interpretations are correct yet go onto write that trans women are wrong to say that they are women with full entitlement because, well, you are right (based on your agreement with their interpertation).

Infosaturated wrote:
Therefore, it is not unreasonable for some women to disagree with the philosophy that trans women are just another kind of woman.  People do get to define themselves and if someone says they are a black even if they are lily white and have no evidence of any black ancestry I won't contradict them.  But if they claim the right to impose their presence at all black gatherings I would oppose that.  I would say that the people who until now have been defined as "black" are the people who get to define what it means not the people who identify as black but have no apparent black ancestry nor natural skin colour indicative of being black.  Yes I know some black people can "pass" as white but they do have black ancestry.

Likewise, women get to decide what constitutes being a woman not people who self-identify as women.  No I do not agree that trans women are "as much woman" as I am.  I don't believe that there is some "feminine essence" that makes me or anyone else a woman. I believe that "woman" means the same thing it has always meant.  People born with female body parts.  I am certainly not going to contradict people who self-identify as women and say that they don't self-identify as women that doesn't mean that I have to agree that they actually are women or be labeled "transphobic".

Infosaturated wrote:
I really really hate it when people try to get their way through manipulation, semantics and deceit rather than reasoned argument.

Yea, me too. 


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???

Likewise, women get to decide what constitutes being a woman not people who self-identify as women.

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.


Topic locked