Reply from the Body Shop re JKR... just so dreadful...

People have periods – women, men and non-binary people.

What the fuck is this shit? It makes me so angry 😡

All the confusion, the mental gymnastics, the convoluted pretzel-like ‘logic’ is designed to obfuscate, to muddy the waters, to be used to the advantage of a very determined faction that demands full and complete access to women’s sex-segregated spaces, for any man that wants it. There is no middle ground for that cohort of individuals.

We deal in absolutes: Biological fact. Material reality.

Men are men, with male bodies, and will always be biologically male.

Women are women, with female bodies, and will always be biologically female.

(With the utmost compassion for those individuals who genuinely suffer with gender dysphoria, who are perfectly entitled to their own safe spaces, and each have a right to live peacefully without fear of harm. BUT not at the expense of women’s and girls’ protections in law.)

I've stopped buying from them. Have often recommended their skin defence facial sunscreen but have swapped to Biore Watery Essence. Can I urge others to do the same, buy elsewhere.

‘ Damnit, I literally bought Body Shop stuff this week for the first time in ages.’

Take it back for a refund.

They have a special men's range because :

Whilst most of our products are suitable for everyone, we've pulled together our top recommendations for Men's Bodycare. Whether you're after moisturisation or exfoliation there's something here for you

So men have their own stuff, but the rest is for everyone.

Thanks LonginesPrime, I can get behind what you’ve said. And you definitely answered my initial question and have given me a lot of further insight into the whole trans debate (for example, I genuinely thought it was pretty well established that gender and sex were two distinct things).

Hang on - why have they only said that plenty of women don't have periods?

By saying men, women and non-binary people have periods and then singling out women as a class which includes plenty of people who don't have periods, they seem to be saying that all men and non-binary people have periods.

Unless there is something specific about women that would prompt them to clarify this in respect of women only? Perhaps there's some biological factor or something? But there can't be, because "people have periods" - it's absolutely not specific to women, and they've made that very clear.

So it must mean that all men and non-binary people actually do have periods. There's no other logical explanation, based on what they've said.

Good point, Longine!

‘ People have periods – women, men and non-binary people’.

Oh dear, if it were not so awful, it’d be wonderfully delusionally 😂.

Yes three “friends” have invited me to join their “teams” because I’m on mat leave and that’s all it takes to realise your lifelong MLM dreams.

Betty98, my main issue (and I do have others) with saying "people menstruate" and that it's not specific to women is the fact that women are often oppressed as a result of their biology (including the fact they are 'menstruators'). This is recognised in law and is why there are sex-based protections for women written into law. This didn't just happen - women had to fight bloody hard to get these rights.

But when you start to say that biological sex doesn't matter and anyone can menstruate and anyone can be a woman, those protections in law become meaningless.

It wouldn't be so problematic if people acknowledged that sex and gender are two distinct things, but nowadays many people believe (or at least say they believe) that biological sex is a social construct. That people can actually change biological sex. And saying that men have periods - not biological females who identify as men, but actual people who are men - have periods, makes sex protections based in law very difficult to enforce.

If sex doesn't exist, women's sex-based protections don't exist. The law doesn't even need to be changed for that to happen since if the word 'sex' doesn't mean anything, sex discrimination law is simply inapplicable.

Women can't claim sex discrimination if sex isn't a recognised thing - if men can menstruate and women can have penises and male privilege, there is no legally-recognised oppressed class of "biological woman" any more. Of course, biological women will still be oppressed in the ways they always have been - we just won't be able to name it any more or do anything about it.

Women would only be able to gain protection based on the fact the discrimination related to a specific biological function, such as their menstruation (as a 'menstruator') or their pregnancy (as a 'pregnant person'). But what will be lost is the recognition that biological women experience a complex force of structural oppression as a result of the combined factors which arise from their biological sex and their treatment in society.

I want trans people to feel supported and included in periods and whatever else they experience in life. But it's dangerous for women to pretend that biological sex doesn't exist.

Bodyshop at home?? Are they doing an Avon type of sales push?

That's the kiss of death, then. Good riddance.

Definitely agree with that Shelley.

I also feel pretty angry about the “Bodyshop at home” crap. I haven’t bought anything from them for a long time now because of that.

Aside from anything, even if they fundamentally disagree with JKR, the tweet was misjudged. It was dismissive, shallow, and completely out of context. For that alone their social media team should be ashamed.

As for the rest... I'd say that I'll never buy from them again. But I haven't for probably 20 years. I will instead celebrate when they go under, which I estimate will be in 2021.

Why do we need a word for the subset of women who menstruate? when I asked this I thought it was because PP were saying we did (of note: Betty you don't see why we need a word to name the class of people with the types of bodies which can gestate?). I was answering this question directly by saying I didn’t see why we needed a word for it. I definitely don’t think we need a word for it!

My mum will literally take offence at anything, the slightest wrong look from a neighbour or coworker, someone sending her birthday card by second class post (the horror!), or someone she hasn’t seen in 20 years not remembering how she likes her coffee and she’s hoiking her bra and tutting and saying well I never liked them anyway, and even she doesn’t take offence at the word women to describe the subset of women who have periods, even though she hasn’t had one for over a decade.

**
Betty you don't see why we need a word to name the class of people with the types of bodies which can gestate?
The word she means is 'women'. Not the subset who currently menstruate.

Why do we need a word for the subset of women who menstruate?

We don't. If the context of a discussion is periods, tampons etc then just referring to 'women and girls' is fine. And if you want to add transmen, go ahead.

Ok thanks Ninkanink and TorkTorkBam, that has helped.

I think I need to decide where I am on terminology debate then.

Women who don't have periods were fine with it. I didn't get periods when pregnant and early breastfeeding. I wasn't confused or offended by tampon adverts during this time.

I’m not being obtuse for the sake of it. Why do we need a word for the subset of women who menstruate?

We don't!!

Perhaps this is why I’m not getting it. I don’t have an issue with “people that menstruate”. But I’m gathering majority here would prefer it to stay with “women that menstruate”. Yes?

Oh come on. Just women is fine. No women in history ever objected to the sue of the term women when talking about periods. Because we all know:

Only women menstruate. Not all women menstruate.

This is rally very basic logic to grasp.

This is not an attempt to avoid offending menopausal women, lets' not pretend it is, it's an attempt to not offend men who like us to pretend they women.

No one here thinks there should be a word for the subset of women who menstruate.