id see my post above. VWHC doesnt actually seem all that squicked about simply “difference” in this case. Someone like me: big, fat, hairy, balding, non woman-identified, someone every person pretty much without fail takes to be a man, can walk into Lu’s and get service. Now, to be honest, im quite sure, as Caryn told me, there would be “complications” with dealing with someone who looks like me and has the kind of body i have. The point is they are willing to bridge those particular differences because i can prove i started out with a vagina. Thats just a racket, pure and simple.

And i by no means advocate, or even remotely support, the idea i’ve heard offered up several times of trans men accessing this space, as some kind of test of Lu’s “inclusion”. Ew. Just ew.

i know im late to this thread, but thought i’d clarify one thing b/c it’s come up a few times. i’ve posted this elsewhere, sorry for the repeat.

i spoke directly with Caryn Duncan (Executive Director at Lu’s) on Friday July 17th. She was very clear with me on the phone that Lu’s would serve both transsexual & transgendered men who “pass” as men in the world. MEN. To be specific, i asked her clearly if Lu’s serves & would serve Female to Male transsexual & transgendered men, and whether it was dependent on whether or not someone “passes” as male, using myself as an example. She said “yes [they] would serve FTMs. That is included in the body of work”. She went on to say “it could be awkward, it causes complications” [the passing & potentially different body of said FTM], “but we would want to have a conversation about about how we could help that person or where we could direct them if there were things we weren’t sure about. But if an FTM came in to deal with god forbid cervical cancer for example, we would want to help them figure out what can be done.”

“It amazes me that feminists who sympathize with this line of thought still don’t get it. MTF – F are not ‘men’ and this is the issue. You don’t want to place value on someone’s phenomenal experiences. This is a dangerous line of thought particularly for a feminist. I’m quite certain that by the time you’ve read this post you will have dismissed me as a “tool” or a poor, deluded woman who has embraced her own oppression but all I see when I read a post like this is someone who can’t understand a simple state of reality such as being born phenomenolgically female in a world where a great deal of our phenomenology is socialization plus our own internal emotional states. Maybe someday we will live in a world where we don’t socialize our children with regard to gendering or anything else but until that day comes we should embrace the reality of trans-identified people and be welcoming of those who might get behind the cause of eliminating oppression of females. Oppression itself has to do with socialization. We wouldn’t BE feminists of any ilk if it weren’t for socialization. It is the social fabric of society that puts women in positions of disadvantage that we are in. Our biology is important only in the way it is socially construed.

This is equally true for men, trans-persons, homosexuals, etc. Biology and socialization are endlessly influential factors that shape who we are and it is only by opening up new avenues of socialization that we can hope to reach a place where we can do away with oppression of all kinds. This does not get accomplished by denying the very real phenomology of others. That turns us into hypocrites of the worst kind. When a trans person says to me “I am female” or “I am male”, I don’t question their reports. I believe that what they have to say is a result of certain facts about biology and their experiences. Continuing to refer to them with the wrong pronouns and/or calling them the wrong gender in the hopes of forcing someone into the mold of oppressor that is comfortable for us is the worst kind of hypocrisy.

I’m very certain that either this post will be moderated out of existence or that I will be accused of being misguided, deluded, etc. OR that I’m a trans-person trying to promote my cause. The truth is that I was born with ‘female’ genitalia and received a full complement of ‘female’ socialization. Hopefully this is enough to satisfy those here who might question my credentials and that in itself is terribly sad. I consider myself to be an extremely radical feminist and I’ve earned my scars, however, I recognize that the oppression suffered by trans-people, particularly MTF-F trans-persons, is equal to or worse than any I’ve ever been subjected to. I’ve witnessed it first-hand. They cannot receive proper medical care, civil rights, or any of the other things that we think we are entitled to.

Apparently many radical feminists now believe it is their job to oppress MTF-F trans-persons out of existence. This makes them no better than those who throw rocks at women in Saudi Arabia or those who murder homosexuals because of blind, irrational hatred. We wanted equality with men? Well, we have it on at least these axes: Equal hatred, equal bigotry, and equal attempts to oppress someone else in an attempt to further our own ends. I always felt that feminism had lost its edge, had become to willing to accept the crumbs handed to them by the male establishment and now I see that in addition to this we’ve acquired all the worst characteristics of our oppressors. Where will this get us? If history contributes anything to predicting the future, it will help us climb one more rung up the ladder. Congratulations to us. We will have achieved more of our goals in the same way that men have been doing to us for millenia; on the backs of the oppressed.

