Jessica Cooper: VRR Defends Anti-Trans Discrimination
And another guest post:
On April 6th, an Opinion Editorial I was invited to write for the Georgia Straight’s online edition was published.
http://www.straight.com/article-213065/jessica-cooper-transsexual-person-i-have-no-rights/
I chose as my theme the fact that as a transsexual I have fewer rights than a cisgendered person.
In the article, I mentioned Kimberly Nixon’s encounter with Vancouver Rape Relief (a little background here:http://dawn.thot.net/Kimberly_Nixon.html and here: http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=4&STORY_ID=2656&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=2) I spoke of how the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to uphold Rape Relief’s right to discriminate means that transsexuals de-facto do not have the same rights a cispeople in British Columbia and that any organisation can use the same arguments Rape Relief used to legally discriminate.
Several days later, on Friday April 10th, Daisy Kler speaking for Vancouver Rape Relief posted a comment in response:
Commentary “Jessica Cooper: As a transsexual person, I have no rights”
I would like to correct the inaccurate account and portrayal of Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter. First Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter was one of the first equality seeking groups that argued to the BC government that transsexuals be included in the human rights code.
Second, Ms Cooper’s assertion that because of the decision made by the Canadian courts in favor of Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter that “, my brothers, sisters and I can be kicked out of any public space, we can be fired simply for the crime of being ourselves, we can be evicted without recourse and we can be reviled, harassed and physically attacked merely for daring to use a public washroom” is untrue and inaccurate in terms of existing human rights law. While I can empathize with her frustration about society’s prejudices they are not the result of the case brought against us or our actions. The decision that came down meant that women’s groups such as Vancouver Rape Relief and indeed groups of transsexual and transgendered persons have the legal right to determine their own membership. In addition we believe it is important for raped and battered women to have the choice of a women-only peer group for support. Here is a more accurate description of the decision made in this case:
“The Human Rights Tribunal had previously ruled that Rape Relief’s decision to allow into the training program only women who had been born and raised as girls and women was rationally connected to Rape Relief’s work of counseling women victims of sexual assault and fighting male violence and women’s inequality. The Tribunal also held that that Rape Relief’s decision was made in good faith.”
Summary of Decision: Provided by: Gwendoline Allison, Bull, Housser & Tupper LLP and Professor Christine Boyle, University of British Columbia School of Law. http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/pr_feb12007_ruling.html
Both the writer and the Georgia Straight should be more careful in checking the accuracy of comments. This would not be hard to do since we have always been clear and transparent in our case and a timeline of the case, court transcripts and a summary of the decision can all be found on our website http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/index.html#womenonly
Inaccurate and misleading comments undermine the important work we do.
Vancouver Rape Relief shelters houses over 100 women each year along with 70-80 of the battered women’s children. Each year the 24-hour rape crisis line receives new calls from 1,300-1,400 women dealing with rape, sexual assault, incest, battering and sexual harassment.Daisy Kler
Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter
In my reply to her, I chided her on her cisprivilege and commented that she had made my point better than I did; here was a ciswoman freely admitting that Rape relief feels entirely justified in discriminating, and even throwing in the “women born women” codewords so beloved of the Radical Feminists.
Fast forward to Friday the 17th and another fail. This time Shiella Ballentyne wrote:
In response to Jessica Cooper’s article: “As a Transsexual I have no rights”
I was very sorry to read of the prejudices and lack of rights Ms. Cooper and all transsexuals must endure. It was a brave and candid article. I greatly appreciate Ms. Cooper sharing her experiences in this way. I am concerned, however, that Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter was referred to out of context and I would like to offer readers another point of view.
Vancouver Rape Relief is an all-female space for women who have experienced male violence. This does not mean the organization is anti-men or anti-transsexual, it just fills a need for women seeking relief who feel they would heal best and are most comfortable in a women-only environment. Vancouver Rape Relief works with many other organizations and supports the objectives of shelters and crisis centres that do not have an all-female policy.
