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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please provide me with evidence they asked women.

Being offended about erasure is not bigoted. Erasure is bigoted.

If you feel erased because a company that sells menstrual products took the Venus symbol off their packaging, I don't know what to say.

Since you're incapable of reading this thread and seeing all the other ways in which biological women have experienced being discounted, made invisible, had their importance or opinions minimized, been discriminated against, I don't know what to say. Except, perhaps a message board isn't the medium for you.

How have women been erased by referring to them as “people” instead of “women”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I can't think of an example that will not come off as extraordinarily insensitive but we do not change language or reality as a result of the way other mental illnesses cause disordered thinking.

It's very difficult to read this comment as anything other than incredibly transphobic, but I might be misunderstanding. A trans person's gender identity isn't "disordered thinking," it's what they are. Trans men are men, period. They also menstruate, so referring to "menstruating people" instead of "women," is changing language to reflect reality.

All of those things do effect menstruating transgendered men. But the conditions in which they effect transgendered men are not the same. If a transgendered man needs tampons that needs to be about being a transgendered man in men's prison. There are no 'women' in men's prisons, using language that is clear is important there.

This is also very confusing. A trans man who is arrested or sentenced could very easily end up in a woman's jail or prison (probably would depending on how he looked, etc.), he'd experience the same thing as a cis woman under the same conditions. It's also 100% untrue that "there are no women in men's prisons," lots of trans women wind up in men's prisons. I'm not sure what you're saying there.

You can say grapes, and you can also say seedless grapes and green grapes and red grapes and moon grapes etc. That you correctly describe something does not mean you are excluding things that don't actually fall into that category.

And that's an argument for referring to "people who menstruate" when you mean everyone who needs access to tampons or "people who can become pregnant" when you mean everyone who needs access to abortion. You don't say "grapes" to mean seedless grapes only. If you mean cis women say cis women, if you mean everyone who has periods say that. There's no plausible argument that the traditional language is more accurate, because both men and women have periods, get abortions, etc., and saying "women" is both under and over inclusive if what you mean has something to with reproductive organs specifically.

You're also never explain why bringing trans men under the umbrella of "people who menstruate" impacts cis women who also menstruate in the least. The argument is very hand wavy.

I don't think you are misunderstanding me. You yourself cited dysphoria as the cause for those feelings and acknowledge that today it exists as a diagnosis in the DSM. I think that there is a large stigma on mental illness in the United States that makes the conversation around this issue extremely difficult. To me there is no conflict between the idea that being born transgender means you have been born with a mental illness and the idea that people who are transgendered should be able to treat that condition how they like and live their life as they want. A person who is born transgendered but who is happy when living life as a member of the opposite sex to whatever surgical or hormonal degree they choose should be able to do so with only the input of their own chosen medical professionals. I don't think that this makes me transphobic. I have a different belief about the origin of the condition than you do, but no different beliefs about how they should be treated by society. And I think the issue with labeling that origin has more to do with prejudices that I think are terrible about the way our brain works and how we talk about it when something happens in the human brain that is not neurotypical.

I think that trans women have different medical needs than women who were born biologically female. I think that women are not equal to men and that we need to advocate for women's rights and trans rights and LGB rights and rights for black and hispanic and asian people. I suppose you are correct we can just start saying cis women and trans women sure. It seems impractical to me to create that distinction and impose it on all language in order to accommodate a very small amount of people. But in reality I don't think that will ever happen for that reason. So in that sense you're right silly to be arguing about something that is unlikely to happen. But I do wonder if you feel the same way about men's products. Shampoo for men, old spice, whatever. Are you advocating for complete gender neutrality?

I am not arguing that trans women can't call themselves women, just that trans men shouldn't call themselves women. Because by their own desire they don't want to be women, they don't feel like they are women. Menstruating makes them uncomfortable because, as you say, it is so defining of being a woman. The very fact that trans gendered people is a thing that happens is because there is a difference between men and women. We will never live in complete neutrality. And imposing complete neutrality also denies the experience of many people. There is no language that will never hurt anyone.

Women need to talk about being women because women still need advocacy. I, and I think a lot of other posters, are happy to include trans women in that advocacy. But not by forgoing the word woman in favor of the word 'person' because men are the group that has control over women. Men are the people who have prioritized their rights over women. So women need to advocate FOR WOMEN. Include trans women and men who are transitioning in that, that is fine. No problem. But I will not start saying pregnant person instead of pregnant woman because pregnancy has been both the gift and the curse of women. You want to erase the distinction that is central to women's rights advocacy. I would have less of an issue with saying 'pregnant men and women' than I do with the idea of saying 'pregnant people'.