Those of you who have such vitrolic hatred for MTF-F trans-persons, have you ever considered why you have such hatred? Is it because we recognize our own oppression at a much earlier stage and we are unwilling to take up for those who are clearly accepted by none and who would affect our own social currency, whatever that might be? Or is it truly because you believe that someone who claims to be ‘female’ who was born with a set of genitalia that we normally associate with one gender doesn’t match your ideas of what gender they should be is somehow detrimental to the feminist cause? This sounds like a failing on our part. A failure to recognize that our world is becoming a place where characteristics traditionally used to pigeonhole people is quickly becoming obsolete. A failure to realize that we now live in a world where genitalia cannot be used to ‘understand’ people as one thing or another. A failure to do what feminism has traditionally done, which is reinterpret identity and fight for those who don’t fit the mold of what we believe they should be. A failure to see that trans-people including the gender-queer people, are those who will upset the binary definitions that have always been in place. If we embrace such people we will be one step close to realizing a genderless world or at least a world where sex is meaningless as a measure of potential. The radical feminists are holding up the progress on this regard because of claims about gender essentialism. Trans-people are just like everyone else, when gender walls begin to come down, manners of dress, speech, etc. will change. It is our job as feminists to help bring this about. To teach our kids that outside appearance means nothing; that genitalia, haircut, or dress are not measures of potential. It is up to us to offer avenues to this. I’m quite certain that the further success we have in deteriorating the power gender has over all of us, the more the world of all females will change, including trans-persons. To those rad-feminists who think they decide what it means to be ‘female’ or a ‘feminist’, you have become bitter and deluded by your bitterness: you don’t own feminism or the word ‘female’. There was a time when ownership of ‘female’ would have been repugnant to you, but you’ve become greedy and just like those who oppress us. Until the day comes when you give up your need for control over other people’s lived experience, for power, I’m afraid I don’t understand or trust your ‘feminism’. It seems a lot like oppression to me.”

http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/protest-of-lu-pharmacy/#comment-12080

If you want that argument in its most hateful, undiluted form, much as I hate to give them any attention, but since some well meaning people seem not to know what’s going around out there in the name of feminism, sometimes: (it was hyperlinked to this post already):

http://aroomofourown SPACE wordpress.com/2009/07/10/another-round-of-what-about-the-menzzzzzzzzzzz-20-000000000000/

Perhaps the question should be when men are building new resources what do they gain by excluding men who want their delusions indulged? Of course men are not going to give a fuck about women, evident by how the very men who are now parading around as women don’t care one bit that their indulged delusions are draining resources from female at birth women. That is what is status quo, men expecting women to serve them before they serve other women.

It is a patriarchy. Men are in power. Men control most of the resources in North America. Men murder for resources. Men murder when resources are denied them. Men start wars to dominate resources.

What feminist worth her salt would elect to take the already minuscule crumbs wrestled from the arms of men and spend it on other men?

It seems that MTF-Fs have not learned yet, that women were not born to service them. Instead of demanding that the thousands and thousands of pharmacies across North America accommodate them (which they all do serve men already), the MTF-Fs focus their hostile attacks on the first women’s only pharmacy. Entitlement and privilege know no bounds.

QED.

What I mean is that I don’t think the law makes a difference between a cis-only space (as it is here) and a trans-only space; just as it doesn’t between a men-only or women-only (both are “discriminating” according to gender), or betweem a white-only or a people of color-only space (“discrimination” based on race).

The difference is that in one case it’s a dominant-only group and not in the second, but since I don’t think it’s taken into account by law, I am worried that banning e.g. a cis-only space could lead to problems for trans-only spaces.

Now I may be wrong and I’m certainly not supporting this pharmacy – while there are a few cases where I might acknowledge that cis women-only space are not completely illegitimate, this is definitely not the case here.

(Which doesn’t mean that I think the two are equivalent; but even if I think it’s important to protest against that, I’m not sure law can be our ally)

I am sceptical that anything can be done which wouldn’t also harm the legality of having, e.g., trans women-only spaces

Not sure I understand this point. First off, trans-women only spaces? That has never been an issue. It’s been cis women keeping trans women out of women’s space.

The side in the wrong here is VWHC. Framing the pharmacy as being possibly under threat because of the actions of trans activists is the wrong way to be looking at this, and is a common tactic that is used to further transphobic agendas. If the law prevents Lu’s from being an women-only space that is a fault of the law, not of trans women and their allies bringing focus to the pharmacy and their policies.

I mean, politically I know it is different, because there is oppression and all that, but in practice I have also seen reactionnary people attack a lesbian-only festival, accusing it of being discriminatory, so, uh. Besides, in the case of trans people, legally it can be argued that some trans women are *legally* women, but that still makes discrimination between those who can change the ID and those who can’t.

In this case, maybe what could be (legally) attacked is that the pharmacy claims to be for all women and excludes some of them, but if it only says e.g. “faab women”, I am sceptical that anything can be done which wouldn’t also harm the legality of having, e.g., trans women-only spaces :/