Page 3 | Always: 61% of young people have felt ashamed for having a period

TeenPlusCat · 2022-03-15T14:47:10+00:00

Ad just on TV as above [hmm] That can't be right can it? Even if every single girl felt ashamed that would still make up only 51% of young people... (sorry if this has been covered before)

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/03/2022 17:22

Oh, but you can't just say that. It's too unclear? What about tenants? They don't own their homes. What percentage of tenants don't test their smoke alarms. This is indeedy a very slippery slope

Yes I made that point first, thanks, pointing out how ridiculous your argument is.

AlisonDonut · 15/03/2022 17:20

@anadulthumanfemale

"If I want to know details of who they surveyed then I look at the small print."

That's a good solution. Maybe we just do that instead. Then we don't have to compel anyone's speech.

What do you mean 'compel'? Do you think they asked all young people or just girls?

What was the point of asking the boys this question?

Sophoclesthefox · 15/03/2022 17:19

Requiring advertisers to be clear isn’t compelling anyones speech, you nana 🤣

If it is, the Advertising Standards Authoritity just got a whole lot darker as an organisation.

You’re not wrong, teenpluscat. It is important to be accurate, and “girls” is the most accurate word here. We should always be clear and plain with language around menstruation.

MummBRaaarrrTheEverLeaking · 15/03/2022 17:18

Ah the old "no one is saying you can't say girls/women"

Except here, and here, oh and here, nope, no reason to say those naughty words. Thinking it is good enough. knowing it is good enough. Mustn't say it.

When can we say it? We get to say it when the subject matter can include the males I guess! Can't used sexed language about female biology though, that's bad. But it's ok everyone, we can all think it!

Original poster

TeenPlusCat · 15/03/2022 17:17

@anadulthumanfemale What justification is there for using the word 'people' instead of 'girls' if actually they mean girls? It is a longer word, that is less clear. It doesn't enhance understanding, it obfuscates it.

OP posts:

Original poster

TeenPlusCat · 15/03/2022 17:15

Normally you use homeowners to mean people who own their own home (or have a mortgage), and households to mean groups of people responsible for their own living accommodation.) So yes, words matter. If you mean girls, say girls.

OP posts:

anadulthumanfemale · 15/03/2022 17:14

"If I want to know details of who they surveyed then I look at the small print."

That's a good solution. Maybe we just do that instead. Then we don't have to compel anyone's speech.

Original poster

TeenPlusCat · 15/03/2022 17:08

If I want to know details of who they surveyed then I look at the small print.
You should not need to look at the small print to know whether one of 2 sexes has been included.

What justification would the advertisers have for using a word which automatically doubles the size of the potential group, even though they weren't included?

OP posts:

anadulthumanfemale · 15/03/2022 17:08

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Let's not be disingenuous, we know exactly why they used "people". It's normally perfectly reasonable to say 53% of homeowners don't test their smoke alarm weekly or whatever.

Oh, but you can't just say that. It's too unclear? What about tenants? They don't own their homes. What percentage of tenants don't test their smoke alarms. This is indeedy a very slippery slope.

We must demand every statistic is 100% clear about their criteria!

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/03/2022 17:07

Without interrogating what a home is, does it include shared ownership, what counts as a smoke alarm.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/03/2022 17:06

Let's not be disingenuous, we know exactly why they used "people". It's normally perfectly reasonable to say 53% of homeowners don't test their smoke alarm weekly or whatever.

AlisonDonut · 15/03/2022 17:05

@anadulthumanfemale

So you are agreeing that it would have to say "61% of young people who were born female who live in the UK and who have started having periods and who replied to our survey...." then?

Because just saying girls would be unclear and inaccurate too. As you say, you can't just leave it at 'girls' and expect everyone to know exactly what you mean.

61% of young people, does that mean all young girls and 11% of young boys? In which case we have a massive problem...

If it was 61% of young girls then it would be 31% of young people surely?

I mean what is the point of quoting statistics and paying for ad campaigns when you end up talking complete and utter bollocks?

anadulthumanfemale · 15/03/2022 17:04

But I thought you said it's a very slippery slope when you leave people to know what you mean without specifying. And that unclear statistics upset you. Just saying girls would leave it too unclear. This is all about accuracy after all right?

Or do we only apply those standards when it suits us?

Original poster

TeenPlusCat · 15/03/2022 17:02

How do you imagine the discussion for the ad campaign went:

A: so we have this statistic, 61% of girls...
B: why don't we make the statistic less clear, lets say people ...

OP posts:

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 15/03/2022 17:01

@anadulthumanfemale

Not saying you can't use the word girls. Just saying that in this instance it isn't necessary for it to be understood. So trying to force specific wording isn't needed. I thought we were against compelled speech anyway? Or is that only for TRAs?

What if it had been 31%? No-one would know what had been meant!

We only know now because it's 61% and we know the total number of girls can't exceed 51% of adolescents.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/03/2022 17:01

As someone with a maths degree I'm for accurate speech, and unclear statistics upset me. If you start fudging statistics 'because everyone knows what you mean really' then you are on a very slippery slope.

I agree.

Original poster

TeenPlusCat · 15/03/2022 17:00

You shouldn't have to read the small print on an ad to know whether they mean 'young people' or girls. Yes if you want to know the full details that take too long to say in a 30 second ad, but actually the word girls here is more accurate and faster to say, so there is no excuse for making the statistic less clear.

OP posts:

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/03/2022 16:58

Because just saying girls would be unclear and inaccurate too.

It would be a lot more accurate than "people".

anadulthumanfemale · 15/03/2022 16:56

So you are agreeing that it would have to say "61% of young people who were born female who live in the UK and who have started having periods and who replied to our survey...." then?

Because just saying girls would be unclear and inaccurate too. As you say, you can't just leave it at 'girls' and expect everyone to know exactly what you mean.

DameHelena · 15/03/2022 16:55

@anadulthumanfemale

Not saying you can't use the word girls. Just saying that in this instance it isn't necessary for it to be understood. So trying to force specific wording isn't needed. I thought we were against compelled speech anyway? Or is that only for TRAs?

I think it's more likely that Always feel compelled not to use the words girls or women, in case they incur the wrath of certain elements of the trans and trans-supporting communities.

Original poster

TeenPlusCat · 15/03/2022 16:49

As someone with a maths degree I'm for accurate speech, and unclear statistics upset me. If you start fudging statistics 'because everyone knows what you mean really' then you are on a very slippery slope.

OP posts:

anadulthumanfemale · 15/03/2022 16:43

Not saying you can't use the word girls. Just saying that in this instance it isn't necessary for it to be understood. So trying to force specific wording isn't needed. I thought we were against compelled speech anyway? Or is that only for TRAs?

Original poster

TeenPlusCat · 15/03/2022 16:36

So, we can't use the word girls if we know we are talking about girls, because we know we are talking about them so we only need to say people instead.

OP posts:

DameHelena · 15/03/2022 16:36

If you have a problem with young people being used instead of girls that's fine, but don't pretend it's an accuracy issue, when it really isn't in this case.
No, it is about accuracy, as well as being about a curious decision not to use the word 'women' or 'girls' or ''women and girls'.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/03/2022 16:33

Are you saying that you know the statistic is only about girls? Then why did they not use that very clear word then, instead of using 'people'? We have sex based words so that if we want to refer to something that is only relevant to one of the sexes we can be clear who we are referring to.

Exactly, for all that these words have been appropriated by members of the opposite sex. We're being expected to infer, and it's expected that we will pander to the sensibilities of people who claim not to be believe that biological sex is a meaningful way to categorise people. Gaslighting squared.