We are disappointed to see the positive feature for A Woman’s Touch in the November/December 2019 issue of Our Lives magazine. The transmisogyny and transantagonism of A Woman’s Touch have been known in the Madison LGBTQ+ community for quite some time. A Woman’s Touch should not be given a platform to promote their business and educational services as being trans friendly. While many in the Madison community have only heard whispers and rumors of the oppressive issues experienced at A Woman’s Touch, Ellen Barnard has now done us a favor by outlining her prejudices for us in print. Even as she admits her ignorance, cisgender communities continue to patronize A Woman’s Touch and contribute to the exploitation and erasure of trans, gender non-conforming, and nonbinary communities. 

Many trans people were dismayed when this article was released and took to social media to discuss their experiences as trans folks working or shopping at A Woman’s Touch. These discussions were not made public for fear of backlash from the owners, as well as how even sharing these stories privately opened trauma and wounds that have not had time to heal. 

It became immediately clear from the shared experiences that there is a pervasive pattern of oppressive behavior—with the majority being anti-trans—from former employees, customers, and would-be customers. Several folks discussed experiences of misgendering, ableism and inaccessibility, hostility towards non-binary employees and the use of correct pronouns, body shaming and fatphobia, and choosing their clientele over the safety and well-being of their employees.

For a store that bills itself as inclusive of all gender identities and sexualities, there are several associations made in the article that don’t support this claim. Language is important, especially for a store that claims to provide inclusive sexual education and inclusive sexual products. 

“We realize gay men may be put off by the name, but when they come in they realize that we carry a lot of products for those who have penises.” Firstly, while “those who have penises,” is more inclusive than saying men, the association is already made by mentioning gay men and “those who have penises” in the same sentence. People may argue this is an issue of semantics, but “those” are people, not some abstract concept, and not all gay men have penises, as gay men are not a monolith. 

Additionally, how are men or masculine-presenting folks supposed to feel welcome in their store when in another paragraph they claim that masculine folks make their clients uncomfortable, specifically calling out older cis het women. Blaming prejudice against masculine-appearing folks on older cis het women is also problematic in many ways, and it tells us a lot about who they value in their clientele and who they are focused on serving. It’s also not entirely true or fair to throw older cis het women under the bus of prejudice when one of our known local anti-trans reactionary, or Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs), is a cisgender queer woman, a main demographic of anti-trans reactionaries (TERFs). However, anyone who isn’t emphatically and enthusiastically pro-trans rights is problematic, not just one demographic.

“So we’ve always had a staff person present who appears female—if we have a trans feminine person who can pass, they would probably be perceived as being safe enough.” Who gets to determine whether or not a trans feminine person, or any trans person, “passes?” And why aren’t they using this opportunity to educate their customers on the realities of who is more safe in that situation and in society in general? And how are they ensuring the safety of their trans feminine staff and clientele, especially those who may not “pass” (according to whatever standards they seem to have set)? 

When asked point-blank about non-binary identities, the co-owner did not even address the existence of genders outside the binary or outside of the femme/masc construct. Instead she used the question as an opportunity to advertise their patented product geared towards trans women who’ve had bottom surgery and post menopausal women, with the tag-line, “so anyone with a vagina benefits from it.” But what about people with vaginas who are not women? Can they still benefit from this device? And if so, are you being sensitive to the language used to describe the anatomy and physiology of people with vaginas who are not women? Who maybe don’t refer to their anatomy and physiology in those terms? What about the vaginas of trans folks who haven’t had bottom surgery?

“We have struggled more with finding people of color to work in our store and it is our wish to be able to have more representation available in that way.” How is it appropriate to bring up race in a question about employee training? And what are they doing to recruit people of color? How are they making their store more racially just? What kind of anti-racism training do they provide? What kind of resources do they have for people of color? Do they recognize the level of violence that queer and trans people of color experience? And what partnerships with local anti-racist, QTPOC organizations do they have to help become anti-racist and QTPOC inclusive? What do they have to offer people of color to make them feel wanted and welcome beyond representation (which arguably benefits the store and owners more than the employees)?

If their goal is, “to provide such a place where sexuality and pleasure were defined by each customer, regardless of what the wider cultures preached/taught/pushed,” then the owners need to own up to their transmisogyny and transantagonism. How can “sexuality and pleasure” be “defined by each customer” if they prioritize the comfort of some cis customers over the comfort of trans customers and/or employees?  

We need to see A Woman’s Touch work to repair the harm done to the trans community, whether their transantagonism was intentional or not. They need to start with a formal acknowledgement of the harm they’ve caused the trans community, and how they plan to repair the harm they’ve done. Perhaps they could use the money they make off of their patented dilator for consulting fees and training—for the owners and employees—regarding trans identities, trans health issues (including anatomy, physiology, sexual pleasure, and use of products), and how to deal with transphobic customers. Additionally, they could use the funds to diversify the products and information made available for trans folks and their partners.

The unfortunate reality is that most spaces are anti-trans, even spaces owned and operated by members of the LGBTQ+ community. If businesses and organizations want to change their anti-trans reputations, they need to dig deep and address the root causes of their anti-trans behavior and rhetoric. If businesses want to be considered just they need to take care to ensure proper training of staff, including how to respond to customers and clients who are hostile towards all trans folks. If you want to be seen as supportive of the trans community, you have to put in the effort, and not just for capital gain, but because trans rights are human rights.

We hope that A Woman’s Touch considers this response a gift for change. Our hope is that they do the work that is needed to regain trust, not just patronage, of all included in the trans, gender non-conforming, and nonbinary communities, as well as the intersections there in.