"We are a feminist organization focused on women and women’s health. For over 30 years, we have advocated that women must control their own bodies and make decisions about their own health care. Therefore, we feel that it is essential that a woman be born a woman and have the physiology of a woman and the psychological experiences of living as a girl and a woman in order to embrace the work of the Vancouver Women’s Health Collective. For us, membership and services are open to women who were born women."

Really? Feministing feels good about the clinic's transphobia?

Why am I not surprised that the original post failed to address this...

Well, for someone who "wouldn't and won't" defend an exclusionary policy, you just did.

but not all medical care trans women need is trans specific and in any way different from what cis women would need. they could certainly still see trans women for all the things they could treat them for.

Yeah, I really want to be rejected from a women's clinic and be redirected to a trans specific health clinic AND BREAK ALL FUCKING SEMBLANCE OF STEALTH!!!

Awesome!
Joe Schmoe from work happens to be driving past this 'heath center for trans people' and sees me walking out of it.
Next thing I know, there are rumours flying around work that I'm trans and people start treating me like a second class citizen, a curiousity or (this is the best one) some kind of MONSTER who needs to be avoided AT ALL COSTS.
Watch as I'm banned from the female toilets because it 'makes people uncomfortable' and am forced to use the male toilets where I'm subject to ridicule and abuse.

THAT IS TOTALLY ACE!!!

OK, so the women's pharmacy says that their plan is to refer trans women to the Trans HEalth Program. However, the Trans Health Program doesn't include a pharmacy. So, denying access to a safer environment is going to be very helpful for trans women living in the DTES who are looking to fill their prescriptions for hormones!

Oh yes. And may I please have a clinic that serves Jewish Women only, because that would make me feel more comfortable? And make certain we don't allow anyone how has had problems with addiction and who can prove they are not sex workers.

And I'd prefer if all who are fortunate enough to pass this criteria also provide an M.R.I. proving all their lady parts are bona fide. You understand. Don't you? It's for my comfort. You understand.

Except that you're missing the point entirely. The point of trans-specific and women-specific (that's all women, not just cis women) spaces is safety and protection from discrimination. When trans women actively discriminate on an institutional level against cis women, then sure, maybe we should think about protected spaces for cis women. But that's a crazy scenario that is completely divorced from reality! The reality is that trans women are already othered, discriminated against, and shat on all the time by institutions and individuals, without being actively discriminated against by organizations that are supposed to be pro-woman. There is an imbalance of power here that is being used to oppress already marginalized people. This is not a marginalized group staking out a safe space for themselves; this is a privileged group withholding important services from a marginalized group.

As I said abouve:
Except for the fact that tranwomen will be OUTING THEMSELVES by using a trans specific clinic.

I can only imagine the kinds of crazies, fundies and tranny chasers that would hang outside a trans clinic...
Fun times!

And thanks many thanks to you for responding to this so quickly!

Er, this was supposed to be a reply to francesm.

Therefore they should be included, or at the very friggin least the pharmacy should be honst about it and re-name it "Cis-Women's Pharmacy."

But that would infringe on their cis privilege, wouldn't it. Thanks for saying this out loud. Also about the oppose of trans woman being cis woman. We're all women.

Let's make it even clearer: A Pharmacy for Women Born Female Bodied. Because for those of us born with male bodies but under-virilized brains, were we really born men?

I'm not sure that more than 1% of the world even knows what "cis" means...even on this blog it has to be constantly defined.

Or, to be more clear...

Lu's: A Pharmacy Run by People Who Are Bigoted Against Trans Women.

That gets to the point.

i think about some of the trans-women sex trade workers i have met. how sad that they, some of the most vulnerable women in this community, would be banned from Lu's on 2 counts. double whammy.

i also think about the claim that there are trans services. sure there are, if you're willing to walk for 40 minutes from the downtown eastside to get there. oh, wait. once you're there, take a number and wait (for a few weeks) because there's only have one doctor to see trans people 2 wednesdays a month. they are crumbling under demand and don't have the budget to increase supply.

trans-health program has primary health services and support groups. I applaud the people who visioned and created this (now sorely underfunded) service. It does NOT have a pharmacy dispensary. Caryn Duncan is trying to pull the wool over our eyes on this one.

