Anti-Woman Brands Website - Boycotts, Alternatives, Resources

I get that you want to insist that they are women

Im not insisting anything. I’m simply stating biological facts. The female sex menstruate, give birth, experience menopause. Women are adult human females. Like I said, people can identify however they want, have whatever belief system you want. Whatever. I won’t change my language and belief in basic biology though. Most people think the same way. You are the one insisting. I’m afraid that simply doesn’t work for most people, as we are now seeing.

No. Some trans men menstruate. Some trans men give birth.

I get that you want to insist that they are women (which is ironic, given that you complain about others forcing labels on women, when in fact it is you forcing labels on people you consider to be women).

But of course this thread does the same thing every thread on this forum does, which is to refuse to engage in any substance and instead loudly trumpet your determination to impose your language on others.

Meanwhile, you ignore the OP championing a website which attacks brands for just having trans partnerships even for products that are not limited by biological sex.

Im not sure what ‘dismiss the identities’ means. Only women menstruate, go through menopause, give birth. How someone likes to refer to themselves is their business. I won’t change my language and acceptance of biological reality based on someone else’s beliefs though.

Only if you dismiss the identities of trans men, which I obviously do not.

the majority of people who give birth or need smear tests or mammograms, or who menstruate or go through menopause etc are women.

All. All of them are women.

But again that’s just not correct.

I have no issue and know no one else who has an issue with recognising that the majority of people who give birth or need smear tests or mammograms, or who menstruate or go through menopause etc are women.

And the vast majority of the language used reflects that.

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.

And you’re absolutely right - the same should apply to mens healthcare etc, where not everyone who needs to be aware of prostate cancer etc is a man. If there is a deficiency there then that is a case for inclusive language across the board, not an argument against inclusive language where it is already used.

People keep on calling it an ad like Nike pumped millions into it. It's a paid partnership (or whatever they are called) with an influencer, similar to arrangements companies have with thousands of other (mostly women) influencers. It probably wouldn't have reached too much further than her followers or at least the SM she posted on. Now it's everywhere!

So no, we might not ‘equally’ argue that those who support trans rights are trying to ‘erase the female sex from everything’.

I had in mind the way in which the female body is now being turned into a gender-neutral one so that those of us who have embodied identities are now told that we are gestating parents, not mothers, or vulva people, not women, or uterus-havers or menstruating people and so on, while nobody much is interested in turning the male body into something gender-neutral by writing about impregnating parents rather than about fathers, or about penis people, not men, or about prostate-havers or ejaculating people etc.

And yet demands for inclusion should cause exactly those changes in how 'man' is defined. They do not, and that's why it sometimes looks very much like the eradication of the female sex as something that can be mentioned might be an intended goal here.

These linguistic and social changes which are now demanded almost entirely go in one direction, which is towards the erasure of female people.

I see Dylan Mulvaney's adverts for female clothing as part of this overall trend. I would be perfectly fine if Mulvaney said that these clothes are great for trans women, for instance, but that is not the message of that Nike ad.

Rather, the message seems to be that Mulvaney (who is not a girl, even agewise) should now be regarded as a girl in that ad, even if it's a parody of a pre-teen girl's possible behaviour.

You might have a point if there was a website attacking brands for using cisgender women in publicity or promotion, and if I was linking to that website favourably.

But I’m not.

On the other hand, there is a website, which this thread is all about which attacks brands not only for having trans women doing publicity for products which are specific to biological sex, but for having trans women doing publicity for any products at all.

So no, we might not ‘equally’ argue that those who support trans rights are trying to ‘erase the female sex from everything’.

Of course those of us who support trans rights have long argued that that eradication of trans people from the public sphere is the ultimate objective, and the whole 'womens rights' and 'wear what you want and call yourself what you want' mantra is a trojan horse for that agenda. This website (and those on here who are promoting it) prove that point.

We might equally well then argue that the ultimate objective of at least some trans activists online is to erase the female sex from everything, including from being used as the basis for how many women define themselves?

That's not my view, of course, and I'd ask you to think carefully if you aren't making that mistake in the other direction, probably by defining the presence of trans people in the public sphere in such a way that they are to be viewed eradicated if they are not treated exactly as if they are born to the sex they identify with.

There are other approaches, and they serve better in cases like this where the rights and demands for rights do clash.

The problem with that line of argument is that the website being linked to is not limited to those areas of publicity or promotion which are specific to biological sex.

It includes attacks on brands for using trans people to promote, to use your own example, beer. It includes attacks on brands for using trans people to promote supermarkets. Or make up.

Based on its attacks, the only way the objections of this website could be addressed is if trans people simply do not promote any products or any brands. At all.

Of course those of us who support trans rights have long argued that that eradication of trans people from the public sphere is the ultimate objective, and the whole 'womens rights' and 'wear what you want and call yourself what you want' mantra is a trojan horse for that agenda. This website (and those on here who are promoting it) prove that point.

The difference, to me, is what a transgender person is supposed to represent in the ad. If Mulvaney, for example, was used in a beer ad to represent the transgender market for that beer, fine.

If it's something specifically about one sex, such as menstruation, and the transgender person used in the ad is male, I would need a much stronger reason why someone to whom the product doesn't matter should take that role.

Why would a male person advertise period products, for example? Should we use a trans man, a female person, to speak about prostate cancer?

Women get angry because much of this is a forced redefinition of who we are, who we have always lived as, and when we complain about that we are called bigots. So accept that 'woman' now means a bundle of sexist stereotypes about femininity, accept that your own embodied identity as a woman is now invalid, or be regarded as something heinous.

And that new definition of 'woman' will make it extremely hard to do feminist work fighting against sex-based oppression as we will no longer even be able to define the victim group it affects.

Have you looked at the website the OP cited.

There is nothing comparable to your prostate cancer analogy.

But if there was an ad for, say, Movember and a trans man featured as a man who was fundraising and campaigning to reduce prostate cancer deaths, despite not being at risk himself, why on earth would that be a problem?

Just had a look at the master list. If this is a comprehensive list of misogynist companies, where is Hobby Lobby? In case people have forgotten, the vile assholes who went to court to deny their women employees the right to contraception.

If a transman advertised a product that helped with prostate cancer, would you think that was acceptable?

At stake is their Corporate Equality Index — or CEI — score, which is overseen by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ+ political lobbying group in the world.

Is there any similar index for how corporations treat women's rights?

As far as I can tell, all the negatives from the trans rights demands fall on only one sex class, the female one.

When this is not discussed at all and when women who point that out are labeled bigots we get the current situation where Dylan Mulvaney is hailed and rewarded for parodying not only womanhood but girlhood. Mulvaney is not the age to be a girl yet gets letters of congratulations for those ghastly parodies of girlhood from the US vice president. This is sexism in a new dress.

Because these folk don’t believe in ‘wear what you want and call yourself what you want’. They believe that trans people just having jobs publicising beer or voicing a character is a problem.

This agenda has never been about ‘protecting women’ (which is why women are more supportive of trans rights than men are) it has been about eroding the rights of trans people. Including now the right to have any sort of public facing promotional work.

@Bosky I know you don't need it explained to you why that is the case. And even if I were to concede that you have a point, why then does one role, of a non binary character, played by a trans person warrant a boycott on the company?

Ah damnit. I just switched to dove deodorant because my old brand changed their formula and it gives me a rash now, so I guess I'll be switching again.