The Body Shop has fallen

[Cismyfatarse1]

Just seen this on Twitter.

For those who like their Ginger Shampoo, can I suggest MooGoo.

Also, Aveeno is a good replacement for their Shea butter.

Other thoughts welcome. Feel free to suggest other ideas.

It says ITS BLOODY NATURAL.

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-body-shop-jk-rowling-menstruation-period-shame-transphobia-trans-lgbtq-a9559721.html

@Seasidetrains

What do you think sexism is?

I've just asked them to close my account- they can keep their bloody £5 Birthday voucher

i don't agree with what rowling says and think it will cause a lot of pain for other people

Ok, as long as you also think that what TRA's say causes a lot of pain for other people.

i'm an academic, but not (at all) in the gender studies field. i've read some of the material but not much. most of my opinions on this topic have come from feeling my own gender identitiy evolve as i get older, and also from having kids and seeing how poorly the characteristics of 'male' and 'female' describe people in all their complexity.

The words male and female aren't supposed to describe them in all their complexity, they are just supposed to describe their sex.

lol i know the difference between sex and gender thanks. i'm pointing out that referring only to sex is not, as far as i can see, a very useful way of defining a person

Sex defines a person's sex, but we need words to be able to do that when we want to define groups according to their sex. Are you saying that you don't think it is necessary - ever - to be able to define a person or group socially or legally by reference to their sex?

'Seasidetrains Actually, I think what I'm asking is how are your feminist goals advanced by promoting gender over sex?'

i think woman-ness is a vastly complex and powerful thing and if it expands to encroach into all kinds of spaces that were historically off limits to it, then women (both people born with female chromosomes, and people who embody qualities that the notion of 'being a woman' has traditionally involved) would suffer less.

ceo contact

Found this. Not sure how accurate it is.

Saesidetrains

“lol i know the difference between sex and gender thanks. i'm pointing out that referring only to sex is not, as far as i can see, a very useful way of defining a person”

It’s the only useful way to differentiate females from males in any meaningful way because gender is so ambiguous.

You can have a female (Sex) who wears masculine clothes, loves football and is a car mechanic (against gender norms).
You can have a female (Sex) who loves dresses, make up and is a Child minder (gender norms).
Both of these females will be equally vulnerable to male violence and oppression because of their sex. They’re smaller, weaker and slower than biological males. This is a sex based fact which will not change despite their gender conformity or choices. It’s the reason females have historically been oppressed. Without this clear distinction, we have no language to discuss our own oppression.

i think woman-ness is a vastly complex and powerful thing

To be a woman, one is simply born female. No more, no less. We should be fighting against societal restraints traditionally placed on a "woman's role" or a "man's role" in society - that's what feminism does. Rather than saying that a male that likes pink, or princesses, or wearing traditional feminise clothing actually is a woman.

It's not complex at all. We all, deep down, know what a woman is.

Of course it's a sex is a useful way of defining people from a scientific point of view, just not a philosophical one! I could describe my cat in a biological sense if you were her vet, but it would tell you nothing of her complicated personality. But that's ok because whether she likes having her tummy scratched is not of interest to you when you're trying to weigh her to give her the correct dosage of medication. When Pips Bunce goes in to have his prostate examined on a monday, the fact that he wears a pink dress on a thursday is irrelevant. The phrase TMI has never been more apt.

Men always know which "women" to go for when they want surrogates, huh? They ALL know what being being born female means.

Interesting. Can the expectations of each sex not be expanded instead? From my point of view, that would lead to less harm.

lol i know the difference between sex and gender thanks. i'm pointing out that referring only to sex is not, as far as i can see, a very useful way of defining a person.
Do be so good as to go and tell all the fucking misogynists that, then. Women are discriminated against all over the globe on the basis of their biological sex. That's why feminism is, yunno, a thing.

'You can have a female (Sex) who loves dresses, make up and is a Child minder (gender norms).
Both of these females will be equally vulnerable to male violence and oppression because of their sex. They’re smaller, weaker and slower than biological males. This is a sex based fact which will not change despite their gender conformity or choices. It’s the reason females have historically been oppressed. Without this clear distinction, we have no language to discuss our own oppression.'

do you think all oppression of women by men is because of biological factors?

male (sex) people who want to play with dolls and wear dresses are also at risk of (male) violence. i see it as femaleness being the object of hatred and violence, not just people who have specific female physical characteristics.

'Interesting. Can the expectations of each sex not be expanded instead? From my point of view, that would lead to less harm.'

yeah i guess that's what i'm saying. i think expanding and blurring the ridigity of these categories that have done so much harm can only be a good thing.

i feel really strongly that society should outgrow this idea of male/female as a binary.

You say that because you take for granted the rights that you enjoy because you live in a society where there is easy access to contraception and legislation to protect women's rights.

Look at the world - those things can be taken away.

do you think all oppression of women by men is because of biological factors?

Uh, yes?

It's certainly not a result of liking pink.

do you think all oppression of women by men is because of biological factors?

Yes.

people who want to play with dolls and wear dresses are also at risk of (male) violence

Do you think that all men who identify as trans wear dresses or play with dolls? You need to keep up.

Seasidetrains* - you ask a question about the oppression of women, and then go onto speaking about males who want to wear dresses.

The wearing of dresses is something that has been inflicted on women for hundreds of years. It is/has always been an aspect of our oppression. Women wearing trousers was controversial when I worked in a bank in the 1990s. When I was in sixth form in the late 80s, girls were not allowed to wear trousers.

CEO David Boynton is a 'conscious capitalist' apparently. Perhaps he ought to have his conscience pricked.

'people who want to play with dolls and wear dresses are also at risk of (male) violence

Do you think that all men who identify as trans wear dresses or play with dolls? You need to keep up.'

no, i didn't say that and i don't think that. i'm making the point that behaving in ways that are perceived as 'female' makes one a target of violence, regardless of one's biological sex.

You have to really mangle language to try and force the word for female adult humans to also mean male adult humans. All sorts of ridiculous nonsense about how traditional woman behaviour, when performed by a male, meaning he's actually a woman. This used to be comedy a few years back, now earnest academics real it off as if it's modern and progressive.

They have really done a great job on the gullible. 10 out of 10 for trying, but no thanks.. We are not buying it.

And yes, women are oppressed because of their biology, because of their reproductive role. Girls from a young age are socialised into a caring role, to be nice, to look pretty. Identifying into those things does not make one female. Being born female does.

Seasidetrains - you do realise you're on the feminist board?

Seasidetrains Thank you. You've made a penny drop for me in terms of why there is this division. It's a bit late for me to formulate my thoughts as to why I disagree, but genuine thanks.

@Seasidetrains

'You can have a female (Sex) who loves dresses, make up and is a Child minder (gender norms). Both of these females will be equally vulnerable to male violence and oppression because of their sex. They’re smaller, weaker and slower than biological males. This is a sex based fact which will not change despite their gender conformity or choices. It’s the reason females have historically been oppressed. Without this clear distinction, we have no language to discuss our own oppression.'

do you think all oppression of women by men is because of biological factors?

male (sex) people who want to play with dolls and wear dresses are also at risk of (male) violence. i see it as femaleness being the object of hatred and violence, not just people who have specific female physical characteristics.

Yes I do think it’s down to biological reasons. Otherwise females would be committing murder/ sexually assaults at the same rate as males. You acknowledge that it is males who are more likely to commit violent crimes. Therefore you acknowledge males as a sex. It seems it’s the just existence of females you question.