I agree with your last line. "Pregnant men and women." Go for it. As well as menstrual products branded with the Mars symbol. Why not?

What about non-binary people who menstruate?

Why not be more inclusive? It doesn’t really “erase women”.

Because men and women are not equal I'm today's society and therefore differentiating between them and advocating for women's rights is still and important and critical thing.

I assume black people don't want to stop calling themselves black because other races and biracial people also have similar experiences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, transmen are biologically women...so of course they menstruate.

So give them all the products they need since they’re all women. Changing packaging is only going to alienate women who present as women.

No normal person cares about the Venus symbol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Furthermore, anyone who even casually points out an issue or asks a question is at risk of being labeled transphobic. That’s cancel culture. And it’s dangerous.

No, that's not cancel culture. That's you having an opinion, and other people having an opinion about your opinion.

Person A: "I don't think transwomen should participate in women's sports because..."
Person B: "I think transwomen should participate in women's sports because..."

Those are two opinions.

Person A, to Person B: "I think your opinion ignores the biological differences that remain ... "
Person B, to Person A: "I think your opinion ignores the changes that HRT causes ... "

Those are two people having opinions about the other person's opinion.

If instead, Person B said to Person A: "That's transphobic. You're a transphobe."

That's namecalling, it's an aspect of cancel culture because the idea is to invoke a "bad name" which will shut someone up. Like calling someone a racist, a nazi, a homophobe, etc. The idea is not to express an opinion, it's to shut down wrong think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I can't think of an example that will not come off as extraordinarily insensitive but we do not change language or reality as a result of the way other mental illnesses cause disordered thinking.

It's very difficult to read this comment as anything other than incredibly transphobic, but I might be misunderstanding. A trans person's gender identity isn't "disordered thinking," it's what they are. Trans men are men, period. They also menstruate, so referring to "menstruating people" instead of "women," is changing language to reflect reality.

All of those things do effect menstruating transgendered men. But the conditions in which they effect transgendered men are not the same. If a transgendered man needs tampons that needs to be about being a transgendered man in men's prison. There are no 'women' in men's prisons, using language that is clear is important there.

This is also very confusing. A trans man who is arrested or sentenced could very easily end up in a woman's jail or prison (probably would depending on how he looked, etc.), he'd experience the same thing as a cis woman under the same conditions. It's also 100% untrue that "there are no women in men's prisons," lots of trans women wind up in men's prisons. I'm not sure what you're saying there.

You can say grapes, and you can also say seedless grapes and green grapes and red grapes and moon grapes etc. That you correctly describe something does not mean you are excluding things that don't actually fall into that category.

And that's an argument for referring to "people who menstruate" when you mean everyone who needs access to tampons or "people who can become pregnant" when you mean everyone who needs access to abortion. You don't say "grapes" to mean seedless grapes only. If you mean cis women say cis women, if you mean everyone who has periods say that. There's no plausible argument that the traditional language is more accurate, because both men and women have periods, get abortions, etc., and saying "women" is both under and over inclusive if what you mean has something to with reproductive organs specifically.

You're also never explain why bringing trans men under the umbrella of "people who menstruate" impacts cis women who also menstruate in the least. The argument is very hand wavy.

I don't think you are misunderstanding me. You yourself cited dysphoria as the cause for those feelings and acknowledge that today it exists as a diagnosis in the DSM. I think that there is a large stigma on mental illness in the United States that makes the conversation around this issue extremely difficult. To me there is no conflict between the idea that being born transgender means you have been born with a mental illness and the idea that people who are transgendered should be able to treat that condition how they like and live their life as they want. A person who is born transgendered but who is happy when living life as a member of the opposite sex to whatever surgical or hormonal degree they choose should be able to do so with only the input of their own chosen medical professionals. I don't think that this makes me transphobic. I have a different belief about the origin of the condition than you do, but no different beliefs about how they should be treated by society. And I think the issue with labeling that origin has more to do with prejudices that I think are terrible about the way our brain works and how we talk about it when something happens in the human brain that is not neurotypical.

