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: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.

Police are violent against every race. Limiting it to black, or black and brown, is exclusive. To be inclusive, you need to say all lives matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The point was inclusion:

“People with uteruses”
“People brutalized by police”

Why shouldn’t people with mutual issues join forces?

They should. Which is why women need to be able to discuss the issues they face, which may overlap with issues others face, but aren't 1-to-1. The venn diagram is not a circle. Women need to be able to join forces with other women in order to fight against the historical disadvantages we face, and the continuing disadvantages our daughters face, and the horrific discrimination women in other countries face.

[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?

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.

Multiple posters have explained that it was that rhetoric earlier in this thread that many people objected to. If you're the person who has been reciting this 'no one is stopping you' line for pages than you were participating when that post happened. And you certainly didn't disavow it or say that poster was taking things too far. I clarified when I didn't post something that another poster said that I thought crossed the line into being a little anti trans. If you don't want to be lumped in with ideas that you don't believe in than you should say that TOO.

[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.

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.

According to the PP with the amnio, Ryan is completely correct. Tracy could identify as a white person. And we must respect that. And NEVER assume based on appearances. He could be part of the .6%!

And this, my friends, is what the world is coming to.

[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?

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.

Multiple posters have explained that it was that rhetoric earlier in this thread that many people objected to. If you're the person who has been reciting this 'no one is stopping you' line for pages than you were participating when that post happened. And you certainly didn't disavow it or say that poster was taking things too far. I clarified when I didn't post something that another poster said that I thought crossed the line into being a little anti trans. If you don't want to be lumped in with ideas that you don't believe in than you should say that TOO.

I was not involved in the "f_g" conversation. I'm only responsible for my own posts.

And you are responsible for yours. Try not to conflate posters, 'kay?

[Anonymous]

So the racist brewer who uses the N word is absolutely disgusting and was obviously lying when he said he didn't know Tracy was black, but he sorta has a point about race. (Maybe he co-opted a post-racial concept for his defense.)

Let's take Obama. His mother was white and his father was black. How should someone know if he identifies as white, black, or other (mixed)? Obama is equally as "white" as he is "black".

Obviously, people with darker skin face more discrimination, but attributing the labels "black" and "white" is more complicated than just skin color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a woman, why should I care? If it makes them feel more included, awesome.

This. I can see an argument that is isn’t NECESSARY, but there is no harm in it. It does not negatively affect cis women to remove a dang symbol from the package/logo. If even one person is better served by this and nobody is harmed, great! Go for it!

[Anonymous]

Multiple posters have explained that it was that rhetoric earlier in this thread that many people objected to. If you're the person who has been reciting this 'no one is stopping you' line for pages than you were participating when that post happened. And you certainly didn't disavow it or say that poster was taking things too far. I clarified when I didn't post something that another poster said that I thought crossed the line into being a little anti trans. If you don't want to be lumped in with ideas that you don't believe in than you should say that TOO.

I was not involved in the "f_g" conversation. I'm only responsible for my own posts.

And you are responsible for yours. Try not to conflate posters, 'kay?



Are you serious? This is an anonymous forum and you do not have a username. How is anyone supposed to know which posts are yours? Critical thinking is clearly not your strong point, is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Multiple posters have explained that it was that rhetoric earlier in this thread that many people objected to. If you're the person who has been reciting this 'no one is stopping you' line for pages than you were participating when that post happened. And you certainly didn't disavow it or say that poster was taking things too far. I clarified when I didn't post something that another poster said that I thought crossed the line into being a little anti trans. If you don't want to be lumped in with ideas that you don't believe in than you should say that TOO.

I was not involved in the "f_g" conversation. I'm only responsible for my own posts.

And you are responsible for yours. Try not to conflate posters, 'kay?

Are you serious? This is an anonymous forum and you do not have a username. How is anyone supposed to know which posts are yours? Critical thinking is clearly not your strong point, is it?

Sorry you're having trouble following along, but that is EXACTLY my point. Nobody knows who is posting what so please don't assume who I am.

Here is what I wrote:
"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."

Feel free to respond to me without assuming I said something 20 pages ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Multiple posters have explained that it was that rhetoric earlier in this thread that many people objected to. If you're the person who has been reciting this 'no one is stopping you' line for pages than you were participating when that post happened. And you certainly didn't disavow it or say that poster was taking things too far. I clarified when I didn't post something that another poster said that I thought crossed the line into being a little anti trans. If you don't want to be lumped in with ideas that you don't believe in than you should say that TOO.

I was not involved in the "f_g" conversation. I'm only responsible for my own posts.

And you are responsible for yours. Try not to conflate posters, 'kay?

Are you serious? This is an anonymous forum and you do not have a username. How is anyone supposed to know which posts are yours? Critical thinking is clearly not your strong point, is it?

Sorry you're having trouble following along, but that is EXACTLY my point. Nobody knows who is posting what so please don't assume who I am.

Here is what I wrote:
"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."

Feel free to respond to me without assuming I said something 20 pages ago.

I am not the PP but I am the poster who said you should know the context of the conversation you're entering into. You have been participating for many pages if you are the poster I thought you were. You didn't deny that you were that poster or that you have been participating so I am assuming that I was correct.

You only want to be responsible for your own posts so I will just ask you directly. Do you hope for a future in which the word 'woman' is viewed the same way the word 'f_g' is viewed today, as another poster suggested? If so, do you feel the same way about the word 'man'?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Multiple posters have explained that it was that rhetoric earlier in this thread that many people objected to. If you're the person who has been reciting this 'no one is stopping you' line for pages than you were participating when that post happened. And you certainly didn't disavow it or say that poster was taking things too far. I clarified when I didn't post something that another poster said that I thought crossed the line into being a little anti trans. If you don't want to be lumped in with ideas that you don't believe in than you should say that TOO.

I was not involved in the "f_g" conversation. I'm only responsible for my own posts.

And you are responsible for yours. Try not to conflate posters, 'kay?

Are you serious? This is an anonymous forum and you do not have a username. How is anyone supposed to know which posts are yours? Critical thinking is clearly not your strong point, is it?

Sorry you're having trouble following along, but that is EXACTLY my point. Nobody knows who is posting what so please don't assume who I am.

Here is what I wrote:
"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."

Feel free to respond to me without assuming I said something 20 pages ago.

I am not the PP but I am the poster who said you should know the context of the conversation you're entering into. You have been participating for many pages if you are the poster I thought you were. You didn't deny that you were that poster or that you have been participating so I am assuming that I was correct.

You only want to be responsible for your own posts so I will just ask you directly. Do you hope for a future in which the word 'woman' is viewed the same way the word 'f_g' is viewed today, as another poster suggested? If so, do you feel the same way about the word 'man'?

I've been involved for many pages, but not the "f_g" conversation. When was that even discussed - back at the beginning? Was "f_g" even referenced at all in the last 10 pages?

No.
No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When you refer to yourself and your experiences, people criticize you, and you call them bigots and misogynists. Speaking of name-calling.

[Anonymous]

How does this affect you? Why do you care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does this affect you? Why do you care?

You could ask the same of transmen. How does it affect them? Why do they care? They can still use the products.

[Anonymous]

WHy are liberals so hypocritical?

They want strong lines and preferences on racial and ethnic identification (affirmation action) but don't want to let people identify and separate by penises and virginals. (bathrooms)