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:

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.

No, you missed pages 10-35 when people did say those things and think you can waltz in on page 40 and pretend there's no context and this whole thread is about some period packaging.