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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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)

This thread is clear evidence that liberals are not united on this front at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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)

God forbid anyone tries to be inclusive or close opportunity gaps.

Shouldn’t you be out buying a tiki torch?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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)

I prefer clavichords.

[Anonymous]

Does Venus actually menstruate? You'd think she'd have, like, overcame that problem, being mythological and all.

[Anonymous]

Wait, the Venus symbol on the package is functional? Shit, I’ve been using menstrual products wrong for 25 years.

I mean, it must be functional if it’s worth 39 pages of debate. We’re not fighting over decorative packaging, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Because Obama has said he identifies as black. Publicly. This is not a mystery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Because Obama has said he identifies as black. Publicly. This is not a mystery.

Ok. Pick any person with a “white” parent and a “black” parent who hasn’t made a public statement about it. Or a “black” child adopted by “white” parents? A “white” baby adopted by “black” parents?

How much of your “racial identity” is tied to your skin color vs. family culture/traditions vs. societal influences?

[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 aren't believable. You used hysterical deliberately, while arguing against women defending their rights. That's misogynistic. If you didn't intend to express misogyny, you need to spend more time listening and less time being "ironic." What else do you do ironically? Blackface? Appropriating ceremonial native head dresses? Call your friends n-word-with-an-a?

[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”.

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.

I disagree with your implied contention that "Black Lives Matter" isn't inclusive and is inappropriate because it's focusing on labels and preventing us from addressing the issue.

Unless you're willing to admit that perhaps the black experience of police violence is in at least some ways different from the white experience of police violence, and does not share all of the same root of the issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

How do you talk about something when you can't use the words?

If black people cannot describe themselves, how do they talk about their particular experience with police oppression and violence?
If women cannot describe themselves, how do they talk about their particular experience with early sexualize, sexual violence, male violence, male oppression, social oppression, fighting for reproductive autonomy... ?

It's erasure to refuse to allow people to talk about themselves and their experience. Arguing that "black lives matter" is unacceptably narrow is arguing against the right of black people to advocate for themselves and their needs. Arguing we shouldn't talk about "black" people but just people erases black people.

[Anonymous]

I still want to know who isn't allowing the PP to use the word "woman".

[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.

We're not just talking about people here. But if you were interested in doing anything other than spewing misogynistic talking points, you'd know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Does Venus actually menstruate? You'd think she'd have, like, overcame that problem, being mythological and all.

What's even the point of being a goddess if you have to go through the whole menstruation fuss and bother? I'm going with "no".

[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?

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?

Refusing to acknowledge the needs of historically disadvantaged groups the right to their own experience, and the right to their own descriptions of their experiences, and the right to the language describing those experiences is discriminatory. It's what the oppressive class does.

It's easy to fall into the white supremacy of our culture. I suggest you fight against it.
The same holds true for male supremacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Race is complicated.
Sex is complicated.

Barack Obama is perfectly within his rights to talk about black experiences and needs.
Women are within our rights to talk about womens experiences and needs.
Transmen are also within their rights to talk about transmen experiences and needs.

And guess what, sometimes those needs are going to be in contention. Think about the conversation about affirmative action and how white women are the biggest beneficiaries. Women should be beneficiaries of affirmative action, in order to address historical wrongs. But white women should not be the biggest beneficiaries. But if we can't talk about "white" or "black" or "women" or "men" we can't talk about these competing rights and how to reasonably address historical and current wrongs, and improve things for everyone going forward.