I think that trans women have different medical needs than women who were born biologically female. I think that women are not equal to men and that we need to advocate for women's rights and trans rights and LGB rights and rights for black and hispanic and asian people. I suppose you are correct we can just start saying cis women and trans women sure. It seems impractical to me to create that distinction and impose it on all language in order to accommodate a very small amount of people. But in reality I don't think that will ever happen for that reason. So in that sense you're right silly to be arguing about something that is unlikely to happen. But I do wonder if you feel the same way about men's products. Shampoo for men, old spice, whatever. Are you advocating for complete gender neutrality?

I am not arguing that trans women can't call themselves women, just that trans men shouldn't call themselves women. Because by their own desire they don't want to be women, they don't feel like they are women. Menstruating makes them uncomfortable because, as you say, it is so defining of being a woman. The very fact that trans gendered people is a thing that happens is because there is a difference between men and women. We will never live in complete neutrality. And imposing complete neutrality also denies the experience of many people. There is no language that will never hurt anyone.

Women need to talk about being women because women still need advocacy. I, and I think a lot of other posters, are happy to include trans women in that advocacy. But not by forgoing the word woman in favor of the word 'person' because men are the group that has control over women. Men are the people who have prioritized their rights over women. So women need to advocate FOR WOMEN. Include trans women and men who are transitioning in that, that is fine. No problem. But I will not start saying pregnant person instead of pregnant woman because pregnancy has been both the gift and the curse of women. You want to erase the distinction that is central to women's rights advocacy. I would have less of an issue with saying 'pregnant men and women' than I do with the idea of saying 'pregnant people'.

I agree with your last line. "Pregnant men and women." Go for it. As well as menstrual products branded with the Mars symbol. Why not?

What about non-binary people who menstruate?

Why not be more inclusive? It doesn’t really “erase women”.

Because men and women are not equal I'm today's society and therefore differentiating between them and advocating for women's rights is still and important and critical thing.

I assume black people don't want to stop calling themselves black because other races and biracial people also have similar experiences.

Equal pay for everyone.
Bodily autonomy for everyone.

Is the message really lost there? Equality is equality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please provide me with evidence they asked women.

Being offended about erasure is not bigoted. Erasure is bigoted.

If you feel erased because a company that sells menstrual products took the Venus symbol off their packaging, I don't know what to say.

Since you're incapable of reading this thread and seeing all the other ways in which biological women have experienced being discounted, made invisible, had their importance or opinions minimized, been discriminated against, I don't know what to say. Except, perhaps a message board isn't the medium for you.

So you lost the argument and you had to turn to ad hominem arguments.

Just wave the white flag already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your argument makes no sense. If there are two bathrooms and no signs outside a bathroom, and I walk into one that contains that urinals, I am going to realize I'm in the wrong place and go into the other bathroom.

Labeling things means I'll be able to go to the grocery store when I want to the grocery store, because it has a sign out front. Otherwise, I'd have to walk into every store in the shopping center until I found the right one. It's not oppressive or discriminatory for the hair salon to let me know what it is before I enter it. It would also be bizarre for the hair salon to contain a produce section, since I don't need a produce section when I'm there to get my hair cut.

What if they both have urinals? That happens. And it's not because the bathroom designers hate women.

Then I would use whichever one made the most sense. However, typically things are labeled when there are differences, like "grocery store" and "hair salon" so I'm not stuck debating which door to open to find what I'm looking for.

Grocery stores cater to different needs than hair salons.

Bathrooms for the female sex cater to different needs than bathrooms for the male sex.

We could do away with urinals and only install toilets and stalls, but at least in my workplace, that would end up with fewer opportunities for men to pee - more urinals fit in a space than stalls would. It seems an odd step to take just to refuse to acknowledge that male and female bodies have different anatomy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am at this point 100 percent convinced that this is a move by P&G to stir the pot and get moderates to feel like the liberals have gone insane so they will vote for Trump/republicans.

But liberals HAVE gone insane.

All of us have gone insane? You watch too much TV.

Most people don’t give a shit about packaging changes. It’s fodder for talking heads and internet boards. Don’t be so gullible.

And yet, they changed the packaging. Because people gave a shit. They didn't consider who they were offending, because even though they market to women, they don't consider women's voices. They don't ask for women's voices. We've reached a point where someone protesting gets the floor, and gets the change, without even a consideration that those few voices may well be the minority. And when that minority (trans activists) is speaking over women, well, why would we start even thinking about women care about now?

