It's been 24 years since the Supreme Court decided in Regina v. Morgentaler that governments had no right to interfere with the on-demand provision of reproductive health services, in this particular case, abortion.
Twenty-four years later, abortion is not just the law of the land, but firmly embedded in the political consensus. How embedded? Stephen Woodworth, a backbench Conservative MP introduced motion 312 into the commons in April. The motion would direct the government to select an all-party committee to discuss whether the current Canadian legal standard of whether or not life should begin at birth. The non-binding motion will be lucky to only lose 280 to 30. Stephen Harper and Gordon O'Connor have come out against it. The bill is utterly dead. But it was an excuse for people who are desperate to keep the conversation from moving forward to have yet another sandbox slapfight.
Specifically, a feminist group that calls themselves Radical Handmaids.
The Radical Handmaids are devoted to opposing this action despite the fact that there are more pressing issues, such as the large number of Canadian trans women who don't enjoy on-demand access to the most important reproductive health procedure that they will ever need (Exogenous Endocrine Intervention). It's far more important to Radical Handmaids that they oppose a go-nowhere bill that most Conservatives oppose then actually do the hard activism that requires saving women's lives.
Why? Well, it couldn't happen to have anything to do with the fact that the women being denied rights as we speak were assigned male at birth, could it? That trans women within much of the cis feminist movement are regarded as honourary women at best, our childhoods erased, our bodies essentialised as not female, and assertiveness shamed away, surely has nothing to do with this utterly weak commitment by feminists who claim to fight for a woman's right to choose, but whose actions imply support only for a cis woman's right to choose.
The reason is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Judy Rebick and CARAL, (the former testified in court on behalf of Vancouver Rape Relief's position that they had the right to discriminate against incite against trans women), and much of the Canadian cis feminist movement as one can reasonably refer to en masse, have been as milquetoast on the right of trans women to access transition medicine on demand as one could imagine. Bland statements of support followed by no real action.
If Canadian cis feminists were this weak on fighting for the right to abortion on demand, a warm bath and a pint of gin would still be a leading method of inducing abortion in Canada, instead of the safe and dignified procedures available today.
It is time for cis feminists to say loudly -- instead of the scattered voices of a few allies -- that just as one cannot plausibly be anti-choice on abortion and a feminist, one cannot plausibly be anti-choice on transition medicine and a feminist.
It is time for estrogen (and testosterone) to be as accessible for those who can give informed consent as abortion is in Canada.
And it is time for my fellow feminists to do what they do best in the battle for equal medicine: Provide safe spaces for this to happen, to find conscientious objectors such as Henry Morgentaler and Russel Reid to the current system from within the medical community, and to challenge unjust law and unjust practice until it is, like Canada's restriction of abortion, such a distant memory that people come out to protest someone suggesting there be a debate to roll back these rights, rather than being unable to get a forum in which to demand these rights in the first place.
It is time for a woman's right to choose to apply to all women.
Follow Valerie Keefe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/valeriekeefe
Secondly, as a trans advocate and writer, I do support reproductive justice and freedom. I don't buy the us-first argument that any one social justice movement should take priority over another. We are working toward ending oppression -- not just oppression of our group or selective groups. Please don't characterize your position as representing all trans women in a way that positions us against womens' rights advocates in general. It's a division that is not necessary. We can work toward social justice concurrently.
I've not seen any evidence that The Radical Handmaids (as a group) are specifically opposed to transition or trans health, or that they've even developed a position on that. I would hope that individuals who have -- like Ms. Rebick -- will have reconsidered since 2000, and the Nixon v. VRR legal fight. Not all feminists who describe themselves as "radical" subscribe to the transphobic position of the handful that have co-opted the "RadFem" designation.
Yes, I referred to it as a bill. Forgive this two-time model parliament attendee for such a slip.
"Secondly, as a trans advocate and writer, I do support reproductive justice and freedom. I don't buy the us-first argument that any one social justice movement should take priority over another."
