Anti-Woman Brands Website - Boycotts, Alternatives, Resources

@OneMorePlant

'There is no good reason NONE that Mulvaney and Marsh should be promoting tampons. There is no good reason that Mulvaney a flat chested man who never works out, should be promoting women's sports wear when actual women athletes are, like always, being ignored.'

Nike, Nikewomen, NikeRunning and NikeSportswear Instagram pages all have numerous women featured

Can I add Parkrun to the list. They allow men to hold women's records.

It's not the fact that they are trans. It's the fact that companies act like they are actual women when it's really just womanface.

You do you, but when a company tells me I should accept men as women then I'm not going to pretend that it's not incredibly disrespectful and misogynist.

There is no good reason NONE that Mulvaney and Marsh should be promoting tampons. There is no good reason that Mulvaney a flat chested man who never works out, should be promoting women's sports wear when actual women athletes are, like always, being ignored.

With Lush this isn't just about soap. They promoted chest binders to teen girls which are unhealthy and imho is like a modern version of footbinding or breast ironing.

The list goes on and on. It's not just one commercial it's EVERYTHING around that.

I think people can boycott whatever companies they like for whatever reason they like.

But if your reason for doing so is that they worked with a trans person, then don't try telling me that that is anything other than plain transphobia.

@Grammarnut

Wear what you want .... but if trans men wear boxer shorts it's a fetish?

I didn't say anything about the website. I haven't looked at all of the examples on it and maybe I wouldn't agree with it all.

I just guessed that you were talking about Dylan with the beer comment, and pointed out the reasons why it would he fair to boycott a company.

You aren't disputing that, so maybe you agree with me that it's fair to boycott companies that work with Dylan.

Define fashion and make up for women?

So much for 'wear what you want'...

LOL - you're literally defending a website that is trying to attack brands for hiring trans people in promotions and still have the neck (or cognitive dissonance to say no one wants trans people to have fewer rights.

What are you defining as a 'woman's product'?

It might be a problem for some men. Such as Mulvaney take the mock of women, they 'perform' a perverted vision of being a woman, a take-off and a vile, misogynistic one, too. I suspect a transman doing the same for men would get a great deal of ire. Transwomen are men, they have no place advertising fashions for women, underwear, make-up, sanitary products or anything else directed at women, just as it would be inappropriate for a transman advertising underpants etc. Creepy and fetishy.

It's reported that Bud Light were celebrating Dylan Mulvaney's "365 days of girlhood".

So they are endorsing a laughable stereotyped performance where someone pretends to be a woman.

It could also I think reasonably be seen as pushing the progressives' culture war.

So in this case anyway, it's not, "just having a job".

This agenda has never been about ‘protecting women’ (which is why women are more supportive of trans rights than men are)

How does this follow? Women may be more open to trans women in women’s sports. But that doesn't mean that those women (and men) who object aren't motivated by protecting women.

No one is saying that trans people shouldn't have rights. They are just saying that they shouldn't get special rights based on their subjective feelings.

Well, transwomen should certainly not be advertising items that pertain only to women. Also, just because you are trans should not make you advertising material. Mulvaney, for example, is a travesty, a stereotypical cartoon of someone's idea of what a woman is - and he is sickening to look at. His inclusion in ads directed at women's products shows total insensitivity to the target market (women) and also a misogynistic view of women, a view that has nothing to do with actual women. His exclusion from anything advertised to women is definitely a win.

Until woke goes out of fashion it seems there won't be many brands/companies/whatever that aren't problematic on some level. I feel like I can't shop anywhere.

Trans men should not have to accept people claiming they are women just to access healthcare.

just use the term "biological females" in medical literature then. After all, trans people "don't deny biology" so that shouldn't be a problem.

With a beer company using Dylan Mulvaney, I doubt they just happened to pick a trans woman.

If you choose to push a culture war, and customers can see that, then you risk a backlash.

You've transported us right there... to every board meeting.. @Bosky

The whole situation, advertising by identity, is awful for every body.

Sorry if anyone has already mentioned this, but of the biggest brands it seems Colgate-Palmolive are a bit less virtue-signalling than the rest? Does anone know any different?

It is lots of things that cause issue with using transwomen in adverts. It is the advertising of things aimed at women when the person in question does not have a female body - does not have periods, or the same kind of skin, or go through the menopause, or get pregnant, or have hormones that go in cycles, all the different things that mean women's bodies need different stuff to men's. This might include skin care, cosmetics, hair care, hair removal, medications for anything from migraines to thrush, sports wear, underwear, period products, vitamins, clothes, shoes etc., pregnancy and nursing products, etc. Almost anything to do with the physical self.