I would urge everyone to read up on Ms. Nixon’s case (the Vancouver Rape Relief website is a good start:
www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/pr_feb12007_ruling.html) before passing judgment against Vancouver Rape Relief. Equality for everyone, no matter your gender, is in everyone’s best interest. We’re all in this together!Sheila Ballantyne
Note that Sheila quotes the very same page Dasiy did, Rape Relief’s slanted page celebrating their victory in Court. Note also the very condescending cisprivileged way she oh-so-graciously is “ very sorry to read of the prejudices and lack of rights” I must endure, then she goes right ahead and heaps on more!
I’m sorry Daisy and Shiela, we’re not in this together. Each of you gleefully rubbed into my face the fact that you do not consider me to be a woman. Each of you used Radical Feminist codewords designed to exclude, other and belittle my existence. Each of you, in attempting to spin Rape Relief as the “good guys” ended up proving my point; cispeople have more rights than transpeople, and that cispeople get to define my gender to suit themselves.
The fail, it burns!
Your feminism: Hard at work for YOU!
(Just don’t be trans, and a woman, k? otherwise, we will aid and abet your kilers any way we can as long as our hands aren’t directly bloddied.)
voz
18 Apr 09 at 8:42 pm
She could have spared herself the circumlocutory logorrhea and said this:
trans women != women
NYAH, NYAH, NYAH *sticks tongue out* *raspberry*
Memphis Trans Guy
18 Apr 09 at 10:08 pm
The “women born women” shit always makes my head want to explode. Why do you even try pretending you give a shit about other people if you’re willing to even think things like that.
Thanks for the post.
Kristen
19 Apr 09 at 12:04 am
Seriously, I think the only way to make this kind of thing stop is to legislate it out: some sort of UK-style gender recognition certificate or something that simple makes it mandatory for places like VRR, or MWMF for that matter, to accept trans women as women, with no ifs or buts about it.
Thanks for the heads up.
Carto
19 Apr 09 at 12:14 am
“We’re all in this together! Now go find shelter from -your- experience of violence somewhere else. -slam-”
christ.
p.s. also digging the hetnormativity and alienation of even cis women who were abused by (gasp, say it ain’t so) other women.
same old bullshit.
belledame222
19 Apr 09 at 12:18 am
Thank you for pointing out the need to amend the B.C. Human Rights Code. this is so infuriating. is the petition still active or is it just individual letters at this point? and well done with dealing with vancouver rape relief`s bullshit.
Alison
19 Apr 09 at 1:29 am
VRR responds to accusations saying “You’re not that discriminated against. Stop being so whiny. Oh, and our “women-only peer group” doesn’t include you trannies. Why can’t you respect cis rights?”
*gagvomit*
z
19 Apr 09 at 2:24 am
Using women to only mean ciswomen really annoys me. C’mon, how blind and thoughtless can you be?!!!
As far as I can think of, the only argument against trans inclusion is the ignorance of other women in the shelter. Having never been in their situation I don’t know whether that would be an ok moment to deal with the ignorance, either for trans women who want to use the shelter, or for ciswomen using it. I haven’t seen anything on this so any comments would be of great interest to me.
harriet
19 Apr 09 at 5:46 am
harriet, you pose your question as if it’s a mattter of equivalence, as if we’re talking about this (cis) woman or that (trans) woman being “ignorant” or “uncomfortable”. it’s not an equivalence.
in this situation (access to rape/DV shelters): cis women wind up “ignorant” or “uncomfortable”. trans women wind up dead.
GallingGalla
19 Apr 09 at 6:39 am
The purpose of a DV or rape shelter is safety. If trans women are excluded for the comfort of cis women, this privileges the supposed comfort of cis women over the actual safety of trans women – in other words, as GG says, VRR’s policies are lethal to trans women.
I should also point out at the time this was going on, multiple shelters in the Vancouver area were, in fact, open to trans women without the problems that VRR claims would come about.
I should also point out again that radical feminists have a tendency to speak for survivors and coopt survivor voices in order to claim the need to protect cis women from trans women. They’re invoking cis women who are survivors of rape and domestic violence as the reason to keep trans women out of these spaces, but they refuse to acknowledge that access to these spaces is a matter of safety – and often life or death – for trans women as much as it is for cis women.
In other words, that is no argument against exclusion, except to those who are already bigoted against trans women.
