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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol. And yet, where are the trans women agitating for gender-inclusive language on prostate screening and Viagra? Nowhere!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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”?

because "people" includes men, and the term "women" is meant to distinguish between women and men. do we really have to say this?

But give an example of how this ACTUALLY changes any message.

Abortion rights. What’s wrong with: “everyone has a right to bodily autonomy”? The 14th amendment protects everyone, not just people labeled as “women”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Natal women" is TERF speak. If someone who actual cares about trans people wants to make the distinction they'll say cis women.

I’m liberal, but I don’t like cis woman. I’m a woman. Caitlyn Jenner can call herself a woman or a trans woman. Others can call her a woman or trans woman. But I’m a woman. No need to force me to use an additional label. The extra label on me doesn’t make a trans woman feel more included.

Honestly, all these labels only serve to distinguish and divide. We’re just people.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you want to refer to yourself as a woman, then refer to yourself as a woman.

The point is that the new PC normal is for everyone to use these new terms.

So what? Say what you want to say. "I can't say it" really means "When I say it, people criticize me, and that hurts my feelings."

[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?

Don’t you mean trans women (and men) are disproportionately subject to violence?

Ah, and here's the rub. You believe that women should STFU and it should be all about you. Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol. And yet, where are the trans women agitating for gender-inclusive language on prostate screening and Viagra? Nowhere!

No, they're there, you just haven't noticed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol. And yet, where are the trans women agitating for gender-inclusive language on prostate screening and Viagra? Nowhere!

I’m sure if breast cancer awareness wasn’t so based on gender (Pink! Pink! Pink!) then the men with breast cancer would have been screened earlier and wouldn’t be stigmatized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Natal women" is TERF speak. If someone who actual cares about trans people wants to make the distinction they'll say cis women.

that's stupid. I'm not a TERF and I don't use the term cis. I'll say genetically female or something like that. Or just female vs trans. If you think that makes me trans phobic, you're part of the problem. (The problem being: people who are more interested in language policing and canceling their potential allies, than they are in actual substantive change.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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”?

because "people" includes men, and the term "women" is meant to distinguish between women and men. do we really have to say this?

Evidently talking about "pregnant people" obscures the fact that most people who get pregnant are women, and that's bad, because the ability to get pregnant is what makes a woman a woman, as opposed to a person. Or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Natal women" is TERF speak. If someone who actual cares about trans people wants to make the distinction they'll say cis women.

I’m liberal, but I don’t like cis woman. I’m a woman. Caitlyn Jenner can call herself a woman or a trans woman. Others can call her a woman or trans woman. But I’m a woman. No need to force me to use an additional label. The extra label on me doesn’t make a trans woman feel more included.

Honestly, all these labels only serve to distinguish and divide. We’re just people.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you want to refer to yourself as a woman, then refer to yourself as a woman.

The point is that the new PC normal is for everyone to use these new terms.

So what? Say what you want to say. "I can't say it" really means "When I say it, people criticize me, and that hurts my feelings."

So you’re admitting that if you say woman, you will be criticized and labeled transphobic. And to you, this is ok?

NP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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”?

because "people" includes men, and the term "women" is meant to distinguish between women and men. do we really have to say this?

But give an example of how this ACTUALLY changes any message.

Abortion rights. What’s wrong with: “everyone has a right to bodily autonomy”? The 14th amendment protects everyone, not just people labeled as “women”.

Are you serious? Because it COMPLETELY ERASES WOMEN - who are disadvantaged BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN. So saying "everyone has a right to bodily autonomy" and forbidding me from saying "women's rights are under attack" basically hamstrings my collective action on the basis of my status as a woman.

And yes, I would like to know if you feel the same way about race, since equal protection applies to all races.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Don’t you mean trans women (and men) are disproportionately subject to violence?

Ah, and here's the rub. You believe that women should STFU and it should be all about you. Right?

What an odd comment. No, of course not.

I’m a woman and I’m trying to discern the issue people have with being more inclusive.

You want to talk about violence against “women”. I’m sure that’s a topic that applies equally (if not more so) to trans women (and men). Why not include them? Why not partner against violence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol. And yet, where are the trans women agitating for gender-inclusive language on prostate screening and Viagra? Nowhere!

No, they're there, you just haven't noticed.

Really? Links please?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Don’t you mean trans women (and men) are disproportionately subject to violence?

Ah, and here's the rub. You believe that women should STFU and it should be all about you. Right?

What an odd comment. No, of course not.

I’m a woman and I’m trying to discern the issue people have with being more inclusive.

You want to talk about violence against “women”. I’m sure that’s a topic that applies equally (if not more so) to trans women (and men). Why not include them? Why not partner against violence?

Because my issues is *women's rights* - reproductive rights, rights in the workplace, etc. I'm perfectly happy and do support trans rights. But not at the expense of having to stop advocate for women's rights. Which are specific and gendered. Get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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”?

because "people" includes men, and the term "women" is meant to distinguish between women and men. do we really have to say this?

But give an example of how this ACTUALLY changes any message.

Abortion rights. What’s wrong with: “everyone has a right to bodily autonomy”? The 14th amendment protects everyone, not just people labeled as “women”.

Are you serious? Because it COMPLETELY ERASES WOMEN - who are disadvantaged BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN. So saying "everyone has a right to bodily autonomy" and forbidding me from saying "women's rights are under attack" basically hamstrings my collective action on the basis of my status as a woman.

And yes, I would like to know if you feel the same way about race, since equal protection applies to all races.

What exactly is your “status as a woman” and how are women “completely erased”?

Aren’t we all just humans? Some with uteruses? Some with dicks?

No one is “forbidding” you from saying anything but why not say “human rights are under attack”. I think that has more weight personally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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”?

because "people" includes men, and the term "women" is meant to distinguish between women and men. do we really have to say this?

But give an example of how this ACTUALLY changes any message.

Abortion rights. What’s wrong with: “everyone has a right to bodily autonomy”? The 14th amendment protects everyone, not just people labeled as “women”.

Are you serious? Because it COMPLETELY ERASES WOMEN - who are disadvantaged BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN. So saying "everyone has a right to bodily autonomy" and forbidding me from saying "women's rights are under attack" basically hamstrings my collective action on the basis of my status as a woman.

And yes, I would like to know if you feel the same way about race, since equal protection applies to all races.

What exactly is your “status as a woman” and how are women “completely erased”?

Aren’t we all just humans? Some with uteruses? Some with dicks?

No one is “forbidding” you from saying anything but why not say “human rights are under attack”. I think that has more weight personally.

bye, troll.