It is also the way in which being a women is projected - the skipity, little girl dizziness projected by some transwomen is not how most women behave and at best is not a helpful role model for women and girls and at worst encourages sterotyping, sexism and is just plain offensive to women as an unpleasant form of 'womanface'.

If a transwoman, unsexualised, non-child-like, was, say, just buying car insurance in an ad I would have no problem with that though I'd think the trans person was just beign used for points. And Iw oudl rather not have any politics of any kind from products except where it is to do with the production of the product that the compnay has control of or is responsible for: ie locally produced, organic perhaps, fair trade, pays its workers properly, uses factories in countries with labour laws, etc.

There is also a really issue of care for trans people in this - I remember the guy who played Crusher in Last of the Summer Wine losing his role because he lost a lot of weight for his health. That's awful. Becoming trans maybe well be a valid choice but we know many do detranistion - how awful to have made the wrong decision (or that decision to be no longer right even if it was for a time) and yet your livelihood depends on it. Because big companies want to use you when they get woke points but won't look twice when you've just gone back to being a plain man or woman.

No company I know of has ever used a detransitioner in an ad. Yet only trans people can be detransitioners so this is actually an anti-trans act. If gender is fluid then it is as valid to go one way as the other and these people are as valuable in society as anyone else yet they are hidden by woke companies, shunned in fact.

Would you support a company using a detransitioner in an ad @TeaKlaxon ? Do you think their gender choices are as valid as those made by people who transition just once? Because supporting detransitioners should be just as much part of the transcommunity as transitioners surely?

It seem Dylan’s appearance for Bud Light has not been successful - although the subsequent message sent to the company has been quite stark…

https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/other-industries/bud-light-suffers-bloodbath-as-longtime-and-loyal-consumers-revolt-against-transgender-campaign/news-story/81742d02ea23a2b3a5c88c80568cc5c7

I did not know there were brands that stopped advertising on mumsnet because of the TRA. I think adding those would be a good idea.

But I also accept the validity of the identities of trans men. So I think it is perfectly sensible for organisations to recognise that not everyone who (for example) gives birth is a woman. Trans men should not have to accept people claiming they are women just to access healthcare.

I see this as a problem which happens with inclusion when it means, unavoidably, that someone's identity is invalidated. I am a woman because I have a female body, not because I feel, in some abstract sense, feminine, and, more importantly, because my own "lived experience" is about living in a sexed body, about the freedoms and limitations that body inherently has, and also about how the rest of the society treats me because that body is female and not male (sexism, sexual violence etc.).

So validating the identities of trans men here invalidates my identity. There is no way around that fact.

If all sorts of people, not just women and girls, can now have a female body, and if this means that 'woman' is altered so it no longer can be based on the female sex, then my embodied gender identity is certainly erased!

In a very real sense I am ordered to be something else than a woman when the new definition has nothing to do with being of the female sex, and when the alternative definitions offered are either empirically empty (circular, say), pseudo-religious (the possession of a gendered soul) or explicitly retrogressive and sexist (liking pink and high heels, being submissive in life and in sex etc.)

And this problem could have so easily been avoided if the gender identity framework had created a new set of terms about identity so that those who wish could have used them and the rest of us could have our sex-based definitions of that part of ourselves (being a woman) retained.

But this didn't happen, so here we are.

Note, also, that once again it's groups other than bog-standard women who are prioritised, just as in the way the male sex is not being erased. Trans women are quite rare, as a percentage of the female population and even rarer as a percentage of those who give birth.

But the language is changed to benefit them even if that harms so many others, including women who don't speak English as their first language, but not only those as one study done in the UK showed that almost one half of the women they surveyed didn't know they had a cervix, yet just yesterday a local council tweeted about screening for people who have a cervix between certain ages. The same council, last November, tweeted about prostate cancer and men, not about people who have a prostate.

your determination to impose your language on others.

You seem to have got confused, TeaKlaxon.

It is the TRAs who wish to change the use of language. The accepted use of which dates back since forever. We have always had terms to distinguish the male sex from the female. It is only in the last few years that there has been this new push to label people along gender identity lines, and insist this trumps the accepted language usage that categorises on the basis of sex.

It’s the TRAs who are attempting to impose their new labels on others, who don’t necessarily share their beliefs. GC people just wish to continue using the same language and labels we’ve all used for millennia.

If you wish to label yourself in a way that’s aligned with a gender identity that you’ve decided for and by yourself, that’s fine and dandy. Crack on. You don’t get to control the speech and beliefs of other people, though. You don’t get to dictate that others lie. You don’t get to dictate they have to use a form of language that doesn’t match with reality and is counter to their beliefs.

They are women (biology) who happen to also be transmen (gender identity). Both are correct.

Or are we suddenly insisting that gender identity and biology are the exact same thing now @TeaKlaxon ?