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:"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."

Or it means, when I refer to myself and my experiences, bigots and misogynists argue with me, and that's frustrating. So I'll take this opportunity to point out there are other ways of handling it. You can persist in believing the appropriate, reasonable response is to resort to name calling, and that pointing out name calling is unproductive is the problem. That just speaks to the sort of person you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

I used "hysterical" ironically. Explained that many pages ago.

Still waiting to hear why PP uses anti-trans talking points.

[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”.

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."

If we get to the root of the issue instead of focusing on labels, we can address the issues.

Not trying to water down or ignore issues, just trying to be inclusive of others who share the same issues. Why not band together?

Please refer to the Red Bloc "People with Uteruses" group formed above.

[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?

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.

Or you could read what people have said explaining why it's a problem rather than pretending no one's said anything.

But that would require you cared what women feel and say about their actual lived experiences as women.

[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?

Perhaps because the different classes have different needs and experiences.

White people experience police overreach and violence. Black people experience police overreach and violence.

Is it possible that turning that into "police overreach and violence" erases the unique experience black people have and the particular issues they may be experiencing that may in fact be different and need different methods to address the problem?

[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.

Do you feel the same way about race?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

I used "hysterical" ironically. Explained that many pages ago.

Still waiting to hear why PP uses anti-trans talking points.

You never explained that. Bump the post where you did if I missed it.

[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.

Do you feel the same way about race?

I've already posted a few times about it over the last few pages, but again I do think there are ways of being inclusive of people who share common issues:

“People brutalized by police”
“People with uteruses”

Why shouldn’t people with mutual issues join forces? And no one is actually "forbidding" anyone from using certain language.

Race truly is just a social construct - not based on science. Of course, as a social construct, it has devastatingly divided and destroyed many and continues to do great harm today. But, many generations from now, hopefully we can get to the point where we recognize that we really are all just humans with different skin tones, eye colors, cultures, traditions, etc.


I'd still love to hear what exactly is your “status as a woman” and how women are “completely erased”. "Completely"? That doesn't sound hyperbolic to you?

[Anonymous]

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.

I find it an ironic term to use on someone who is so "concerned" about women's rights.

Get it? "Concern" over women's rights. Hysterical.

[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?

Perhaps because the different classes have different needs and experiences.

White people experience police overreach and violence. Black people experience police overreach and violence.

Is it possible that turning that into "police overreach and violence" erases the unique experience black people have and the particular issues they may be experiencing that may in fact be different and need different methods to address the problem?

OK. So do your own thing. Again, no one here is "forbidding" anyone from using certain language.

Just because some people want to be inclusive doesn't automatically mean that "women are erased" or other hyperbolic statements like that.

[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?

Perhaps because the different classes have different needs and experiences.

White people experience police overreach and violence. Black people experience police overreach and violence.

Is it possible that turning that into "police overreach and violence" erases the unique experience black people have and the particular issues they may be experiencing that may in fact be different and need different methods to address the problem?

OK. So do your own thing. Again, no one here is "forbidding" anyone from using certain language.

Just because some people want to be inclusive doesn't automatically mean that "women are erased" or other hyperbolic statements like that.

Listen, you can't have it both ways. You can't see or not critique posts that imply that 'woman' will eventually historically be looked at the way 'f_g' is today and think that what you're arguing in favor of is not aiming to have certain language become so publicly unappealing as to become verboten.

[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?

As long as you're comfortable continuing to discriminate against historically disadvantaged groups, nothing is wrong from refusing to acknowledge that historically disadvantaged groups may have specific needs and problems.

[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?

Perhaps because the different classes have different needs and experiences.

White people experience police overreach and violence. Black people experience police overreach and violence.

Is it possible that turning that into "police overreach and violence" erases the unique experience black people have and the particular issues they may be experiencing that may in fact be different and need different methods to address the problem?

OK. So do your own thing. Again, no one here is "forbidding" anyone from using certain language.