Lisa Harney
19 Apr 09 at 6:51 am
Or to put it more bluntly:
The oppressor does not need to be protected from the oppressed.
Lisa Harney
19 Apr 09 at 7:02 am
GallingGalla, thanks for reminding me. My bad. I was only thinking of the problems that trans women in the shelter might have in the shelter by having to explain and justify themselves constantly, rather than worse problems, like violence, from ciswomen using the shelter (does that happen? On reflection I wouldn’t be surprised), or the problems associated with not being allowed to use the shelter in the first place, and I realise that was very stupid – these problems cannot be isolated. If I’ve missed anything please let me know, I’m very ignorant of anything in this area.
It still raises the question, albeit a very different one, of how to handle the ignorance and discomfort of ciswomen who are admittedly in a very shitty situation, without putting the onus on trans women using the shelters. I don’t mean that ciswomen should be ‘protected’, I mean educated (for lack of a better word). Does anyone know of good examples?
harriet
19 Apr 09 at 7:03 am
The shelter staff needs to say “They’re women, and they need this space too.”
That’s all that should need to be said. They can do 101 beyond that if needed, but it shouldn’t be on the shoulders of trans women using the shelter to do this.
Lisa Harney
19 Apr 09 at 7:07 am
I guess to further clarify my original comment, I didn’t mean the exclusion of trans women from all shelters. I guess I was making the stupid assumption that elsewhere there would be resources for transwomen (really fucking stupid), and was purely thinking of the situation within a shelter, where trans women would have to deal with shit from cis women who were also using the shelter. I am not talking about ‘protection’ of cis women, I am talking about dealing the problem in a way which takes into account the reasons why cis women are in the shelter in the first place. I know generalising is dangerous, but it’s got to be a trickier situation to handle than educating cis people who aren’t in such a shit situation.
I promise that I would never knowingly advocate protection of cis women, and that, even unknowingly, I did not do so here. It was just terribly bad phrasing and not thinking things through carefully. Of course, if I have screwed up somewhere, please point it out.
harriet
19 Apr 09 at 7:13 am
Lisa, I know it should not be on the shoulders of the trans women using the shelter. That, although I’ve phrased the whole thing really poorly, was my main concern. Thanks for telling me about the other Vancouver shelters.
In some ways I can’t believe it’s so simple as to just be the attitude of the staff, but it does make so much sense. I guess there’s nothing that’ll work if the staff don’t have the right attitude.
harriet
19 Apr 09 at 7:20 am
Hi Alison,
The petition was presented to the Legislature thia past February. I don’t know how much that will do given that we’re in an election right now and likely the new legislature will have to have it presented yet again. Also, unless you’re a resident of BC your signature would be meaningless (petition rules are very draconian here, we have to throw out dozens of signature pages that were spoiled this way). A letter would be your better option.
Jessica
19 Apr 09 at 7:27 am
Interesting to note that neither woman who defended VRR has engaged any of the substance of the issues presented, none of the comments directed to them, or did much other than say “were not sooo bad rily”.
I guess it could have been worse. The comments could have started discussing who uses what bathroom – since that where discussion of “public accommodation and services” usually turns into.
rioTgirl
19 Apr 09 at 8:20 am
Yes, I’m pleasantly surprised that the comments have not degenerated into the usual mouth-breather sort that this kind of article so often attracts.
VRR lives in its own little reality. They can’t engage in discussion of any little part of their ideology for fear of the entire thing collapsing. One must either swallow the radical Feminist ideology whole, or repudiate it whole. There is no room in their world view for anything else.
Jessica
19 Apr 09 at 8:45 am
The thing is, when you scratch the “comfort” business, what they mean is, a) they think of trans women as men, ultimately, b) all men are potential rapists/violence enacters (and again, women never ever are, so also good luck if you’re a cis lesbian fleeing your violent cis partner who decides to follow you there) c) therefore, it’s just like the bathroom crap: sorry, no room at the inn ‘cuz you might do something turrible to the -women- there. supposedly.
but, no hard feelings, ‘k?
belledame222
19 Apr 09 at 1:06 pm
Re: what Carto said-
I agree that legislation is probably the solution to try to tackle this, duplicating the GRCs is really not a good idea!!!! They’re a really BAD idea.
