Is this going too far? Always removes Venus symbol to acknowledge transmen who menstruate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or leave it.
And refrain from using this “pet peeve” as an excuse to throw around a misogynistic term like “HYSTERICAL” indiscriminately, okey dokey?

Sure - I don't use "HYSTERICAL" indiscriminately. Only when it's really warranted. Typically for hyperbolic "concerns" with shady intentions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know what point you are trying to make? Are you trying to argue that we should not say things like reproductive rights should not be called "women's rights"? Or that we should not devote attention to reproductive rights because that excludes people who can't or don't give birth?

Reproductive rights certainly should not be called women's rights - although women's rights do include reproductive rights. Men reproduce too.

I don't understand your reluctance to acknowledge the fact that motherhood is not a universal experience for women. Not all women are mothers, and motherhood is not the same for all women who are mothers.

Literally nobody said that motherhood is a universal experience for women. What's YOUR point? Is your point that we can't talk about motherhood and reproduction as a key generality about women's rights because some women aren't mothers?

No, literally somebody did. I'm not inclined to go back through this ridiculous thread to find it, but you can do so, if you want to.

You who are so worried about being "erased" if the Venus symbol comes off a package of menstrual pads - think about the effect on women who aren't mothers when you talk about motherhood as a key generality about women's rights.

I think you're talking about me and that is not what I said. What I said was that confronting motherhood in some way, the possibility of it, is a near universal experience for women because our anatomy allows us to become mothers and the process of accepting that, of having menstrual cycles, or of coming to grips with the fact that there is something wrong with your anatomy that will not allow a woman to become a mother or to menstruate, is a fundamental part of the female experience.

It is the part of being a woman that stands between us and true equality in the workplace even today and the aspect of women's bodies that has made us subject to the whims of men for centuries. And gaining control and autonomy over the process of childbearing has been a pillar of women's rights advocacy. Necessarily.

I am kind of incredulous you are denying this in an age where we are seeing abortion rights erode before our eyes. As I said earlier in this thread, girls in poor countries literally are set back from puberty because their period means they get 75% as much education as their male counterparts because of their period. So yes, when an aspect of being a woman is what is holding women back from breaking out of poverty in large swaths of the world I think it could have bad ramifications to dilute the concept that periods are part of being a girl and of being a woman.

You don't have to be a mother to have confronted the fact that you could be one, or that you can't be one but thought you might be, or that you don't want to be one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for minority rights, if the minority is big enough!

Wait, what?

Cute!

But...not everything is a right. Some things are non-issue nonsense. And turning everything into a crusade is exhausting.

Plus, there is no universally designated spokesperson for the trans people. In fact, there’s a great deal of subjective disagreement among them. Ya know, because they are individuals with their own unique perspective and opinion.

NP - here’s the thing for me.

I’m a cis-gender woman/female. Up until this point, I probably couldn’t have told you that the Venus symbol was or wasn’t on a package of Always. I am the “normative” person they are marketing to, and to be honest - its lost on me, because I really just need their lads.

But, for a transgendered person, that little symbol is a reminder every time they buy pads that they do not belong / fit / etc. into the “normal requirements”. That’s not fair. It’s hard enough to feel like your biology and your brain don’t match, and now you need to be reminded every time you pick up pads to serve a hygiene need.

So, for the people all up in arms: did you buy always because they were identified by the Venus symbol, or because they had a good product? Will you now be lost in the hygiene aisle because they don’t have the symbol on any more? Why do you feel the need to retain a symbol you don’t need, that alienates or hurts other people?

I honestly don't think the Venus symbol was alienating or hurting anyone. I think this was a flex of political muscle. There's a limit to how much we can contort language and symbols to prevent anyone from getting hurt.

This. I could probably think of 5 things I encounter every day that could be deemed offensive to me and others. I just choose not to get worked up over it.

Ah, the oppressed leading the oppressed argument.

You have a voice, too, PP. You could make it count ifit was important enough to you. Because nothing changes if nothing changes. Always is removing a completely unnecessary Venus symbol from their packaging. It hurts absolutely no one for them to do so, and may help a few or more customers.
Kindness costs NOTHING

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for minority rights, if the minority is big enough!

Wait, what?

Cute!

But...not everything is a right. Some things are non-issue nonsense. And turning everything into a crusade is exhausting.