I do. See a problem with it, I mean. But then, I'm from East Van. I think the disconnect most people may be having here on the subject of discrimination against sex trade workers and addicts is that they don't know how widespread both those things are in Vancouver, and they don't know the depths of the detrimental effects that anti-sex-trade-worker policies and anti-addict policies have had, especially in the DTES, where heroin addiction is an epidemic that's led to us having the highest HIV infection rate in North America (one that's on par with most third-world countries). Denying treatment to drug addicts and sex trade workers means denying the reality of this - but most people here probably aren't aware of that reality to begin with.

I'm not sure how you can set aside the politics of this, but I don't see how medical issues being dissimilar is even the issue here, either. Shouldn't a WOMEN'S health centre at least try to provide services that encompass the needs of ALL WOMEN?

Additionally, there's info on the website for issues pertaining to womens' mental health - surely trans women need treatment for depression sometimes, too?

The only reason for discrimination here is transphobia.

Nope. Two separate sets of statements by the people who will be running the clinic (including VWHC's executive director, Caryn Duncan) have been made. One revealed that they will be providing service to cis-gendered women only, and a second set of statements indicated that they felt that the clinic was necessary to provide treatment for women who were neither sex-workers nor addicts.

Classy mission, huh? Equal-opportunity bigots.

There is a large community of sex trade workers in the Downtown East Side, and some of them are trans women. I'm not sure what the ratio is, exactly, but since the clinic's policies are both anti-trans women and anti-sex worker... umyeah. Folks for whom there is intersectionality get double-shafted, as per usual.

Here's where my conflict lies on the whole VRRWS issue: I recognize the trans phobia that exists in their policy. The policy is that women are the best resource when dealing with VAW because women can use their lived experience in the world to relate to the abuse/violence (and since we live in a patriarchy, we have ALL experienced it at one point or another regardless of whether we are conscious of it or not). They say that women need to be born women to have this experience. I get that that's trans phobic. My conflict comes in knowing this, but still knowing that they do REALLY good work. They help out so many women! Women in serious crises, and I can't imagine stopping all donations, and cutting off all support to VRRWS -- because what about those women for whom the Shelter is their life line? And there are many. OK, full disclosure: I use to volunteer there. It was years ago, and I didn't learn about Kimberley Nixon until going through their training (they educate their volunteers about it). But, having been on the inside, I know the amazing work they do, and the amazing dedication that they have, and so...and so. That's my conflict.

I've mulled over the Kimberley Nixon case so many times, and I guess my resolve lies in not completely pulling support from VRR, but knowing that they could use some education themselves. They're still running the centre on a misguided 70's version of Feminism. The original founder (Lee Lakeman) still runs the show, and I think they could stand to learn how the movement has evolved. I would love to hear thoughts about this...it's not totally off topic! If anyone could provide a link to the case, y'all could see that.

"Everyone here seems perfectly fine with excluding men to make women comfortable, but not with excluding trans-women to make cis-women comfortable?! It’s an arbitrary, offensive, bullshit distinction!"

No, it's not. If you don't get that, that's not our problem, either, by the way, and none of us are obligated to educate you! But being as I'm in a charitable mood: the "arbitrary, offensive, bullshit distinction" here is one of POWER and PRIVILEGE.

It goes like this: men have more power and privilege than women. Cis women have more power and privilege than trans women. Ergo, men have traditionally been able to discriminate against women with impunity, and cis women have been able to do the same to trans women. Neither is okay!

However, due to the fact that most spaces are male-centric by default, or cis-women-centric by default, many women feel that it is necessary to have (all-)women-specific spaces, for our own protection and safety. Just like it's necessary for trans women to have trans-focused spaces for their own protection and safety.