Especially since we apparently don't even know what "women" means anymore. Turtles. I suspect it really means turtles, and since turtles don't buy feminine hygiene products, Always is perfectly reasonable for not considering what turtles might care about. Much better to only pay attention to what trans activists are screaming for.

Maybe they did ask women and they happened to only ask women who aren’t bigots and said it’s totally fine to remove the Venus symbol and/or change colors.

Or maybe they don’t GAF about what the bigots think.

Please provide me with evidence they asked women.

Being offended about erasure is not bigoted. Erasure is bigoted.

I don’t have evidence but I’m sure they did.

Just look at this thread. The vast majority of posters said they DGAF if it’s removed.

Ooh ooh! I can play this game too.

I don't have evidence, but I'm sure they didn't.

Just look at this thread, the vast majority of posters are frustrated with women continually being overlooked and told that using words to describe themselves and their experiences are offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I can't think of an example that will not come off as extraordinarily insensitive but we do not change language or reality as a result of the way other mental illnesses cause disordered thinking.

It's very difficult to read this comment as anything other than incredibly transphobic, but I might be misunderstanding. A trans person's gender identity isn't "disordered thinking," it's what they are. Trans men are men, period. They also menstruate, so referring to "menstruating people" instead of "women," is changing language to reflect reality.

All of those things do effect menstruating transgendered men. But the conditions in which they effect transgendered men are not the same. If a transgendered man needs tampons that needs to be about being a transgendered man in men's prison. There are no 'women' in men's prisons, using language that is clear is important there.

This is also very confusing. A trans man who is arrested or sentenced could very easily end up in a woman's jail or prison (probably would depending on how he looked, etc.), he'd experience the same thing as a cis woman under the same conditions. It's also 100% untrue that "there are no women in men's prisons," lots of trans women wind up in men's prisons. I'm not sure what you're saying there.

You can say grapes, and you can also say seedless grapes and green grapes and red grapes and moon grapes etc. That you correctly describe something does not mean you are excluding things that don't actually fall into that category.

And that's an argument for referring to "people who menstruate" when you mean everyone who needs access to tampons or "people who can become pregnant" when you mean everyone who needs access to abortion. You don't say "grapes" to mean seedless grapes only. If you mean cis women say cis women, if you mean everyone who has periods say that. There's no plausible argument that the traditional language is more accurate, because both men and women have periods, get abortions, etc., and saying "women" is both under and over inclusive if what you mean has something to with reproductive organs specifically.

You're also never explain why bringing trans men under the umbrella of "people who menstruate" impacts cis women who also menstruate in the least. The argument is very hand wavy.

I don't think you are misunderstanding me. You yourself cited dysphoria as the cause for those feelings and acknowledge that today it exists as a diagnosis in the DSM. I think that there is a large stigma on mental illness in the United States that makes the conversation around this issue extremely difficult. To me there is no conflict between the idea that being born transgender means you have been born with a mental illness and the idea that people who are transgendered should be able to treat that condition how they like and live their life as they want. A person who is born transgendered but who is happy when living life as a member of the opposite sex to whatever surgical or hormonal degree they choose should be able to do so with only the input of their own chosen medical professionals. I don't think that this makes me transphobic. I have a different belief about the origin of the condition than you do, but no different beliefs about how they should be treated by society. And I think the issue with labeling that origin has more to do with prejudices that I think are terrible about the way our brain works and how we talk about it when something happens in the human brain that is not neurotypical.

I think that trans women have different medical needs than women who were born biologically female. I think that women are not equal to men and that we need to advocate for women's rights and trans rights and LGB rights and rights for black and hispanic and asian people. I suppose you are correct we can just start saying cis women and trans women sure. It seems impractical to me to create that distinction and impose it on all language in order to accommodate a very small amount of people. But in reality I don't think that will ever happen for that reason. So in that sense you're right silly to be arguing about something that is unlikely to happen. But I do wonder if you feel the same way about men's products. Shampoo for men, old spice, whatever. Are you advocating for complete gender neutrality?

I am not arguing that trans women can't call themselves women, just that trans men shouldn't call themselves women. Because by their own desire they don't want to be women, they don't feel like they are women. Menstruating makes them uncomfortable because, as you say, it is so defining of being a woman. The very fact that trans gendered people is a thing that happens is because there is a difference between men and women. We will never live in complete neutrality. And imposing complete neutrality also denies the experience of many people. There is no language that will never hurt anyone.