All their purpose had been circumvented by the time the decade old plan finally got passed into law, due to the civil service having woken up and started acting humane, and since introduction there has been a rapid shift back from the preferable position of ‘if you say so / a single doctor believes you, then we believe you’ to ‘no paperwork – no rights!’. They’ve just become another tool for policing gender, and particularly for ensure only “proper, deserving, real transexuals” get rights, and all those filthy deviant androgyne, genderqueer, and non-normative freaks don’t get any.
Jessikat
19 Apr 09 at 1:51 pm
GRCs always kind of reminded me of green cards. only certain people in certain situations get them, and yet they are considered to be ever-so-critical. whenever i do business with the government, they’re very interested in my green card more than anything else, so i definitely see a parallel.
yes, VRR does tend to some, even most, women in “shit situations.” however, it’s a shit situation that is all too common for all women, and their failure to be open to all women means that they aren’t tending to all of us in shit situations. given that they are pretty much the only social resource link for survivors of rape (and for sheltering battered women, while we’re at it) in the Vancouver area (or as we like to call it, the GVRD), they’re creating even more of a problem. if you can somehow tell me that no trans women are ever battered or raped in all the Lower Mainland, then perhaps their stance would be defensible. obviously, though, this is not the case, and we all know it.
being a rape survivor, i can tell you quite a bit about the need for social support as part of the healing process, having a peer support group did help me quite a bit, etc etc. VRR’s decision to exclude puts blood on their hands, plain and simple.
algormortis
19 Apr 09 at 3:39 pm
I think it should also be noted that our need to have access to rape/DV shelters/services is so often framed in such a rotten ‘phobic way.
“Men wanting access to limited women’s resources” kinda crap. Considering that what sparked the VRR lawsuit was a trans* woman’s desire to PROVIDE resources makes it even more … shitty.
It should really be “Some woman who have a for, and willingness to provide, resources. But, we don’t think they are that important somuch.”
rioTgirl
19 Apr 09 at 4:06 pm
The shelter can’t accomodate trans women because it’s a “women-only” space without even the “women-born-women” qualifier? Why not just come out and say they don’t think trans women are women?
But hey, at least they’re “sorry to read of the prejudices and lack of rights Ms. Cooper and all transsexuals must endure”.
Aishwarya
19 Apr 09 at 4:26 pm
Yeah. I can’t imagine that shelter is any kind of good place for ANYONE that doesn’t fit their little narrow “good cis woman menaced by the evil menz” thing.
How this is the culture a shelter would want I simply can’t fathom.
TrinityVA
19 Apr 09 at 4:31 pm
Jessica,
Thanks so much for the info. I do live in BC, Van actually, and I had no idea the state of our laws was so terrible. I think I had convinced myself that VRR’s victory was some terrible exception, like how churches can discriminate or something. So, thank-you for the information.
Alison
19 Apr 09 at 4:32 pm
Well algormortis, VRR says that transwomen are “really men”, and men can never be raped so therefore no transwomen are ever raped. End of discussion as far as they’re concerned.
Hey Alison, it’s pretty much par for the course. Any orgnisation can decide who’s “woman enough” (or “man enough”) to belong or be served in BC thanks to this case. Any cisperson can define our gender for us no matter what we say. Will I see you at Gender Euphoria (gencdereuphoria.ordg) on the 3rd?
Aishwarya, they do come out and say they don’t think trasnswomen are women. It’s all over their website and if you should have the misfortune to be assaulted and try to come to them for services they’ll say it to your face. They just didn’t dare say it outright in those comments. Outright. It certainly didn’t stop them from using the “women born women” and “womens space” “female only space” comments in such an anvilicious way.
Jessica
19 Apr 09 at 4:46 pm
Yeah, I’ve now asked three people who work at VRR why they think it’s okay to host anti-trans hate speech.
One claimed to be an ally to trans people, but insisted that VRR was right because allowing trans women would be too traumatizing to cis women, and she disclaimed any responsibility for what was on the website and claimed that VRR as an organization was not anti-trans.
Yeah, whatever.