Plus, there is no universally designated spokesperson for the trans people. In fact, there’s a great deal of subjective disagreement among them. Ya know, because they are individuals with their own unique perspective and opinion.

Yes the RWNJ CRUSADE against trans people is getting exhausting.

Attaching cancel culture to absurd language use policing is basically falling right into the hands of the RWNJ crusade. Focus on actual injustice and power, and you'll find many more allies.

Yes, so let's not get all HYSTERICAL over a minor change to pad packaging.

Likewise, let’s not get HYSTERICAL (not to mention repetitive) about not removing this minor, meaningless little sign from pad packaging.

No one cares about the packaging. There are bigger issues for your "concern".

Most of us arguing the other side here ALSO don't think the packaging is a big deal. It is all about the larger ramifications and you know it, because that's what both of us are arguing about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or leave it.
And refrain from using this “pet peeve” as an excuse to throw around a misogynistic term like “HYSTERICAL” indiscriminately, okey dokey?

Sure - I don't use "HYSTERICAL" indiscriminately. Only when it's really warranted. Typically for hyperbolic "concerns" with shady intentions.

Calling women hysterical for being concerned about women's rights is misogynistic and as you are well aware calls up a long history of discrimination that counter intuitively to your comment is the reason a lot of us are fighting the pull away from female focused language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think you're talking about me and that is not what I said. What I said was that confronting motherhood in some way, the possibility of it, is a near universal experience for women because our anatomy allows us to become mothers and the process of accepting that, of having menstrual cycles, or of coming to grips with the fact that there is something wrong with your anatomy that will not allow a woman to become a mother or to menstruate, is a fundamental part of the female experience.

It is the part of being a woman that stands between us and true equality in the workplace even today and the aspect of women's bodies that has made us subject to the whims of men for centuries. And gaining control and autonomy over the process of childbearing has been a pillar of women's rights advocacy. Necessarily.

I am kind of incredulous you are denying this in an age where we are seeing abortion rights erode before our eyes. As I said earlier in this thread, girls in poor countries literally are set back from puberty because their period means they get 75% as much education as their male counterparts because of their period. So yes, when an aspect of being a woman is what is holding women back from breaking out of poverty in large swaths of the world I think it could have bad ramifications to dilute the concept that periods are part of being a girl and of being a woman.

You don't have to be a mother to have confronted the fact that you could be one, or that you can't be one but thought you might be, or that you don't want to be one.

If you want to consider the female reproductive system as the central and defining characteristic of all women's lives, then go ahead and do that, I guess.

But in your shoes, I might spend more energy on making sure girls have access to period products so they can go to school than on complaining about a for-profit company redesigning their packaging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or leave it.
And refrain from using this “pet peeve” as an excuse to throw around a misogynistic term like “HYSTERICAL” indiscriminately, okey dokey?

Sure - I don't use "HYSTERICAL" indiscriminately. Only when it's really warranted. Typically for hyperbolic "concerns" with shady intentions.

Calling women hysterical for being concerned about women's rights is misogynistic and as you are well aware calls up a long history of discrimination that counter intuitively to your comment is the reason a lot of us are fighting the pull away from female focused language.

DP. I don't think you're being called hysterical for being concerned about women's rights. I think you're being called hysterical for being so concerned about the changes to Always's packaging. And since you're the one insisting that woman = uterus, it seems quite appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think you're talking about me and that is not what I said. What I said was that confronting motherhood in some way, the possibility of it, is a near universal experience for women because our anatomy allows us to become mothers and the process of accepting that, of having menstrual cycles, or of coming to grips with the fact that there is something wrong with your anatomy that will not allow a woman to become a mother or to menstruate, is a fundamental part of the female experience.

It is the part of being a woman that stands between us and true equality in the workplace even today and the aspect of women's bodies that has made us subject to the whims of men for centuries. And gaining control and autonomy over the process of childbearing has been a pillar of women's rights advocacy. Necessarily.

I am kind of incredulous you are denying this in an age where we are seeing abortion rights erode before our eyes. As I said earlier in this thread, girls in poor countries literally are set back from puberty because their period means they get 75% as much education as their male counterparts because of their period. So yes, when an aspect of being a woman is what is holding women back from breaking out of poverty in large swaths of the world I think it could have bad ramifications to dilute the concept that periods are part of being a girl and of being a woman.

You don't have to be a mother to have confronted the fact that you could be one, or that you can't be one but thought you might be, or that you don't want to be one.