Just because some people want to be inclusive doesn't automatically mean that "women are erased" or other hyperbolic statements like that.

Listen, you can't have it both ways. You can't see or not critique posts that imply that 'woman' will eventually historically be looked at the way 'f_g' is today and think that what you're arguing in favor of is not aiming to have certain language become so publicly unappealing as to become verboten.

I never said that. ?

There are many people posting.

[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?

As long as you're comfortable continuing to discriminate against historically disadvantaged groups, nothing is wrong from refusing to acknowledge that historically disadvantaged groups may have specific needs and problems.

DP. How did you make that hyperbolic leap FFS?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

You're like that racist brewer who couldn't tell if his employee was black because they hadn't discussed his ancestry. And couldn't speak to whether Michael Jordan was black for similar reasons. Link to full article: https://detroit.eater.com/2019/10/22/20926577/founders-brewing-company-racial-discrimination-black-employee-lawsuit-deposition-its-not-right

Part of deposition below:

Evans’ Attorney, Jack Schulz: When did you first meet Tracy Evans?

Founders manager Dominic Ryan: 2011, 2012. We had mutual friends before working there, so …

Schulz: OK, So you knew Tracy prior to his employment at Founders?

Ryan: We met a few times, yes.

Schulz: OK, are you aware Tracy is Black?

Ryan: What do you mean by that?

Schulz: Are you aware Tracy is African-American?

Ryan: I’m not sure of his lineage so I can’t answer that.

Schulz: Alright. Are you aware that Tracy is a man of color?

Ryan: What do you mean by that?

Schulz: No? Do you know … You don’t know what it means for someone to be a white person or a Black person?

Ryan: I’m asking for clarification.

Schulz: You don’t need any. I can promise you that. We’ll keep the record as is. Someone’s skin color. A white …

Ryan: So that’s what you’re referring to?

Schulz: Yeah. Oh, yeah, yeah.

Ryan: OK. Yes, I know the difference in skin tone.

Schulz: Are you able to identify individuals by their skin tone?

Ryan: What do you mean “identify”?

Schulz: I mean have you ever looked at Tracy Evans in your entire life? Have you? That’s a … that’s a genuine question.

Founders Attorney: Objection. Argumentative.

Founders Attorney: You can answer.

Ryan: Yes.

Schulz: And did you ever realize that Tracy’s skin [is] Black?

Ryan: That’s not … I mean, is his skin different from mine? Yes.

Schulz: How?

Ryan: What do you mean “how”? It’s a different color.

Schulz: And what is the difference of that color?

Ryan: It’s darker.

Schulz: And that means?

Founders Attorney: Objection. Vague question.

Schulz: I mean, we could … This could be a one-sentence answer, you know. So by your … I guess your testimony is you have no idea if Tracy is a minority, if he’s African-American?

Ryan: I don’t know Tracy’s lineage, so I can’t speculate on whether he’s … if he’s from Africa or not.

Schulz: What do you mean lineage, from Africa?

Ryan: No. I mean, like, I don’t know his DNA.

Schulz: Have you ever met Black people who aren’t from Africa?

Ryan: Excuse me?

Schulz: Have you ever met a Black person born in America?

Ryan: Yes.

Schulz: And you were able … Have you ever met a Black person who didn’t tell you they were Black?

Ryan: Can you rephrase that?

Schulz: Is Barack Obama Black?

Founders Attorney: Objection.

Schulz: To your knowledge?

Ryan: I’ve never met Barack Obama so I don’t …

Schulz: So you don’t know if Barack Obama is Black? What about Michael Jordan? Do you know if Michael Jordan is Black?

Founders Attorney: Objection

Ryan: I’ve never met him.

Schulz: So you don’t know him? What about Kwame Kilpatrick?

Ryan: Never met him.

Schulz: To your knowledge, was Kwame Kilpatrick Black?

Ryan: I …

Schulz: You don’t know?

Ryan: I don’t know.