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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Unfortunately, unisex spaces meant for multiple people tend to mean female bodied people are more likely to be assaulted (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html). Perhaps once male bodied people stop being quite so dangerous, that's an idea.

In the meantime, if you have an interest in keeping spaces safe for all people, and want to argue for unisex spaces, single bathrooms and single changing rooms seem to be safer. If you're not interested in the safety of female bodied people, then continue arguing for unisex spaces with multiple stalls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And here we go find the RWNJ rabbit hole....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And here we go find the RWNJ rabbit hole....

Right wing nut jobs don't care about women's shelters or rape crisis centers.

[Anonymous]

Confused NP. What is wrong with talking about rape crisis centers, women's sports, and women's shelters? I don't understand what is so bad about that. Women are disproportionately subject to violence. Is it not okay to talk about that any more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

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.

Tsk tsk. There you go with your editing again. You asked how women have been erased by referring to them as people, and when I demonstrated explicitly, you change your argument to no one trying to remove the word "women."

So which is it? Is no one trying to remove the word "women" (even though throughout this thread you've been presented with numerous examples)?
Or does it not matter if we remove the word "women" ?

It's ok, I already know your answer. You don't care about women, so neither matter. Not-men is sufficient on those rare occasions when those sorts of people need to be discussed. But we'd really rather not. Not in polite conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And here we go find the RWNJ rabbit hole....

The misogynist speaks!

(I'm sure if we do this half a dozen more times we'll have solved the problem. Your turn!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

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.

Tsk tsk. There you go with your editing again. You asked how women have been erased by referring to them as people, and when I demonstrated explicitly, you change your argument to no one trying to remove the word "women."

So which is it? Is no one trying to remove the word "women" (even though throughout this thread you've been presented with numerous examples)?
Or does it not matter if we remove the word "women" ?

It's ok, I already know your answer. You don't care about women, so neither matter. Not-men is sufficient on those rare occasions when those sorts of people need to be discussed. But we'd really rather not. Not in polite conversation.

?

You're responding to multiple posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does it affect you in any way? No.

No need to be hateful, judgmental a-holes.

It affects me because it is one more step down society's road to the toilet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Confused NP. What is wrong with talking about rape crisis centers, women's sports, and women's shelters? I don't understand what is so bad about that. Women are disproportionately subject to violence. Is it not okay to talk about that any more?

It's fine, notwithstanding the You're A Misogynist If You Don't Understand How Removing The Venus Symbol From Menstrual Products Erases Women poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Confused NP. What is wrong with talking about rape crisis centers, women's sports, and women's shelters? I don't understand what is so bad about that. Women are disproportionately subject to violence. Is it not okay to talk about that any more?

It's fine, notwithstanding the You're A Misogynist If You Don't Understand How Removing The Venus Symbol From Menstrual Products Erases Women poster.

What does this post even mean?

- not the poster you reference

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't really care or have time to care. Plus lost almost all body hair, except my head hair, close to 50. Why not remove it all together, plenty of men shave too. I would be more worried that the same razor with pink on it costs more.

If you're not going to read what the thread is about, don't comment. Dummy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Unfortunately, unisex spaces meant for multiple people tend to mean female bodied people are more likely to be assaulted (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html). Perhaps once male bodied people stop being quite so dangerous, that's an idea.

In the meantime, if you have an interest in keeping spaces safe for all people, and want to argue for unisex spaces, single bathrooms and single changing rooms seem to be safer. If you're not interested in the safety of female bodied people, then continue arguing for unisex spaces with multiple stalls.

Ok. A bank of individual bathrooms available to all people. Done.

Equal opportunity and safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it affect you in any way? No.

No need to be hateful, judgmental a-holes.

It affects me because it is one more step down society's road to the toilet.

You are exactly what’s wrong with society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

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.

Tsk tsk. There you go with your editing again. You asked how women have been erased by referring to them as people, and when I demonstrated explicitly, you change your argument to no one trying to remove the word "women."

So which is it? Is no one trying to remove the word "women" (even though throughout this thread you've been presented with numerous examples)?
Or does it not matter if we remove the word "women" ?

It's ok, I already know your answer. You don't care about women, so neither matter. Not-men is sufficient on those rare occasions when those sorts of people need to be discussed. But we'd really rather not. Not in polite conversation.

?

You're responding to multiple posters.

And I asked about the erasing above, but I’m not the PP you previously criticized for “editing”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And here we go find the RWNJ rabbit hole....

The misogynist speaks!

(I'm sure if we do this half a dozen more times we'll have solved the problem. Your turn!)

More projecting.

If you want to explain why you like to use talking points pushed by anti-trans groups, go nuts.