If you want to consider the female reproductive system as the central and defining characteristic of all women's lives, then go ahead and do that, I guess.

But in your shoes, I might spend more energy on making sure girls have access to period products so they can go to school than on complaining about a for-profit company redesigning their packaging.

Oh the quote cropper and context remover. You are IMO just a troll trying to keep the conversation going by saying inflammatory things.

I'm discussing always packaging in literally no other aspect of my life than this thread, where someone other than myself posed the question.

It is intellectually dishonest to respond to posts full of actual content and rational thought behind the position with a dismissive note that doesn't really mean anything other than to try to vaguely insult me and then to act like I should be focused on a bigger problem. When in fact my post shows that I am concerned about that larger thing and am simply bringing it up to explain why I am concerned about this smaller, in the big scheme of things pretty meaningless thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or leave it.
And refrain from using this “pet peeve” as an excuse to throw around a misogynistic term like “HYSTERICAL” indiscriminately, okey dokey?

Sure - I don't use "HYSTERICAL" indiscriminately. Only when it's really warranted. Typically for hyperbolic "concerns" with shady intentions.

Calling women hysterical for being concerned about women's rights is misogynistic and as you are well aware calls up a long history of discrimination that counter intuitively to your comment is the reason a lot of us are fighting the pull away from female focused language.

DP. I don't think you're being called hysterical for being concerned about women's rights. I think you're being called hysterical for being so concerned about the changes to Always's packaging. And since you're the one insisting that woman = uterus, it seems quite appropriate.

Yeah when someone is doubling down on how calling a woman hysterical is right and warranted, it makes me think they aren't coming from a place that they genuinely give any actual effs about women or their rights. As many of us have said, its not about the packaging, we're arguing against what we think is your argument that there is no place for discussing 'women' or 'women's rights' and that the word woman will fall into the same historical faux pas pile as the f word or the n word.

You're just a pot stirrer IMO and are here to get your rocks off on making people upset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or leave it.
And refrain from using this “pet peeve” as an excuse to throw around a misogynistic term like “HYSTERICAL” indiscriminately, okey dokey?

Sure - I don't use "HYSTERICAL" indiscriminately. Only when it's really warranted. Typically for hyperbolic "concerns" with shady intentions.

Calling women hysterical for being concerned about women's rights is misogynistic and as you are well aware calls up a long history of discrimination that counter intuitively to your comment is the reason a lot of us are fighting the pull away from female focused language.

DP. I don't think you're being called hysterical for being concerned about women's rights. I think you're being called hysterical for being so concerned about the changes to Always's packaging. And since you're the one insisting that woman = uterus, it seems quite appropriate.

Yeah when someone is doubling down on how calling a woman hysterical is right and warranted, it makes me think they aren't coming from a place that they genuinely give any actual effs about women or their rights. As many of us have said, its not about the packaging, we're arguing against what we think is your argument that there is no place for discussing 'women' or 'women's rights' and that the word woman will fall into the same historical faux pas pile as the f word or the n word.

You're just a pot stirrer IMO and are here to get your rocks off on making people upset.

No, this is a thread about Always packaging. Nobody has said that the word "woman" is going away except you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or leave it.
And refrain from using this “pet peeve” as an excuse to throw around a misogynistic term like “HYSTERICAL” indiscriminately, okey dokey?

Sure - I don't use "HYSTERICAL" indiscriminately. Only when it's really warranted. Typically for hyperbolic "concerns" with shady intentions.

Calling women hysterical for being concerned about women's rights is misogynistic and as you are well aware calls up a long history of discrimination that counter intuitively to your comment is the reason a lot of us are fighting the pull away from female focused language.

DP. I don't think you're being called hysterical for being concerned about women's rights. I think you're being called hysterical for being so concerned about the changes to Always's packaging. And since you're the one insisting that woman = uterus, it seems quite appropriate.

Yeah when someone is doubling down on how calling a woman hysterical is right and warranted, it makes me think they aren't coming from a place that they genuinely give any actual effs about women or their rights. As many of us have said, its not about the packaging, we're arguing against what we think is your argument that there is no place for discussing 'women' or 'women's rights' and that the word woman will fall into the same historical faux pas pile as the f word or the n word.

You're just a pot stirrer IMO and are here to get your rocks off on making people upset.

No, this is a thread about Always packaging. Nobody has said that the word "woman" is going away except you.

