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:

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?

I deliberately used it ironically for the extreme "concern" about "women's rights" that sounds like anti-trans talking points.

You sound really upset. On the rag?

Get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes. When people try to silence me when talking about myself and my experiences as a woman, they are engaging in bigotry and misogyny.
Just as if I were black, and people were trying to silence me when talking about myself and my experiences as a black person, they would be engaging in bigotry and racism.

Water is wet.

[Anonymous]

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

I care about the rights of disadvantaged classes to be recognized and supported. Why don't you care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1. who said you can't use the words?
2. who said black people cannot describe themselves?
3. who said women cannot describe themselves?
4. no one is erasing black people or women.
5. your jump from a minor change in pad packaging to EXTREME hyperbolic situations is unsettling. I'd even say it's intentional fearmongering to spur up anti-trans sentiment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What opportunity gaps? They don't exist.

Since we can't categorize people, as that would be exclusive, we can't talk about how one group of people has greater access to opportunity than another. We just need to continue offering opportunity, and people will benefit from it. Or not. Entirely randomly. Can't possibly know why some people might not have as much opportunity as another. It's a mystery!

[Anonymous]

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

the trans boogeyman

[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:

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?

I deliberately used it ironically for the extreme "concern" about "women's rights" that sounds like anti-trans talking points.

You sound really upset. On the rag?

Get it?

In the paraphrased words of some internet rando, if you have intercourse with a goat to prove a larger ironic point you still just had intercourse with a goat.

[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”.

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?

I never said BLM was "inappropriate". Now you're just making up LIES.

I'm not pushing race at all. I'm here to talk about a stupid icon on a package of pads. Someone trying to stir the pot brought up race. Endlessly.

[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:

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?

I deliberately used it ironically for the extreme "concern" about "women's rights" that sounds like anti-trans talking points.

You sound really upset. On the rag?

Get it?

Yes. I get you're a misogynist. I thought that was clear ages ago.

Reading is fundamental.

[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:

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.

1. who said you can't use the words?
2. who said black people cannot describe themselves?
3. who said women cannot describe themselves?
4. no one is erasing black people or women.
5. your jump from a minor change in pad packaging to EXTREME hyperbolic situations is unsettling. I'd even say it's intentional fearmongering to spur up anti-trans sentiment.

Many many many posters have said the packaging is not the point. No one cares about the packaging, it's the point the packaging change is pointing to and how other similar actions have been taken that make people concerned.

But.way to take the thread through another iteration of this circle of arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What opportunity gaps? They don't exist.

Since we can't categorize people, as that would be exclusive, we can't talk about how one group of people has greater access to opportunity than another. We just need to continue offering opportunity, and people will benefit from it. Or not. Entirely randomly. Can't possibly know why some people might not have as much opportunity as another. It's a mystery!

Maybe just buy the tiki torches in bulk?

[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:

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?

I deliberately used it ironically for the extreme "concern" about "women's rights" that sounds like anti-trans talking points.

You sound really upset. On the rag?

Get it?

Yes. I get you're a misogynist. I thought that was clear ages ago.

Reading is fundamental.

I don't hate women. Just RWNJs pushing anti-trans talking points. Try to keep up.

[Anonymous]

this thread is one big quote tree of shame

[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:

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.

1. who said you can't use the words?
2. who said black people cannot describe themselves?
3. who said women cannot describe themselves?
4. no one is erasing black people or women.
5. your jump from a minor change in pad packaging to EXTREME hyperbolic situations is unsettling. I'd even say it's intentional fearmongering to spur up anti-trans sentiment.

Ooh bold and underlined. Impressive. You've convinced me.

Elizabeth Warren is proposing fining women's shelters if they don't admit transwomen.
A tiny minority of transmen and trans activists argued for the removal of the symbol of the female sex on packaging for products for menstruation. Only the female sex menstruates. Women can't have a symbol of the female sex on a package designed, specifically, for something for the female sex?
People in this thread are agitating for the term "people with uteruses" rather than women. Pregnant people, rather than pregnant women. Likening the use of woman to slurs.
People in this thread have argued that women using terms like women, pregnant women, women concerned about reproductive rights, are being exclusive and not inclusive enough.
People in this thread are arguing that we should not use "black" or "woman" because it's exclusive.

Now go back to your bolding because you're not actually going to read, think, and consider, you're going to knee jerk and be woke. Maybe sparkles next time?

[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:

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.

1. who said you can't use the words?
2. who said black people cannot describe themselves?
3. who said women cannot describe themselves?
4. no one is erasing black people or women.
5. your jump from a minor change in pad packaging to EXTREME hyperbolic situations is unsettling. I'd even say it's intentional fearmongering to spur up anti-trans sentiment.

Many many many posters have said the packaging is not the point. No one cares about the packaging, it's the point the packaging change is pointing to and how other similar actions have been taken that make people concerned.

But.way to take the thread through another iteration of this circle of arguments.

You missed #1-4. Thanks.