Women need to talk about being women because women still need advocacy. I, and I think a lot of other posters, are happy to include trans women in that advocacy. But not by forgoing the word woman in favor of the word 'person' because men are the group that has control over women. Men are the people who have prioritized their rights over women. So women need to advocate FOR WOMEN. Include trans women and men who are transitioning in that, that is fine. No problem. But I will not start saying pregnant person instead of pregnant woman because pregnancy has been both the gift and the curse of women. You want to erase the distinction that is central to women's rights advocacy. I would have less of an issue with saying 'pregnant men and women' than I do with the idea of saying 'pregnant people'.

I agree with your last line. "Pregnant men and women." Go for it. As well as menstrual products branded with the Mars symbol. Why not?

What about non-binary people who menstruate?

Why not be more inclusive? It doesn’t really “erase women”.

Because men and women are not equal I'm today's society and therefore differentiating between them and advocating for women's rights is still and important and critical thing.

I assume black people don't want to stop calling themselves black because other races and biracial people also have similar experiences.

Equal pay for everyone.
Bodily autonomy for everyone.

Is the message really lost there? Equality is equality.

Yes it ignores centuries of female subjugation.

Do you think black people should stop advocating against incarceration disproportionately effecting black people or is it only appropriate to fight for prisoners rights generally to avoid excluding other people treated poorly by the criminal justice system?

Of course they shouldn't because it disproportionately negatively effects black people!

Just like women need to advocate for women because women are disproportionately effected by laws that restrict bodily autonomy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you going to boycott their product because of this? Private company, they can do what they want.

I do. I absolutely don’t care about the packaging. If they would simply remove the Venus sign, I would continue to buy their product. If they made a political statement, no. As a pp stated, the packaging design done for the low IQ people. I don’t care if my pads will be wrapped in a plain brown paper as long as they do the work. However, I do care about the agenda that this company is trying to push on me. As a mother of three young girls, I don’t want to support the company who promotes equality between women and transgender men. One day, one of this transgender men will be competing against one of my girls in sports if I continue quietly with this propaganda just because it simply doesn’t hurts me now, like some of the posters said. Also, as a taxpayer, I don’t want to pay for any of the voluntary elective hormone replacement therapy, and for all the health consequences of this treatment that these transgenders will be facing in 20-30 years . This is just two examples, I have few more reasons, just don’t have time.

I think people who have this mentality “ If it doesn’t hurt me, I don’t care” are very narrow minded and failing to see a bigger picture.

And here we have the anti-trans language from the extremist group in Shirlington — American Principles Project.

Hopefully you are getting paid to spread this hateful PROPAGANDA.

How is not wanting a biological male to compete against a biological female propaganda?

Why don’t you head over to Shirlington and ask them yourself?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/kentucky-transgender-school-sports.html

Bathroom fearmongering didn’t work so now you’re trying sports. Got it.

Im not pp but im super over you denying women their ability to discuss a movement specifically aimed at erasing the language of their identity by conflating that concern with bigots who are worried about bathrooms.

I forvone don’t understand why things are labeled by gender .

They're differentiated by sex. Often for good reason.

Males and females have different anatomy. You are much more likely to see urinals in a male restroom than a female restroom. If both restrooms were designed in exactly the same way, it would either unnecessary limit the number of males who could use them. My limited observation is that restrooms for males typically contain more urinals and fewer toilets, and if they could only have toilets that same space could not hold the same number of toilets as toilets + urinals. Females are not typically prepared to use urinals, and wasting space on them in a restroom for females would be at the cost of a toilet that female bodied people could use.

We could ignore this, and pretend that male and female bodies are the same, which appears to be the direction society is going currently now. Science denial is popular.

And if tampons are not labeled for women you might not know they are for women you might think guys sticking them up the ars?

PS men’s bathrooms don’t have less stalks and their stalls work the same way stalls in women’s bathrooms work. Also having urinals don’t stop stalls from working for women.

Your argument makes no sense. If there are two bathrooms and no signs outside a bathroom, and I walk into one that contains that urinals, I am going to realize I'm in the wrong place and go into the other bathroom.

Labeling things means I'll be able to go to the grocery store when I want to the grocery store, because it has a sign out front. Otherwise, I'd have to walk into every store in the shopping center until I found the right one. It's not oppressive or discriminatory for the hair salon to let me know what it is before I enter it. It would also be bizarre for the hair salon to contain a produce section, since I don't need a produce section when I'm there to get my hair cut.

