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:

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?

The reproductive rights of men and trans women are not under threat, correct.

Yes, they are, unless you define reproductive rights exclusively in terms of people who are/can get pregnant. But why would you do that? Nobody gets pregnant by themselves.

you're just proving the point. you want to bury women's rights and the right of women to advocate in their own interest as a disfavored class for their unique interests.

Nope. I'm just saying that EVERYBODY - all humans - have reproductive rights.

Fine. But women's reproductive rights are under threat and we have the right to advocate for ourselves as a bloc.

Red bloc!

love it. I would totally unite under that flag.

Great. So when we focus on the actual issues and not labels we can find common ground.

[Anonymous]

^ and be inclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The reproductive rights of men and trans women are not under threat, correct.

Yes, they are, unless you define reproductive rights exclusively in terms of people who are/can get pregnant. But why would you do that? Nobody gets pregnant by themselves.

you're just proving the point. you want to bury women's rights and the right of women to advocate in their own interest as a disfavored class for their unique interests.

Nope. I'm just saying that EVERYBODY - all humans - have reproductive rights.

Fine. But women's reproductive rights are under threat and we have the right to advocate for ourselves as a bloc.

Nobody has said that you don't.

that's literally what's happening - pressure to remove the word "women" and change institutions that are focused on women's rights.

Huh. Usually it's good to have allies, when you're fighting urgent threats. And you've agreed that the threat is to people with uteruses, whether or not they're women. But you seem to think that fighting for reproductive rights for people with uteruses will be less effective if it's more inclusive of everybody with uteruses? I don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The reproductive rights of men and trans women are not under threat, correct.

Yes, they are, unless you define reproductive rights exclusively in terms of people who are/can get pregnant. But why would you do that? Nobody gets pregnant by themselves.

you're just proving the point. you want to bury women's rights and the right of women to advocate in their own interest as a disfavored class for their unique interests.

Nope. I'm just saying that EVERYBODY - all humans - have reproductive rights.

Fine. But women's reproductive rights are under threat and we have the right to advocate for ourselves as a bloc.

Nobody has said that you don't.

You have effectively said that you think that we should not.

[Anonymous]

Also you continue to evade the race question. Which I think is a very good comparison. Do you also think that conversations about maternity care shouldn't specifically address the fact that black women specifically have worse outcomes?

[Anonymous]

This entire thread is a vivid demonstration of how identity politics is a race to the bottom - the bottom being who can claim to be the most oppressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You have effectively said that you think that we should not.

No, if you want to advocate exclusively for reproductive rights for women who have uteruses and are of current or future reproductive age, then you may do that. I think it's less effective than a more inclusive approach, but I'm not the one doing it. You get to decide what's an effective use of your time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You have effectively said that you think that we should not.

No, if you want to advocate exclusively for reproductive rights for women who have uteruses and are of current or future reproductive age, then you may do that. I think it's less effective than a more inclusive approach, but I'm not the one doing it. You get to decide what's an effective use of your time.

It's hard on an anonymous board to tell who has been posting what but if you're the quote cropper who's been posting at length in this thread than you have definitely implied that even if it wasn't your intent. The above is the type of clear articulation of your views that posters have been asking for. I don't really have much negative to say about this clarification.

Perhaps if you'd been clear from the out set you'd have had less people responding so poorly to you.

[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.

I'm responding to the most recent poster. The one who "creatively" edited out the question I responded to, in order to ask a completely different question as if it were related to my comment. If that poster is not the one who posed the question, then change "You asked" to "Someone asked." Removing the initial question is intellectually dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pot, kettle.

If you want to explain why you like to use talking points pushed by misogynists, go nuts.

You're up!

[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?

Actually, when you look at the stats, they’re not. Transwomen are less likely to be assaulted than natal women. An exception is transwomen who participate in sex work. They are more likely to be assaulted than a natal woman who does not participate in sex work.

"Natal women"? Who comes up with this stuff?

DP. IME, it is used by women who have been chastised for using the phrase "biological women" because science denial is strong among trans activists.

[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.

Incorrect. "cis" means someone who has a gender identity that is in line with their sex.

I do not identify as a woman. I am a woman. Just as I do not identify as a human, I am a human.

I do not have a gender identity. I view gender as oppressive and harmful. It plays into forced performative gender expression, which is oppressive and harmful.

[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?

Actually, when you look at the stats, they’re not. Transwomen are less likely to be assaulted than natal women. An exception is transwomen who participate in sex work. They are more likely to be assaulted than a natal woman who does not participate in sex work.

Men are subjected to violence more than women by a large margin.

By men. Men are welcome to deal with the problem of men's violence on men. They are the powerful group, it is unacceptable for them to expect historically disadvantaged and oppressed groups to do their work for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In this specific case, yes. How does a symbol take away any minority rights ( transwomen in particular)

[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”.

If we don't defend the right of disadvantaged groups to describe their own experiences and needs, we lose the understanding of their experiences and needs.

Everything that black people, poor people, LGBT people, everything they fight for could be watered down into some general statement that applies to everyone. And in doing so we would lose the understanding of the specific problems that those groups face, and the context of those problems in their experience, and we can ignore them - "well, 75% of the population isn't interested in abortion rights, so our defense of bodily autonomy is currently sufficient."