This isn't discrimination against the poor, poor, marginalized menz. It's for the safety of women. Please to be getting over yourself.

The reason why it's not cool that there is a womens' centre that discriminated against trans women is the same reason why it would not be cool for a clinic purporting to serve all people said in their policy, "oh, and by all people, we mean just men". Their very name implies that they should serve all women, but they don't, they only serve PRIVILEGED women. Which is typical of so many institutions that it boggles the mind.

Sure, it'd be NICE if pharmacy employees were all well-trained and sensitive, trans-friendly feminists/womanists. But they're NOT. And it's not fair to say that we can't provide safe spaces for ourselves while we wait for a magical day of no sexism or transphobia to come around.

Men have the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD as a safe space for them. Women have what we CREATE FOR OURSELVES as safe spaces for us. If you can't deal with that, don't call yourself an ally, because you aren't one.

I agree that in principle, segregated spaces are not an ideal solution.

Unfortunately, so many of society's institutions (including medical) automatically focus on men by default that encouraging equality has often proven ineffective. Thus, many people feel that in order to provide safe spaces in the present and work towards equality in the future, women-only spaces are necessary to balance the scales.

While I agree that this is not necessarily the best solution, I can at least see what it is trying to do. the goal (ie: providing a space in which men do not have power over women) does work in the direction of equality.

The transphobia, on the other hand, works in the opposite direction (ie: providing a space in which cis women disregard, exclude, and refuse to associate with trans women only exacerbates existing bigotry and inequality no matter how you look at it)

I do believe that the transphobia is a more immediate concern partially because there is something to be said for women-only spaces (given the misogyny and sexism in much of society) and more so because there are plenty of other places where men can go without feeling othered or degraded when receiving medical care. For transsexuals, this is often not the case.

Furthermore, the emphasis on "women born women" has repercussions beyond just this clinic. It perpetuates the idea, to anyone that hears about it, that trans women are not "real" women, that our life experiences are not valid, that we are, in short, icky people that nobody would ever want to be around.

As far as I can tell it doesn't spread nearly the same message about men, and even the small amount of "men are icky" that it does spread will fall on much less receptive ears, whereas the transphobia is much more likely to make many people think "oh, well if even DOCTORS are saying that it's OK to exclude/degrade/hate trans women..." THAT is why the transphobia is by far the more pressing issue.

That said, I entirely agree with you about men and women having greatly overlapping medical needs, and frankly find the website's focus on reproductive health as "women's health" to be somewhat sexist in itself (ie: defining women primarily by their reproductive capacity).

to recap:

The purpose and expected benefits of a women-only clinic seems clear enough, and comes from a desire for greater comfort and equality for the marginalized (at least in principle, maybe not in this specific instance) and the tactic is at best a controversial way of achieving a noble goal (ie: equality!).

The transphobia on the other hand, could not possibly benefit anyone, further marginalizes already highly marginalized people, and has no purpose which any liberal person might accept as valid.

Derail, derail, derail.

This isn't about the validity of women's-only spaces, that is a different conversation. This is about inclusion within women's spaces. To argue this point is to argue trans women are not women.

Your comment is irrelevant in this discussion, unless your intent was to wedge in anti-feminist arguments... ohhh... nevermind...

another very important issue is the medical profession generally discredits women and their symptoms, and many women are rightfully distrustful of doctors and traditional medicine. Modern medicine is "disease oriented" The medical system views the female reproductive process, from menstruation to menopause, as “pathological, disease-like conditions that need to be controlled to prevent them from harming the women in whose bodies they occur (or, in the case of childbirth, the fetuses those women are carrying).” (see research by Ehrenreich).

