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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP, assuming that you are a woman - will you stop being a woman if New Zealand changes its abortion law from "pregnant woman" to "pregnant person"?

Will you stop being a human if the word human is extended to include turtles?

No. Of course not. But taking away the ability of people to talk about themselves and their experiences is oppressive and erasing.

There's another thread on DCUM about a dad's experience of being considered the help when picking up his child at a playdate. People in that thread suggesting that perhaps his experience wasn't because of racism are generally being told they're wrong. Why should we care? He still has his experience, even if he can't attach the word "racism" to it. It matters because words are powerful.

That's also why it matters to transmen what sorts of words (and symbols) get attached to their experiences. The response should not be to minimize women's needs or transmen's needs, that the trans activists on here are being so dismissive of women's experiences and desires just reinforces the perception that none of them actually care about women's needs or the historic and ongoing oppression of women. That's ignorance and intolerance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:who cares? Assume Always is trying to make money, so their decision will be proven right or wrong by the customer. There is deep brand loyalty to period products, so I'm sure the marketing experts have taken that into account.

Young girls who are just entering the market are more comfortable with transgender people, so this likely affected Always decision.

Young girls who are entering the market are well aware of biology, and while they are comfortable with transgender people, they are also aware that their transboy friend is female. You cannot be a transboy if you're not female, you can't be a transboy or transman. If you're not male, you can't be a transgirl or transwoman. As a biological woman, I can identify as a transman, but I cannot identify as a transwoman.

If I'm a transman, I may still need products for menstruation. If I'm a transwoman, I may still need a prostate exam. Denying science isn't helping anyone.

[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?

PP is using "hysterical" specifically because PP is a misogynist. Most people use more subtle dog whistles. PP likes being in your face.

[Anonymous]

I care that I can walk into any appropriately-sized store and get overnight and regular pads WITH WINGS. I dislike the fact that some stores have people who buy pads that are useless for many of us.

I don't care about that symbol on that pad. If it disappears, I don't have to care. But I'm allowed to care. Just like I think trans men who menstrate also shouldn't care and are allowed to care. I'm also allowed to care about other things that affect me. However, if I deployed activism about everything little thing like this, it still changes nothing. So what, there are men that menstrate. So what, there are young people that wear adult diapers. So what most of us live in a world that doesn't reflect who we really are. Inclusive is fine. Fighting to use the bathroom you identify with is a huge deal. Fighting to marry who you want and divorce who you want is a huge deal. Getting the venus symbol off of pads because only people born with biological female parts menstrate is not the hill to die on, in my opinion.

The last time I looked at packaging on that crap to see anything other than the size, the wings and if it contained plastic never existed. Take the symbol off, most women won't notice.

[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.

You need to read the thread. It's about the Always packaging in the context of a bunch of other pushes. Context, it's important.

Most of us don't care about bathrooms. Most of us don't care about always packaging. Many of us care about sports, about women's shelters, about rape crisis centers. Many of us care about being able to use language that describes our experiences.

That you ignore that, deliberately, demonstrates your misogynistic agenda.

[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.

DP. I don't give any actual effs about women.

Fixed that for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Always, as part of an amoral corporation, probably correctly surmised that this move would be appreciated by a few liberal people or trans people and basically not register with anyone else. I would guess they are right.

I think they're correct about their packaging. But I think it's causing a lot of people to realize the "we just want to be able to pee!" was a lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

LOL. I will not succumb to the fearmongering. Go start a new thread if you are so "concerned" about women's rights.

I'm sure your RWNJ bosses will pay for the extra time for you to start a new thread. Be sure to throw in some comments about bathrooms and sports.

Yeah exactly. You don't want to throw out anything concrete because your purpose is not to have a discussion but to spread divisiveness. You don't care about anyone other than your own enjoyment of setting people off against each other.

LOL. You are projecting - who has caused the divisiveness here by spinning up hyperbolic scenarios? You.

I am calling you out on exactly that.

Tell me what you actually believe. I'm not responding to any of your taunts until I believe that you actually have something to say.

I believe you have anti-trans motives for spinning up hyperbolic scenarios and trying to spread fear à la RWNJ propaganda.

And I have repeatedly explained that I don't and what my thoughts are, and you never respond to the substance you just disregard me. I have no problem with transgendered people living their life as freely as possible.

Tell me what you think about women's rights, feminism, reproductive rights, the terms "feminism" and "women's rights" and if you feel like gendered male language needs to change in the same way that gendered women's language is changing.

I don’t trust your intentions.

I’m open to language evolving to be more inclusive. It does not affect me or my experiences.

You continue to be more intent on attacking me and my theoretical motives rather than saying anything of actual substance. You're a pot stirrer trying to avoid being boxed in.

Says the pot stirrer.

I shared my thoughts above. Again, I’m open to language evolving to be more inclusive.

How open?

My children are almost college aged. First generation college students have opportunities available to them that children who have parents who did attend college don't have. I would like to redefine "first generation college students" to be inclusive of children for whom at least one of their parents did not attend college.

Sound good? I think opening the language to be more inclusive will help minimize the stigma of being a first generation college student. Additionally, children who come from families where only one parent attended college are at a disadvantage when compared to children who come from families where both parents attended college. I think you're really on to something here!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The question is, should language about menstruation become more inclusive. It isn't about a specific package of pads, who cares about a specific package of pads. Not me and not others here. I do care very much about language around menstruation losing woman focused language BECAUSE of reasons like I cited.

Do you know any trans people well? I do, including a trans man with whom I am very close. He can and does menstruate, and menstruation is something that triggers intense dysphoria because of the association with femaleness. I don't think that would be cured by reducing that association in how we talk about menstruation, but that's actual intense human suffering that we could try to alleviate with fairly simple changes in language. You can say you support trans people all you want, but at the end of the day you're looking at their pain and wringing your hands about hypotheticals.

It's telling that you describe your transman friend's suffering as "actual intense human suffering" but the suffering women and girls endure because of menstruation is "hypotheticals." Consider given women and girls the same empathy you have towards your friend.

[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”.

Only female people menstruate.
We don't need specially designed packaging for brunettes and redheads. Why do we need specially designed packaging for gender identities? Menstruation is tied to sex, not gender identity or hair color. The symbol for female is appropriate on products for menstruation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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”?

Let's rewrite that sentence and see.

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

How have who been erased? What word are we using to refer to whom? What sort of people are we talking about, with regards to erasure? I can't tell?

Not-men? (Since no one's trying to remove the word men, which should be a red flag for anyone who cares about disadvantaged groups.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Men don't menstruate.

This is a fact.

end of conversation

[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.

So this is you saying "black" is an unnecessary word?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Let's rewrite that sentence and see.

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

How have who been erased? What word are we using to refer to whom? What sort of people are we talking about, with regards to erasure? I can't tell?

Not-men? (Since no one's trying to remove the word men, which should be a red flag for anyone who cares about disadvantaged groups.)

No one is trying to remove the word "women" either.

Now, would it make sense to refer to "people with testicular cancer" instead of "men with testicular cancer"? Yes, it would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you want to trade logical fallacies, when someone points out you're either ignorant or straw manning, that's not an ad hominem. Pointing out the weaknesses in your argument, like not reading the thread, is not an ad hominem.