Well you will be wrong in many bathrooms, because they are unisex and they still have urinals. I actually have a funny picture in your head walking from unisex bathroom to unisex bathroom having no clue what to do because they both have urinals. The horror!

Also think it is funny you would starve to death if your grocery store was not labeled. It's odd that you need so many prompts to get through your day.

This video describes you... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wSw3IWRJa0

I am far more amused that you are so devoted to your cause that you think shops having meaninful names/labels is some sort of bizarre need.

Most of us are literate.

The majority of bathrooms are not unisex. Yet. The single holers I use also don't typically have urinals, just toilets.

[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.

You aren't going the thread to find it because it doesn't exist. Find another strawman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Furthermore, anyone who even casually points out an issue or asks a question is at risk of being labeled transphobic. That’s cancel culture. And it’s dangerous.

No, that's not cancel culture. That's you having an opinion, and other people having an opinion about your opinion.

Person A: "I don't think transwomen should participate in women's sports because..."
Person B: "I think transwomen should participate in women's sports because..."

Those are two opinions.

Person A, to Person B: "I think your opinion ignores the biological differences that remain ... "
Person B, to Person A: "I think your opinion ignores the changes that HRT causes ... "

Those are two people having opinions about the other person's opinion.

If instead, Person B said to Person A: "That's transphobic. You're a transphobe."

That's namecalling, it's an aspect of cancel culture because the idea is to invoke a "bad name" which will shut someone up. Like calling someone a racist, a nazi, a homophobe, etc. The idea is not to express an opinion, it's to shut down wrong think.

+ a million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your argument makes no sense. If there are two bathrooms and no signs outside a bathroom, and I walk into one that contains that urinals, I am going to realize I'm in the wrong place and go into the other bathroom.

Labeling things means I'll be able to go to the grocery store when I want to the grocery store, because it has a sign out front. Otherwise, I'd have to walk into every store in the shopping center until I found the right one. It's not oppressive or discriminatory for the hair salon to let me know what it is before I enter it. It would also be bizarre for the hair salon to contain a produce section, since I don't need a produce section when I'm there to get my hair cut.

What if they both have urinals? That happens. And it's not because the bathroom designers hate women.

Then I would use whichever one made the most sense. However, typically things are labeled when there are differences, like "grocery store" and "hair salon" so I'm not stuck debating which door to open to find what I'm looking for.

Grocery stores cater to different needs than hair salons.

Bathrooms for the female sex cater to different needs than bathrooms for the male sex.

We could do away with urinals and only install toilets and stalls, but at least in my workplace, that would end up with fewer opportunities for men to pee - more urinals fit in a space than stalls would. It seems an odd step to take just to refuse to acknowledge that male and female bodies have different anatomy.

Or unisex bathrooms with a lot of stalls. Everyone has equal opportunity to pee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Don't be cute. It's because this is an example of a larger crusade that it trying to get rid of the category of women, and the pre-eminence of reproductive rights as women's rights. Plus cancel culture.

Today: no Venus symbol on the package of menstrual pads
Tomorrow: no more women or female reproductive systems

Or something.

They are literally having a debate right now in New Zealand about whether to change their abortion law to say "pregnant person" instead of "pregnant women." And many many women's reproductive rights groups have been pressured to remove the word "women" because it "centers cis women"!!!! DV women's shelters have had funding pulled for being limited to biological women. And so on.

OMG!!!! THEY ARE LITERALLY HAVING A DEBATE RIGHT NOW!!!!!

We better panic!

I hope your less dismissive of the concerns of other disadvantaged groups.

Clue: You could be seriously engaging about the competing needs of trans people and women. That you're choosing this childish method of interaction demonstrates your lack of respect towards women and that you are incapable of serious engagement. You make trans activism look ridiculous and self serving, with no concern for the rights of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I can't think of an example that will not come off as extraordinarily insensitive but we do not change language or reality as a result of the way other mental illnesses cause disordered thinking.

It's very difficult to read this comment as anything other than incredibly transphobic, but I might be misunderstanding. A trans person's gender identity isn't "disordered thinking," it's what they are. Trans men are men, period. They also menstruate, so referring to "menstruating people" instead of "women," is changing language to reflect reality.

All of those things do effect menstruating transgendered men. But the conditions in which they effect transgendered men are not the same. If a transgendered man needs tampons that needs to be about being a transgendered man in men's prison. There are no 'women' in men's prisons, using language that is clear is important there.

