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:

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.

well, answer the question, and I won't call you a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

To clarify: I think it's really important that there be PSAs and information to reach out to trans women to inform them of prostate cancer risk, as well as risks created (or reduced!) by hormone treatment. The question is if there is a movement by trans women to change the language around men's health public campaigns to be inclusive. For example, where is the campaign to delete the word "men" from the zerocancer.org website?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not a great comparison.

More like if Hispanics wanted to say Black & Brown Lives Matter to protest police brutality against two minority groups. Inclusive, not erasing.

Keep the focus on the uterus (or domestic violence or pay scales), not the label.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

well, answer the question, and I won't call you a troll.

+1 do you feel like black people shouldn't be advocating against high black incarceration rates because they should instead be fighting the criminal justice system as a whole?

Even within a closer topic, can you imagine if this entire conversation was about black women vs white women? IE, black women shouldn't be allowed to advocate for issues that primarily effect black women like high mortality rates in childbirth because they should simply be looking at how all women's maternity care is lacking? That would be appalling because it is clearly important to acknowledge the biases that are making a bad situation far worse for black women.

Intersectionality means acknowledging the differences to be able to combat the specific prejudices that each group faces. Switching from 'woman' to 'person' eliminates the differences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not a great comparison.

More like if Hispanics wanted to say Black & Brown Lives Matter to protest police brutality against two minority groups. Inclusive, not erasing.

Keep the focus on the uterus (or domestic violence or pay scales), not the label.

No its not, its like if hispanics wanted to say all lives matter. Because the people on this thread aren't advocating for always packaging to say, 'for women and transgendered men' they are advocating for it to say, 'people'. Less specificity not more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not a great comparison.

More like if Hispanics wanted to say Black & Brown Lives Matter to protest police brutality against two minority groups. Inclusive, not erasing.

Keep the focus on the uterus (or domestic violence or pay scales), not the label.

No its not, its like if hispanics wanted to say all lives matter. Because the people on this thread aren't advocating for always packaging to say, 'for women and transgendered men' they are advocating for it to say, 'people'. Less specificity not more.

The point was inclusion:

“People with uteruses”
“People brutalized by police”

Why shouldn’t people with mutual issues join forces?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No its not, its like if hispanics wanted to say all lives matter. Because the people on this thread aren't advocating for always packaging to say, 'for women and transgendered men' they are advocating for it to say, 'people'. Less specificity not more.

If you want specificity, then the packaging should say "for women who menstruate or are slightly incontinent". Lots of women don't menstruate - starting with post-menopausal women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not a great comparison.

More like if Hispanics wanted to say Black & Brown Lives Matter to protest police brutality against two minority groups. Inclusive, not erasing.

Keep the focus on the uterus (or domestic violence or pay scales), not the label.

I have ZERO issue with a campaign for Trans Men and Women's Reproductive Rights. That sounds great to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I have ZERO issue with a campaign for Trans Men and Women's Reproductive Rights. That sounds great to me.

Men and transwomen shouldn't have reproductive rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not a great comparison.

More like if Hispanics wanted to say Black & Brown Lives Matter to protest police brutality against two minority groups. Inclusive, not erasing.

Keep the focus on the uterus (or domestic violence or pay scales), not the label.

I have ZERO issue with a campaign for Trans Men and Women's Reproductive Rights. That sounds great to me.

How about “People with Uteruses”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have ZERO issue with a campaign for Trans Men and Women's Reproductive Rights. That sounds great to me.

Men and transwomen shouldn't have reproductive rights?

Their reproductive rights are NOT UNDER ATTACK

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have ZERO issue with a campaign for Trans Men and Women's Reproductive Rights. That sounds great to me.

Men and transwomen shouldn't have reproductive rights?

Their reproductive rights are NOT UNDER ATTACK

Well, not in the same way, because they're not people with uteruses. But yeah, it's an issue too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have ZERO issue with a campaign for Trans Men and Women's Reproductive Rights. That sounds great to me.

Men and transwomen shouldn't have reproductive rights?

Their reproductive rights are NOT UNDER ATTACK

Well, not in the same way, because they're not people with uteruses. But yeah, it's an issue too.

Really? Enlighten me on how people without uteruses' reproductive rights are under attack. Specific examples. Many specific examples of how the reproductive rights of women and trans men are under attack have been specifically written about here.

[Anonymous]

The question is if there is a movement by trans women to change the language around men's health public campaigns to be inclusive. For example, where is the campaign to delete the word "men" from the zerocancer.org website?

My point was that the reason that you get trans woman focused information about prostate cancer is because trans women have been raised the issue. It's not a formal campaign, with a website, but it's part of the conversation. I know personally a number of trans people, both men and women, and I know that if I said "men should get screen for prostate cancer" I'd get both the response that some women (and non-binary people with prostates) should get screened and some men don't have prostates. Even just as a partner of a trans person, I'd push back on that statement in lot of contexts, because I know it's what my trans friends would want me to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have ZERO issue with a campaign for Trans Men and Women's Reproductive Rights. That sounds great to me.

Men and transwomen shouldn't have reproductive rights?

Their reproductive rights are NOT UNDER ATTACK

Well, not in the same way, because they're not people with uteruses. But yeah, it's an issue too.

Really? Enlighten me on how people without uteruses' reproductive rights are under attack. Specific examples. Many specific examples of how the reproductive rights of women and trans men are under attack have been specifically written about here.

Sure. Subjects include toxins that affect fertility (particularly through workplace exposure), STIs, access to health care, and surrogacy arrangements. Obviously none of it involves pregnancy, because people without uteruses don't get pregnant. But they're reproductive rights nonetheless.