I think you’re being deliberately obtuse if you truly think this thread is simply about Always packaging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or leave it.
And refrain from using this “pet peeve” as an excuse to throw around a misogynistic term like “HYSTERICAL” indiscriminately, okey dokey?

Sure - I don't use "HYSTERICAL" indiscriminately. Only when it's really warranted. Typically for hyperbolic "concerns" with shady intentions.

Calling women hysterical for being concerned about women's rights is misogynistic and as you are well aware calls up a long history of discrimination that counter intuitively to your comment is the reason a lot of us are fighting the pull away from female focused language.

DP. I don't think you're being called hysterical for being concerned about women's rights. I think you're being called hysterical for being so concerned about the changes to Always's packaging. And since you're the one insisting that woman = uterus, it seems quite appropriate.

Yeah when someone is doubling down on how calling a woman hysterical is right and warranted, it makes me think they aren't coming from a place that they genuinely give any actual effs about women or their rights. As many of us have said, its not about the packaging, we're arguing against what we think is your argument that there is no place for discussing 'women' or 'women's rights' and that the word woman will fall into the same historical faux pas pile as the f word or the n word.

You're just a pot stirrer IMO and are here to get your rocks off on making people upset.

No, this is a thread about Always packaging. Nobody has said that the word "woman" is going away except you.

And yet when anyone asks you to clarify if this is what you are arguing you ignore the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for minority rights, if the minority is big enough!

Wait, what?

Cute!

But...not everything is a right. Some things are non-issue nonsense. And turning everything into a crusade is exhausting.

Plus, there is no universally designated spokesperson for the trans people. In fact, there’s a great deal of subjective disagreement among them. Ya know, because they are individuals with their own unique perspective and opinion.

Yes the RWNJ CRUSADE against trans people is getting exhausting.

Attaching cancel culture to absurd language use policing is basically falling right into the hands of the RWNJ crusade. Focus on actual injustice and power, and you'll find many more allies.

Yes, so let's not get all HYSTERICAL over a minor change to pad packaging.

Likewise, let’s not get HYSTERICAL (not to mention repetitive) about not removing this minor, meaningless little sign from pad packaging.

No one cares about the packaging. There are bigger issues for your "concern".

Most of us arguing the other side here ALSO don't think the packaging is a big deal. It is all about the larger ramifications and you know it, because that's what both of us are arguing about.

Oh - just a little bit of fearmongering then? Oh OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or leave it.
And refrain from using this “pet peeve” as an excuse to throw around a misogynistic term like “HYSTERICAL” indiscriminately, okey dokey?

Sure - I don't use "HYSTERICAL" indiscriminately. Only when it's really warranted. Typically for hyperbolic "concerns" with shady intentions.

Calling women hysterical for being concerned about women's rights is misogynistic and as you are well aware calls up a long history of discrimination that counter intuitively to your comment is the reason a lot of us are fighting the pull away from female focused language.

I find it an ironic term to use on someone who is so "concerned" about women's rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for minority rights, if the minority is big enough!

Wait, what?

Cute!

But...not everything is a right. Some things are non-issue nonsense. And turning everything into a crusade is exhausting.

Plus, there is no universally designated spokesperson for the trans people. In fact, there’s a great deal of subjective disagreement among them. Ya know, because they are individuals with their own unique perspective and opinion.

Yes the RWNJ CRUSADE against trans people is getting exhausting.

Attaching cancel culture to absurd language use policing is basically falling right into the hands of the RWNJ crusade. Focus on actual injustice and power, and you'll find many more allies.

Yes, so let's not get all HYSTERICAL over a minor change to pad packaging.

Likewise, let’s not get HYSTERICAL (not to mention repetitive) about not removing this minor, meaningless little sign from pad packaging.

No one cares about the packaging. There are bigger issues for your "concern".

Most of us arguing the other side here ALSO don't think the packaging is a big deal. It is all about the larger ramifications and you know it, because that's what both of us are arguing about.

Oh - just a little bit of fearmongering then? Oh OK.

Hey answer the questions if you don't want us fear mongering.

1) Are you truly in support of replacing the word woman with the word person?
2) Do you believe 'woman' is equivalent to a slur that should be condemned to the scrap pile of history
3) Do you think the word 'man' is equally as offensive?

I don't think anyone should engage with you anymore until you are clear about what you are saying and answer these questions.