Lisa Harney
19 Apr 09 at 5:17 pm
I feel as though the assertion here also has to do with the idea that transwomen are “unrapeable.” As a social service worker, this woman must realize that there aren’t shelters for raped and battered men, so where is a raped or battered trans woman to go? Oh, that’s right: nowhere, because you can’t really rape a trans woman.
There is no way that VRR and its staff are unaware of the complete lack of shelters willing to take in transpeople (many mens shelters, in my experience as an outreach worker, also refuse transpeople access to their services, supposedly “for their own protection”). My question for Ms. Kler, and all of her ilk, is and has been for several years now: where exactly do you want these women to go? If they can’t go to VRR or other women’s shelters, and men’s shelters are deemed ‘too dangerous,’ where should they go? There is never any solid response.
~Morgan
Morgan Page
19 Apr 09 at 5:29 pm
“…claimed that VRR as an organization was not anti-trans.”
A very famous person was quoted as saying “By their fruits shall ye know them”. In other words, actions speak louder than words. VRR talks the talk (Well, some people at VRR talk the talk) but fails to walk the walk.
Jessica
19 Apr 09 at 5:43 pm
Oh, I’ve seen a response:
“Trans women need to form their own shelters. Cis women did all the work establishing DV and rape shelters in the 70s, so you need to do your own work too.”
This elides the fact that the shelters were established for women, not just some women – and the “some women” rationales were added later. More importantly it elides the fact that many trans women worked alongside cis women in establishing these spaces before cis feminists worked so hard to eject as many trans women as possible from feminism as a movement…and many continued to work after, in stealth.
This is also an attempt to negate responsibility on their part – as cis women, who are oppressors to trans women – for perpetuating anti-trans oppression as a natural state.
The same cis women who argue that trans women don’t deserve access to shelters have also asked trans women over and over again “Why are you angry at us? Cis women don’t commit violence against you, cis men do!” Which again elides their responsibility for perpetuating that violence by denying us access to safe spaces.
Lisa Harney
19 Apr 09 at 5:45 pm
Jessica, that’s kind of what I said to the VRR person… except I used more words.
(edited to clarify what I was trying to say)
Lisa Harney
19 Apr 09 at 5:47 pm
This also implies a direct connection between cis feminist denial of their violent history and current trans oppression.
Cis feminist have blood on their hands, simply by wearing the label of the ones who actively sanctioned our often lethal oppression.
Wear that badge well cis sister, it has quite the history. Quite the history, indeed.
voz
19 Apr 09 at 7:42 pm
Just a quick note on the “gender green cards” -thing – it just occurred to me that as long as the category of “women” persists there will be some kind of a process which is used to determine who’s in and who’s out of that category: I think I prefer the say-so being in the hands of the state.
It’s not a very good solution, as in practice it entails doctors doing the say-so, but all the alternatives I can come up with are even worse, as letting each and every group decide for themselves gives practically free rein to cissexist bigots: I think it’s more feasible to try and keep a small-ish bunch of professionals sane and sensible. For now, anyway.
On the other hand, it would be very nice if gender just became something totally irrelevant to rights, so that a rape crisis centre would receive anyone raped, no matter what their sex or gender is: after all, it is supposed to be a *rape* crisis centre, and rape is something that can happen to anyone. The “gender green card” would be irrelevant in such case.
The world’s just so buggered up.
Carto
19 Apr 09 at 11:19 pm
Your solution is also cissexist, unfortunately – as the state currently controls the means of legally changing sex, and the means of doing so tend to be fairly transphobic.
How about self-determination? We’re allowed to say “This is who we are.” Don’t leave it in the hands of a state that is biased against trans people or in the hands of cis people who will wield personal and institutional biases against trans people.
Lisa Harney
19 Apr 09 at 11:42 pm
This solution also removes from trans people the ability to be experts on our own identities, which is incredibly problematic.
Lisa Harney
19 Apr 09 at 11:45 pm
Well, yes. Like I said, it’s not a very good solution, it’s more of a stopgap. Divvying people up into two mutually exclusive sexes is highly problematic in itself – starting with the lived realities of all not-quite-cis people.