I think it's plain that my view is 'us-at-some-point-in-the-last-quarter-century-since-Regina-v.-Morgentaler-put-the-other-thing-to-bed-for-some-time' and it's disingenuous to assert otherwise.
"Please don't characterize your position as representing all trans women in a way that positions us against womens' rights advocates in general."
I don't know where to begin with this. I'm for a woman's right to choose. Regardless of the woman's birth assignment. Hell, I'm for a person's right to choose. Bowing and scraping, as we saw when it came to the fight for abortion rights, does not work. Confrontation of problem head-on does.
"It's a division that is not necessary. We can work toward social justice concurrently."
As said, I'm waiting.
"I've not seen any evidence that The Radical Handmaids (as a group) are specifically opposed to transition or trans health"
I'm not arguing that they are. I'm saying they are specifically milquetoast on access to transition medicine.
You wrote:
"I'm not arguing that they are. I'm saying they are specifically milquetoast on access to transition medicine."
When was the question asked of them?
I just don't see the value of reopening the wounds of Nixon v. VRR, and projecting that onto a group of people who very likely had nothing to do with that and some of whom would probably be trans-positive if you'd asked them. I'd rather build bridges than re-burn them.
I would also not that as for Ms. Rebick's hoped-for evolution on the topic, she can speak for herself and her 12 years of silence speaks volumes.
Nixon v. VRR was a difficult issue. On the one hand, it isn't appropriate to discriminate against, invalidate or discount the experiences of trans women. It's not. On the other, when a woman has just been raped, that's not the best time to confront that bias, since there's a myriad of emotional traumas happening. That discussion goes in circles until no one is happy. I do believe that Kim Nixon deserved to win, but also realize that there are serious issues at play, and we can support the position Ms. Nixon had and still have empathy for the difficulty of the question, at the same time.
This is why I can never take Very Serious People seriously. They pander to the prejudices of others in the hopes that they will make gains.
Its always funny to me how some who are attack and demonized refuse to support others who are the same.
Consider the Black movement and in many cases its homophobia against black gays.
Or the LGBTQ movement and its lack of support for the Bs in their midsts.
It does not a surprise to me that femenists seek to sideline trans women.
Also, yes the LGBTQ movement does often seem to stop caring at the second letter. It's not just bi people who are erased. This trans lesbian oughta know.
Some people....
I just remember the first time a gay person told me that "there is no such thing as bisexuals"
And I have totally seen some feminist writers attacking trans women before though I cant exactly remember where.
Chromosomes have nothing to do with transness. And as a pants-clad beer-drinking makeup-eschewing trans-lesbian, I reject the idea that transness has anything to do with stereotypical gender roles either.
No but it certainly helps.
Coercively assigned at birth? What does that even mean?
Furthermore, it's amusing the link cited Paul McHugh as their "expert" (he's also the go-to guy flaming homo/trans-phobe Kathy Shaidle depends on to push her ignorant, hate-filled agenda), considering in the 1960's even before he performed one "study" on trangender people (he only performed a handful of shoddy, extremely biased ones his entire career that have now been debunked), he was on record as saying that his goal was to shut down all transgener clinics because of his own personal hatred and phobia and refers to it as "strange male exhibitionist proclivity"-while protecting known pedophiles in the Church-nice guy, eh?
... Far too many Trans people subjected to far too many daily indignities. That said, the liked articles make very clear that the centre did its level best to offer a role to Ms Nixon while firmly articulating their position that a trans
2. I pay for my medication out of pocket. On-demand provision is the requirment.
3. I never changed my gender. My gender, as opposed to my coercively assigned sex at birth and my presentation, has always been female, as has every trans woman's. Why? Because we're a sapient species with sexually dimorphic, nonneuroplastic neurology.
I think that would disqualify pretty much any feminist with a position on sex work from calling themselves a feminist.
And it's not the opposition to a terrible parliamentary motion that I find disturbing... rather the complete lack of action for 24 years previous. There are actual women actually being denied actual bodily autonomy, but that does not rate the same response as a theoretical threat.