an opportunity to build a coalition
Jun. 24th, 2009 12:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaSince late last week there's been some controversy in the blogosphere regarding the New Orleans Women's Health Clinic, which was opened in NOLA in the wake of Hurricane Katrina by Incite! Women of Color Against Violence. After Katrina there was (and I understand there still is) a shocking gap between health care options available and the health care needs of the population. The hardest hit were, as always, women of color and women of economic disadvantage.
The controversy began when activists and bloggers in the trans community noted that while NOWHC's policy statement promises nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity, they also explicitly state "We are currently not able to provide care to trans people who were male assigned at birth or who have had genital sex reassignment surgery."
Most of the discussion I've seen since has been confrontational, with accusations of hate and cissexism. I personally think that this is entirely the wrong approach to take. Certainly if the root of this is prejudice, that prejudice should be called out. But there is a qualitative difference between an institution of the kyriarchy, against whom the confrontational approach is entirely appropriate, and a radical organization, with (not against!) whom I believe we should adopt a different approach.
I've said before that there is no easy-mode radicalism. I've said before I think that adversarial confrontation is the wrong approach to take with other radicals. And, as I said the last time there was a dispute about transwomen's access to women's health space, when the dispute is with sister radicals, there is no victory in confrontation, or in making someone see things your way, but in learning how to coexist and converge paths.
The comments I made previously all apply to how I feel about this situation, too. I believe the better approach would be to approach Incite! and ask, what can we offer to build a stronger coalition? Is it a matter of resources? Is it a matter of volunteer time? Money? Or is simply a matter of dialogue in good faith and consciousness raising together? What can we do that will make it easier for us to walk together on this path?
The sad thing is, I don't feel safe saying this publicly in any trans community. I barely feel safe saying it here in my own blog.
The controversy began when activists and bloggers in the trans community noted that while NOWHC's policy statement promises nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity, they also explicitly state "We are currently not able to provide care to trans people who were male assigned at birth or who have had genital sex reassignment surgery."
Most of the discussion I've seen since has been confrontational, with accusations of hate and cissexism. I personally think that this is entirely the wrong approach to take. Certainly if the root of this is prejudice, that prejudice should be called out. But there is a qualitative difference between an institution of the kyriarchy, against whom the confrontational approach is entirely appropriate, and a radical organization, with (not against!) whom I believe we should adopt a different approach.
I've said before that there is no easy-mode radicalism. I've said before I think that adversarial confrontation is the wrong approach to take with other radicals. And, as I said the last time there was a dispute about transwomen's access to women's health space, when the dispute is with sister radicals, there is no victory in confrontation, or in making someone see things your way, but in learning how to coexist and converge paths.
The comments I made previously all apply to how I feel about this situation, too. I believe the better approach would be to approach Incite! and ask, what can we offer to build a stronger coalition? Is it a matter of resources? Is it a matter of volunteer time? Money? Or is simply a matter of dialogue in good faith and consciousness raising together? What can we do that will make it easier for us to walk together on this path?
The sad thing is, I don't feel safe saying this publicly in any trans community. I barely feel safe saying it here in my own blog.
Re: the ignorant peasant wonders yet further..
Date: 2009-06-24 09:06 pm (UTC)It *might* be about plumbing, but they offer other health services as well, so I dunno. Things like STD and breast cancer screening for trans women is not anything they would need a specialist to deal with.
It might be a matter of their resources are so limited that expanding their clientele would put a heavy burden on them -- which is why I say the trans community should approach them offering assistance and resources if that is the reason for the exclusion, rather than banging on the door with a set of demands so to speak.
Re: the ignorant peasant wonders yet further..
Date: 2009-06-25 12:44 pm (UTC)As far as plumbing - it can make a difference. I think you underestimate it.
The standard tests (most effective with lower cost) for things like chlamydia, gonorrhea, and the type of hpv most likely to lead to cancer generally rely on samples from some plumbing specific places. If a person doesn't have a cervix it is a urethral swab (I'm just guessing this is a bit more difficult) or a urine test which is more expensive.
Furthermore, transwomen have additional health needs that can fall well into the category that medical science refers to as "men's health". For example, African Americans are at high risk for prostate cancer.
It seems to me that offering some health services is better than offering none. Obviously breast cancer screening, testing for some STD's etc works exactly the same. However, it also seems irrepsonsible to offer sexual and reproductive health testing/advice etc to women (and potentially a false "clean bill of health"), when people trained in traditional women's health may lack knowledge about the needs of women born in a male-shaped body. This would take extra resources.
Re: the ignorant peasant wonders yet further..
Date: 2009-06-25 03:45 pm (UTC)It is also debatable whether trans women even need prostate screening after HRT. I lean towards not worrying about it, myself, and I wouldn't expect a women's clinic to provide it for me.
Anal paps should be available to anyone who has receptive anal sex and it's kind of ridiculous that it's been framed as a gay men's health issue in the first place. But I think a clinic that fails to offer that could still do life-saving work for trans women.
AND all of this ignores the fact that they offer care to Intersex women (women with "DSDs," to use fucking Alice Dreger's term) who were female assigned but may still have non-normative "plumbing."
Re: the ignorant peasant wonders yet further..
Date: 2009-06-25 08:04 pm (UTC)I still think if a woman's clinic is going to treat transwomen they should be trained in the risk factors enough to suggest screenings/discuss what and why in a supportive way. Just like they should be trained in the risk factors to suggest/discuss the need for for colon cancer screening for all women -especially over a certain age - even if the service is not offered there. Such information is also lacking in many places.
And throat culture testing should be routinely included too.
I question the quality of care an intersex woman is going to get from a place that refers to the as women with DSDs. But then again I routinely question the care that older women, post-menopausal women, and women with conditions like PCOS or endometriosis (if said are ever diagnosed) receive. It seems like care other than to keep the baby making apparatus functioning ( in progressive cases "functioning on pause" and respecting the decision as to when) or to preserve breasts (there are sexist reasons why breast cancer awareness trumps awareness of other cancers in women) is given secondary consideration in the field of "women's health." Even a lot std literature aimed toward women is more aimed at protecting the baby-making apparatus and any potential babies than it is at women's bodies and general well-being, even when the dire "may cause infertility" only affects some women, whereas more general health issues affect all women.
When I say plumbing can make a difference in care received I mean it can. Not that it *should*.
I'm not arguing for exclusion of transwomen. As I said, offering some services is better than offering none. However, offering services without acknowledging that they are incomplete is irresponsible and harmful. Not just for transwomen, but I didn't want to bring up disparity in care among cis-women with plumbing that functions differently because that seemed a bit of a disrail. But perhaps it's not since best care for woman shouldn't be centered so around the idea that a woman is a life support system for a uterus -which it still seems to be even in cases where the woman's decision with what happens with her uterus is respected. Kinda of sad that respecting those decisions is all it takes to be considered "progressive" women's care.