In the long run self-determination is the best solution, but I just can’t see how the hell we could make that work in the short term: would BCians accept, and enforce, our right to self-determination against the VRR or some such bunch of people? I think not, not yet anyway. Where does the path towards self-determination go? I guess I’m looking for practical, readily implementable steps.
Carto
20 Apr 09 at 3:09 am
Having it in the hands of the state sucks… Fortunately, I enjoy passing privilege most of the time, but the fact remains that whenever someone pulls my state-issued driver’s license they see a big, fat Sex: M next to my face. When I order a margarita, when I use my credit card, when I get pulled over, and most likely if I ever need to check into a rape shelter. And since the Real ID Act came to town, the law of the land in the US is that changing your gender marker costs $20,000+ domestically, and if you try to save a few G’s (you cheapskate, you) by going abroad, you may not be able to get it changed at all, as was two trans women’s experience in Iowa recently.
So, yeah. State-managed gender doesn’t work so well.
Claire
20 Apr 09 at 9:53 am
I don’t really trust the government that much, especially when you know that different governments will have different opinions, and that people ignore gender-identifying things like, um, drivers licenses and passports and still try to force government-sanctioned ungendering. Just like some people look at my green card and decide i’m not equal to a citizen…it’s a creepy parallel.
algormortis
20 Apr 09 at 10:06 am
@Lisa Harney: ultimately, self-identification is the only solution.
@Carto: I should qualify this by saying that I’m not in favour of a state-based solution, and not just because I’m not a fan of the existence of the state.
The state, in addition to being white supremacist, capitalist-imperalist, and patriarchal (etc.) is inherently cissexist. I think that appealing to it for gender recognition not only doesn’t do much (if anything) to protect some trans people (as we need a cultural shift), but also furthers the harm of other trans people, because it legitimizes discrimination against trans people who do not get recognition of their gender, the process of which will inevitably be based in transphobia and transmisogyny.
Personally, I feel like destroying the legal fiction of sex is just a part of the struggle to end state and corporate control and policing over bodies. If part of the way to getting there is a legalistic solution that states that all self-identifications must be respected, that’s great, as long as it doesn’t cause trans people from continuing to work in solidarity (and recognizing that many of us are part of other oppressed groups) to end all policing and control over all bodies.
However, I’ve time and again seen anti-discrimination laws turn into nothing but an excuse for privileged members of a community to turn their backs on other members of the community, and also as a carrot used by more privileged groups to keep less privileged groups in line (ENDA, anyone?).
anarchafemme
20 Apr 09 at 9:24 pm
@Anarchafemme: I just wonder very much how to get there: how does one go about dismantling the sex/gender system as it exists now? I can’t see any clear path towards that that could avoid getting entangled with legal system short of a revolution, and I don’t think the track record of revolutions is that great. How could we, in practice, make VRR stop its cissexist, transphobic behaviour? I don’t think they’re gonna stop just because we ask them to.
State, and laws, could in my opinion be used to enforce some things, such as make all sex or gender-based discrimination simply illegal: it would, of course, mean that in the long run everything sex-segregated would have to go, too. Sex would be a minor legal detail, if even that.
Carto
20 Apr 09 at 10:12 pm
Jessica,
Gender Euphoria looks kick ass and and congrats on another article in the Georgia Straight btw about it! I wont be there, but perhaps at another event soon :)
Alison
21 Apr 09 at 12:09 am
@Carto: I think that from a harm reduction approach that having an anti-discrimination law that respects self-identification rather than having the state issue more documents of gender recognition is good.
And we can’t dismantle the gender/sex system over night (or more properly, the coercive binary and compulsory binary gender). Ultimately, we have to keep pushing and educating and raising awareness and working to change the culture. Cis people actually working on their privilege in great numbers will do far more than any law can ever do; and laws are totally ineffective without people in the legal system willing to enforce them.
anarchafemme
21 Apr 09 at 3:40 am
[...] two comments, left by two different representatives of the organization, are below (full comments here). …Ms Cooper’s assertion that because of the decision made by the Canadian courts in favor [...]
Cis Supremacy, Feminism and Women’s Shelters : The Curvature
2 May 09 at 10:24 am