Additionally, physicians often have negative preconceived notions about women that negatively affect their patients’ medical treatment. According to a 1991 Council Report from the American Medical Association, doctors perceive women as complaining more, and are likely to assume that a woman’s symptoms are “all in her head”. Moreover, doctors do not take women’s symptoms as seriously as men’s. Research also reveals that the communication gap between patient and doctor is at its worst between a male doctor and a female patient.

see: Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, Gender Disparities in Clinical Decision Making, Council Report, 266 No. 4 JAMA 559, 561 (1991); Bess, Carol Jonann, Gender Bias in Health Care: A Life or Death Issue for Women with Coronary Heart Disease, 6 Hastings Women’s L.J. 41, 45-46 (1995).

Not everything is necessarily covered by public health care in Canada. What is covered varies from province to province, but I don't think any cover prescription drugs, so pharmacies are probably interested in that specifically. (Drug prices are substantially lower than in the US, but that's simply price controls.)

Drug coverage isn't universal, in BC you can get benefits from Pharmacare. I have insurance at work, otherwise I'd be spending out of pocket on hormones and other meds I take.

Thanks for clarifying that for me! sorry for the ignorance!

Although most things are free, more can be achieved and benefits can be taken away. Certain things are up to the province. Eyecare and usually dental care aren't covered. In Ontario, the government is trying to start covering the dental care of low-income kids for example.

First, please, as a measure of respect:

trans [SPACE] women

Are you a whitewoman, tallwoman, Americanwoman? No, you're a woman who has descriptors, and those descriptors have a space between them and 'woman.' Otherwise you're creating an "other."

Reading your comment, though, you seem pretty focused on othering trans women, so I'm not surprised.

Re: OBGYN, this is a pharmacy!!! Does your pharmacist also do your pelvic exams, cuz if so, that's probably not terribly ethical.

In fact I would think that many transwomen would feel uncomfortable going to a women's health care clinic just as they would going to a OBGYN's office.

Other than to dodge one's discomfort with trans women, I don't really understand this as a comment about concerns for trans women so much another stab at othering.

And talking with trans women about how this pisses us off? Cis women are talking with me and other trans women right now. I know this might be shocking, but there are trans women whoe are feminists, and who read and comment regularly at Feministing.

Finally, this "clinic for trans women" is NOT a general-use clinic, and not easily accessible. They do not have a pharmacy, and are not a comparable alternative.

well, AS a trans woman - let me say that I DO NOT appreciate being told "You already have a pharmacy, get out of ours! You are not welcome here because this is a place for REAL women so get lost!"

regardless of how good the pharmacy we are "allowed" to go to is, this is insulting and rude, no matter who it is said to.

As per medical issues, see my comment above:.
to repeat:
"If I need pill A and the "Pharmacy for women" down the road sells pill A (and I am a woman!) then I should be able to go and buy pill A at the pharmacy!
If I also need pills B, C, and D which are only provided by specialists, then I will recognize this need and go to a specialist. The fact that I may (or may not) need such specialized medicines doesn't justify refusing to service people who could use the services you provide!"

"Do the transwomen not like going to the clinic that is specified for them?"

For some of us, YES!
While some trans women are quite happy about being 'Out and Proud', a good percentage of us DO NOT WANT people to know that we are trans.
For me, it's a no-brainer:
a) Go to a clinic which risks you being Outed?
b) Go to a clinic which keeps your 'secret' safe?

This is about a pharmacy, not OBGYNs.

I'm not discussing OBGYNs on a thread about a pharmacy, because this is only serving as a wedge to make trans women the other in a discussion where it isn't relevant.

"could a non-transitioned trans woman walk into a OB-GYN and expect to be treated? Would a OB-GYN have anything useful offer them?"

A better question would be, "Assuming that a OB-GYN DID have something useful to offer, which a woman needed and was willing to pay for, is it valid to refuse her service simply for being trans?" Why should it be?

pointing out "hey! those people have/had penises!" is hardly a debate point.

