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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No one is saying “stop”. Just wondering why it’s so threatening to be more inclusive. What exactly is taken away by including trans women (or trans men or minorities, etc) in rights in the workplace?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.)

Who knows what their genes are? I mean, I know that my daughters are both XX, because I had amniocentesis so I have their karyotypes. But nobody would know that just by looking at them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh sorry. Didn’t mean to make you feel bad for having no substance behind your talking points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So much for women's rights are human rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Always has announced plans to remove the Venus symbol from the packaging of their sanitary pads, in an attempt to be more inclusive of trans men and non-binary people who use their products. CNN reports that Procter & Gamble has responded to activists who have asked the company to account for the fact that not only cis women menstruate—the Venus symbol is historically supposed to stand for the female sex.

Interestingly, Bill Maher had some otherwise ridiculous conservative on his show last week who raised this topic and Maher and the rest of the panel went off on him for that “nonsense” — basically saying something like this would never happen and he was making it up. Wonder if Bill heard about this, and wonder what he thinks.

Question: is this going too far? Or is this NBD?

NP I would like to know why the few get priority over the majority. How many transmen are we talking about and why would they be upset with a symbol of Venus? How does it affect their lives? Women bend over backwards for men. Why should we bend over backwards for transmen. They want to be men so let's treat them like men. They can't get only the benefits and I don't see how a symbol hurts of Venus hurts anyone. They were once women, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No one is saying “stop”. Just wondering why it’s so threatening to be more inclusive. What exactly is taken away by including trans women (or trans men or minorities, etc) in rights in the workplace?

you're missing the point. I am 100% in favor of including gender identity as a protected class in all workplace & discrimination laws. I am 100% against the push to be "inclusive" by erasing the category of "women."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So much for women's rights are human rights.

now do race.

oh, you won't, will you.

wonder why?

because you're either a mysogynist trans person or self-appointed trans ally, or an actual troll.

[Anonymous]

Have intersex people ever pushed for this kind of stuff? Looks like there are far more intersex people than trans people (1.7%), yet they seem ok with who they are and the products they buy and the wording of things.

I could be wrong, tho - maybe they don’t like gendered language and I just missed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always has announced plans to remove the Venus symbol from the packaging of their sanitary pads, in an attempt to be more inclusive of trans men and non-binary people who use their products. CNN reports that Procter & Gamble has responded to activists who have asked the company to account for the fact that not only cis women menstruate—the Venus symbol is historically supposed to stand for the female sex.

Interestingly, Bill Maher had some otherwise ridiculous conservative on his show last week who raised this topic and Maher and the rest of the panel went off on him for that “nonsense” — basically saying something like this would never happen and he was making it up. Wonder if Bill heard about this, and wonder what he thinks.

Question: is this going too far? Or is this NBD?

NP I would like to know why the few get priority over the majority. How many transmen are we talking about and why would they be upset with a symbol of Venus? How does it affect their lives? Women bend over backwards for men. Why should we bend over backwards for transmen. They want to be men so let's treat them like men. They can't get only the benefits and I don't see how a symbol hurts of Venus hurts anyone. They were once women, right?

+1. And FFS when did people become so absurdly fragile?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So much for women's rights are human rights.

now do race.

oh, you won't, will you.

wonder why?

because you're either a mysogynist trans person or self-appointed trans ally, or an actual troll.

You aren't comfortable with people disagreeing with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have intersex people ever pushed for this kind of stuff? Looks like there are far more intersex people than trans people (1.7%), yet they seem ok with who they are and the products they buy and the wording of things.

I could be wrong, tho - maybe they don’t like gendered language and I just missed it.

Yup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Always has announced plans to remove the Venus symbol from the packaging of their sanitary pads, in an attempt to be more inclusive of trans men and non-binary people who use their products. CNN reports that Procter & Gamble has responded to activists who have asked the company to account for the fact that not only cis women menstruate—the Venus symbol is historically supposed to stand for the female sex.

Interestingly, Bill Maher had some otherwise ridiculous conservative on his show last week who raised this topic and Maher and the rest of the panel went off on him for that “nonsense” — basically saying something like this would never happen and he was making it up. Wonder if Bill heard about this, and wonder what he thinks.

Question: is this going too far? Or is this NBD?

NP I would like to know why the few get priority over the majority. How many transmen are we talking about and why would they be upset with a symbol of Venus? How does it affect their lives? Women bend over backwards for men. Why should we bend over backwards for transmen. They want to be men so let's treat them like men. They can't get only the benefits and I don't see how a symbol hurts of Venus hurts anyone. They were once women, right?

Why should we bend over backwards for minorities? Majority rules!

...is a position you probably don't take in other areas of life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There's definitely push to raise awareness of prostate cancer risk in AMAB trans community. It's early going (and they're still sorting out the exact issues of risk, since testosterone blockers (and sometimes estrogen) is a standard treatment for prostate cancer. The links below are medical sources, but they're there because activists push the issue. That said, you can see trans woman inclusive discussion of prostate cancer at:
https://www.self.com/story/transgender-women-prostate-cancer-risk
https://zerocancer.org/zeronews/transgender-women-need-know-risk-prostate-cancer/
https://prostatecanceruk.org/prostate-information/are-you-at-risk/trans-women-and-prostate-cancer

It's also mentioned in the literature you get about starting hormones for transition, at least from Whitman Walker (where my trans male partner gets his T).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So much for women's rights are human rights.

now do race.

oh, you won't, will you.

wonder why?

because you're either a mysogynist trans person or self-appointed trans ally, or an actual troll.

You aren't comfortable with people disagreeing with you.

+1

And PP is quick to call them trolls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No one is saying “stop”. Just wondering why it’s so threatening to be more inclusive. What exactly is taken away by including trans women (or trans men or minorities, etc) in rights in the workplace?

NP here. I think the argument PP is making is similar to when everyone got frustrated when people started saying “all lives matter.” Of course they do, but when the issue is supposed to be on black lives, we should not be drowning out their issues.