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

[onlywomennotmen]

Apparently men menstruate too...

^Hello, and thank you for getting in touch with us about our recent tweet to JK Rowling. We wanted to respond to everyone who has reached out to us to clarify our position on this issue.

We are longstanding supporters of the rights of women and girls on issues which affect them and believe it is important to keep having conversations around difficult topics such as this. Every person has the right to live their life free from the fear of violence, especially gender-based violence. The Body Shop has been an active campaigner on this issue since 1994.

The Body Shop’s position on menstruation in relation to trans and non-binary people is that we stand with ALL menstruators. People have periods – women, men and non-binary people. And plenty of women don’t. We value learning from everyone’s experience and we believe the conversation needs to go forwards, not backwards.

We disagree with JK Rowling’s view and wanted to demonstrate our support for trans and non-binary people. We understand why addressing the tweet to JK Rowling’s personal account has been interpreted as an attack on her as an individual, and as a domestic abuse survivor. That was absolutely not our intention. We didn’t get the tone right on this one and we do want to engage respectfully and constructively on these important issues.

We believe it is important to keep having conversations around difficult topics such as this, and doing so constructively. We recognise that our engagement with JK Rowling on this occasion wasn’t as constructive as we would like to be. We all need to educate ourselves, be inclusive and stand together so that we can end the shame and stigma around periods for all menstruators and stand up for what is right in our society.

We stand by our position on the rights of trans and non-binary people, and we will learn from this execution to ensure our communication is stronger and more constructive in the future.

We hope this helps you understand our position. We appreciated hearing yours.^

Language is the whole point. Keeping our language. Our words. Having to bang on about qualifying characteristics is the problem not the solution.

The CEO thinks there are male women, so, I imagine major clarification is actually necessary. Still
I know you weren't talking to me, btw.

Bog off, spammer

Unfortunately yes, too many people are now confused by what you mean when you say 'woman' to not need qualifiers when you're explaining about the specific, non male related group of female people. .

This is the shit that happens to indigenous groups when colonisers take everything including their language and 'improve' it.

Just like 1984.

They think calling us menstruators is a clarification.

We don't want "clarifying" into irrelevant discriptors so why are we insisting on using them? Use English as it's meant to be used. If you are defining yourself in relation to their language you are joining in, you have lost the argument. Honestly, Google Dr Julia Long on this, it is one of her key messages........

Well I'd like to use Daye, but their website has a glossary which outlines AFAB - Assigned Female at birth, and cis-het

both of which I'm not willing to tolerate
yourdaye.com/

I used words like biological and natal to hopefully make the point that sex and gender are different, and calling men women and women men is gender and thus different.

You have to remember that we are being called transphobic for acknowledging biology. I agree the word woman should mean biological woman, but the reality is that right now it doesn't. So if distinguishing between bio/natal and feelz helps to get the point across I'm all for it.

If I didn't I strongly suspect that they will see me as a woman as they claim to accept TW as women. And that I refuse. Because I don't need dresses or make up or long hair to show the world I am female.

I am a woman. I fully agree. But we are writing to woke sheep who are wilfully ignorant. They'll be first in line to denounce the concept of God because "no evidence", but accept the no evidence feels when it comes to sex.

It's like having to explain basic concepts to a toddler.

And I bet the toddler will at least understand.

I consider using biological or natal as a descriptor is more about filtering out the non female element, rather than putting the word woman in a box.
Releasing it from a box containing other elements that don't belong there, if you like.

This is brilliant.
drradfem.org/transgenderism-and-the-war-on-women/

What a a non female element?

You are being played.

??

???
Just that, what is a non female element?

Who gives a shit if pomo PR agencies thing a failure to commit to identity language is transphobic, their use of the word transphobic is part of the identity pr strategy. You are writing to the CEO to tell him that this language is bullshit and not to use it and yet you are defining yourself in relation to it. Just speak in plain words that 8 billion people use and don't join in with the whole natal sex nonsense.

Each to their own, @FantaOra. I really do get your point, but it's like talking to a brick wall with these marketing agencies. And when you say "woman" they will redefine it, leaving the point lost.

That's how I see it anyway, and that is why I used those terms.

But you are writing to the CEO, not the stupid pr agency, telling him the agency is wrong. Don't assume he is bought into the language, most men pay this shit little attention, and certainly don't feel the need to refer to themselves as biological. PR is delegated to his executive team who have deployed a shitty strategy. That's the message. He needs to hear its a niche idea and pretty grim.

Anyway, apologies if I am being overly critical, just a important point that Julia Long seared into my brain in her speech in the House of Commons. She's right.

Do you really think the CEO doesn't know what the PR agency is doing? That he'd let them take the company in a direction he doesn't approve of?

The CEO will probably trust the shiny Marketing/PR Director and their focus groups/stats to tell him what will work. Or not.

CEOs approve things on the basis of the profit and loss forecast and marketing strategies are always speculation based on how ideas might play out. They have taken a punt on identity activism because he's been told it is going to be profitable. His pay is dependent on profits. He has absolutely no need to believe any of what is being said and you won't get to hear what he actually believes.

It's boring old capitalism.

Mmm, fair enough.

On the evidence of the pullback in the replies to complaints from out and out activism to a bland thank you for writing, and Sonia Poultens tweet about them being caught on the hop it's clear that they are now having an internal inquiry into how they got where they are.

There will be a lot of headless chickens running around trying to figure out what to do. The marketing execs will be trying to explain away massively insulting JK Rowling as a campaign launch whilst the finance executives will be trying to calculate the bottom line impact of proceeding with this strategy after this damaging start. I would not like to be the tosser that approved that tweet. The pr agency have the line on their website "thumb stopping five line messages". Well it was that alright but not in a good way.

It's a fascinating moment in the future of identity politics marketing and a classic case of group think amongst the believers in this bubble coming smack up against the knowledge of how small their target market is.

I wonder if the WEP woman who left saw this coming. Would love to find out.

I bet the tits at the PR agency will be saying but but but we got 12k likes on Twitter for our dumb tweet. 12k non binary students may not be enough fit the finance director I suspect.

This will be a business school case study in the next year or so.

'His pay is dependent on profits. He has absolutely no need to believe any of what is being said and you won't get to hear what he actually believes.'

Yes - I have had this conversation with a few people whose businesses are pushing this ideology.

They don't care what they promote, nor do they care about the damage they are doing.

I have spoken to a few people who will be dealing with the fallout that whatever they say or give - it will never be enough for these groups. I have also pointed out that the crazy mishmash of pride and BLM flag will insult parts of both groups, so watch out for that. They just shrug and say 'I have no choice - I do what is approved (by middle managers with axe to grind usually).