Secondly, to say that ""gender" itself remains a socially negotiated concept." is insulting. I have a gender and I know what it is. if society disagrees, they can go F themselves because it doesn't change my gender one bit.
We might ask ourselves "Can a woman be a good engineer?" and decide that she cannot - after all, isn't one mark of a good engineer the ability to get hired by an engineering firm? As engineers are overwhelmingly male, should we then assume that women obviously lack the capacity? Employers certainly often *treat* women as inferior - does this mean that skill is also "socially negotiated?"
It's the same sort of reasoning to say that I am male because other people treat me as if I am.

As someone raised earlier, could a non-transitioned trans woman walk into a OB-GYN and expect to be treated?

"Would a trans woman go to a FALSE DICHOTOMY? Eh? Eh? WOULD SHE? HA!"

*eyeroll*

It would be very simple if this were a non distinct pharmacy to cater to everyone but it is not, this is a women's health pharmacy so it complicates things. No one can really answer with an exact definition what makes a woman or a man.
The truth is this pharmacy discriminates against trans women who have not gone through the complete transition because they do not carry items for a male biology. And they may be able to discriminate against trans man because he is a man, although he still has his female biology.

Oops. My comment is in response to ohyheavens previous comment.

I know!!! This is about a pharmacy, it's not a difficult thing.

And, even if it was something like spironolactone, it is an anti-androgen! I can't imagine a happier place for it to be than a women's pharmacy.

I always feel like they're afraid if we start coming in the back door eventually we're going to want to come in through the front, and you gotta nip that in the bud.

That is essentially my point.
I'm sure if a trans woman walked into this pharmacy and asked for a specific drug and they did not have it they would do a special order or direct the women to a location where she could find it. But many here are saying that it is wrong that they don't have the specific drugs that trans women need in stock. But if there is not a high demand for the specific prescription then I don't see a problem with them not carrying it and I don't see that as discrimination. Now if the pharmacy won't even let trans women in the door or assist them with getting the drug than that is a problem.

Except that, in general, folks are using pretty similar meds. And trans women on hormone replacement aren't ordering male hormones, they're using the same stuff used to treat menopause. Ditto with things like depression meds, antibiotics, etc.

The biological argument here for a pharmacy is weak, because there are plenty of cis women who have unique medical demands that are rare and hard to obtain meds for, but nobody's talking about turning them out of this pharmacy.

The push over biological differences here is a way to say the pharmacy is not just a woman's only space, but a cis woman only space. The reasoning for turning out trans women is specious at best given the fact that it's not like this pharmacy isn't going to distribute the same basic meds that most people need at some point over the course of their life.

And this pharmacy will assuredly turn the occasional cis woman away for having a medication demand that can't be filled there for being obscure. So why turn away trans women in general?

what is that supposed to imply?

Change of neurotransmitters in the brain (i.e. emotional sensitivity, a.k.a. "crying at kittens")

From my experience, the initial effects of altering your hormones can introduce a certain degree of emotional sensitivity and instability, but that evens out in time. But hey, when a person suddenly alters their body chemistry in a major way, how can that not do a number on your emotions... at least until your body adjusts? I say that as a caffeine junky. :)

Sixteen years have passed since I started my medical transition and I haven't found the hormonal changes I went through to have been much of an aid in being emotionally sensitive. Because of the oppressive attitudes and behaviors I have seen so much of humanity engage in, I constantly struggle to avoid shutting down inside and becoming emotionally hardened. In many ways, I was more emotionally sensitive in my early twenties before I changed my biology.

Anyway, that's my 2¢ on the matter.

OK, we leave this derail and return to your regularly scheduled programming...

crap - that was intended as a reply to Edgy1004

*shame at posting incorrectly*

LOL! Exactly.

Hmmm. That was in response to .

*roles eyes* Apparently, I'm having issues, today. The first comment was in reply to Edgy1004's comment waaaaaay up above.

*roles eyes* Apparently, I'm having issues, today. The first comment was in reply to Edgy1004's comment waaaaaay up above.