This is also very confusing. A trans man who is arrested or sentenced could very easily end up in a woman's jail or prison (probably would depending on how he looked, etc.), he'd experience the same thing as a cis woman under the same conditions. It's also 100% untrue that "there are no women in men's prisons," lots of trans women wind up in men's prisons. I'm not sure what you're saying there.

You can say grapes, and you can also say seedless grapes and green grapes and red grapes and moon grapes etc. That you correctly describe something does not mean you are excluding things that don't actually fall into that category.

And that's an argument for referring to "people who menstruate" when you mean everyone who needs access to tampons or "people who can become pregnant" when you mean everyone who needs access to abortion. You don't say "grapes" to mean seedless grapes only. If you mean cis women say cis women, if you mean everyone who has periods say that. There's no plausible argument that the traditional language is more accurate, because both men and women have periods, get abortions, etc., and saying "women" is both under and over inclusive if what you mean has something to with reproductive organs specifically.

You're also never explain why bringing trans men under the umbrella of "people who menstruate" impacts cis women who also menstruate in the least. The argument is very hand wavy.

I don't think you are misunderstanding me. You yourself cited dysphoria as the cause for those feelings and acknowledge that today it exists as a diagnosis in the DSM. I think that there is a large stigma on mental illness in the United States that makes the conversation around this issue extremely difficult. To me there is no conflict between the idea that being born transgender means you have been born with a mental illness and the idea that people who are transgendered should be able to treat that condition how they like and live their life as they want. A person who is born transgendered but who is happy when living life as a member of the opposite sex to whatever surgical or hormonal degree they choose should be able to do so with only the input of their own chosen medical professionals. I don't think that this makes me transphobic. I have a different belief about the origin of the condition than you do, but no different beliefs about how they should be treated by society. And I think the issue with labeling that origin has more to do with prejudices that I think are terrible about the way our brain works and how we talk about it when something happens in the human brain that is not neurotypical.

I think that trans women have different medical needs than women who were born biologically female. I think that women are not equal to men and that we need to advocate for women's rights and trans rights and LGB rights and rights for black and hispanic and asian people. I suppose you are correct we can just start saying cis women and trans women sure. It seems impractical to me to create that distinction and impose it on all language in order to accommodate a very small amount of people. But in reality I don't think that will ever happen for that reason. So in that sense you're right silly to be arguing about something that is unlikely to happen. But I do wonder if you feel the same way about men's products. Shampoo for men, old spice, whatever. Are you advocating for complete gender neutrality?

I am not arguing that trans women can't call themselves women, just that trans men shouldn't call themselves women. Because by their own desire they don't want to be women, they don't feel like they are women. Menstruating makes them uncomfortable because, as you say, it is so defining of being a woman. The very fact that trans gendered people is a thing that happens is because there is a difference between men and women. We will never live in complete neutrality. And imposing complete neutrality also denies the experience of many people. There is no language that will never hurt anyone.

Women need to talk about being women because women still need advocacy. I, and I think a lot of other posters, are happy to include trans women in that advocacy. But not by forgoing the word woman in favor of the word 'person' because men are the group that has control over women. Men are the people who have prioritized their rights over women. So women need to advocate FOR WOMEN. Include trans women and men who are transitioning in that, that is fine. No problem. But I will not start saying pregnant person instead of pregnant woman because pregnancy has been both the gift and the curse of women. You want to erase the distinction that is central to women's rights advocacy. I would have less of an issue with saying 'pregnant men and women' than I do with the idea of saying 'pregnant people'.

I agree with your last line. "Pregnant men and women." Go for it. As well as menstrual products branded with the Mars symbol. Why not?

What about non-binary people who menstruate?

Why not be more inclusive? It doesn’t really “erase women”.

Because men and women are not equal I'm today's society and therefore differentiating between them and advocating for women's rights is still and important and critical thing.

I assume black people don't want to stop calling themselves black because other races and biracial people also have similar experiences.

Equal pay for everyone.
Bodily autonomy for everyone.

Is the message really lost there? Equality is equality.

Yes it ignores centuries of female subjugation.

Do you think black people should stop advocating against incarceration disproportionately effecting black people or is it only appropriate to fight for prisoners rights generally to avoid excluding other people treated poorly by the criminal justice system?

Of course they shouldn't because it disproportionately negatively effects black people!

Just like women need to advocate for women because women are disproportionately effected by laws that restrict bodily autonomy.

Equal arrests, prosecutions, and sentencing for everyone.