Superdrug person who menstruate

[Womanwhobleeds]

Never posted on this board before, but nervous, but I’m furious.
Just bought some towels from Superdrug and the first line on the back of the packet is ‘A person who menstruates..’ I’m a woman ffs!
I shop in Superdrug all the time for their cruelty free stuff but no more!

I'd love to know what makes you a woman over and above your female biology that can be equally applicable to men??

@DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong

Agreed! Inclusivity is important but not at the risk of endangering vulnerable women. Boundaries have been put in place to protect them and it frustrates me that TRAs get traction in trying to shout those boundaries down.

Yes trans people are vulnerable too (to male violence - not feminism's 'literal violence') but that doesn't mean we get to stomp all over the protections already in place. We need to listen to other vulnerable groups to figure out how to fit our own protections into what's already in place .

We need more like you on here, Eo91...

I also know there's more to be being a woman as my biology, so maybe that's why I can accept but others can't?

What is that then? And do you have it in common with every woman on the planet, and every transwoman? What is there that every woman and transwoman has in common that isn't a female body?

Why is inclusivity important?

Why should male interests and male people be included in women's business?

I know I know

Because they are men!

Because they are men

The important humans.

Fuck that shit, truly. I don't need to include any male or male-centred person in my women's biz. 'Inclusivity' is a tool to elicit female socialization to put others ahead of us at our own expense.

Anyone who still argues with a mealy mouthed
Maybe I just don't think as black and white. is not worth listening to.
If you can't explain you won't convert anybody.

another reason to invest in re-usables

I dream in colour , and have some grasp of wave particle duality , can cope with some people calling something a sofa and others calling it a settee, so I doubt my thinking is black and white

Still think there are 2 sexes
Still think that gender forced on some, chosen by some and irrelevant to others

Hum, I think inclusivity is a good thing

I just don't think that what is promoted as inclusivity is anything of the kind

@Melia100

Inclusivity is important cause although we may not identify with the word Woman - transmen and female NB people share in a lot of the same struggles as you - male violence being the big one. We have our own different struggles too - but those are ours to deal with.

When I said trans people I meant as a whole we are vulnerable - I wasn't trying to imply that you need to accept male people into women's business. Men have their own shit to work out too.

I don't need to include any male or male-centred person in my women's biz

OK, you're entitled to you but I don't feel my womanhood threatened just because others may see themselves as a man and want to feel included too.

OK, you're entitled to you but I don't feel my womanhood threatened just because others may see themselves as a man and want to feel included too.

And how about males with penises who see themselves as women and want to change in the female changing rooms so that they can feel 'included'?

I don't feel my womanhood threatened

Twisting my words. Nowhere did I say 'my womanhood is threatened'. Try again.

And can you answer the question of what this 'more to being a woman' thing is?

OK, you're entitled to you but I don't feel my womanhood threatened just because others may see themselves as a man and want to feel included too

I take it you're not going to answer any of our questions above about what makes a woman a woman other than female biology - or what makes a man a man other than male biology - but I've got another question.

Do you, in general, feel that if someone 'sees themselves' as something, other people are obliged to accept that? So if I 'see myself' as Japanese, even though I don't speak Japanese and have never been to Japan, can I demand that the Japanese goverment treats me as Japanese because I 'see myself' as such? All in the name of 'inclusivity', of course?

I'm actually not required to include anyone in my life, politically or otherwise.

I am included in the class of women, as a female, as are transmen and so-called non-binary women, but I am not required to include in my own personal, political or social business, anyone who centres the needs of men.

So I am happy to exclude transmen and so-called non-binary women most of the time, because they often prioritise their own so-called 'manhood' or the needs of men over women. As do plenty of women. Whom I also exclude.

I think any promoter of inclusivity has to take a good hard look at how it is used to whip women into going against their own interests, and decide if the benefits of this nebulous 'inclusion' outweighs the harm you do to insisting women and girls (and women and girls 99% of the time) display this virtue.

When the time comes to explain menstruation to my daughters what the hell do I say. Why they menstruate and their brother doesn't, if their brother becomes a trans woman and still won't menstruate and if they became trans men they would still menstruate. Complicated. No because the answer would always go back to they are female sex and he is male sex. Can't wait for that conversation then

I am included in the class of women, as a female, as are transmen and so-called non-binary women, but I am not required to include in my own personal, political or social business, anyone who centres the needs of men

OK, fair enough - do you mean in your comment where you say you are not required to include in your own beliefs "anyone who centres the needs of men" (I'm assuming you mean trans women there?"
if so any biological woman who accepts trans women (men in "your" eyes) you don't include as woman in your definition?
Wow if so.

*Oh lord! We mustn’t hurt the feelings of female bodied people who can’t accept their sex. hmm

Yet women are being told their feelings don’t matter, when they don’t want people with penises in female spaces*

This is it. Why do only TW, TM and GF people's feelings count but not women's? Don't tell me because it doesn't bother some women having your identity erased it shouldn't bother me. Oh the irony because gender identification is ALL about identity.

And either words are important because TM want to be included. Or words aren't important because your argument is that women shouldn't mind being erased. You can't have it both ways. If words aren't important in trans people's opinion then they won't mind if we just continue having women instead of having our identity erased with all these people with cervixes and people who menstruate shit. Cos after all it's only words and feelings so you shouldn't mind.

What about "centres the needs of men" don't you understand?

if so any biological woman who accepts trans women (men in "your" eyes) you don't include as woman in your definition?

That is quite the leap you have made there!

I also know there's more to be being a woman as my biology, so maybe that's why I can accept but others can't?

There is female biology

Then there are the direct results of that biology, good and bad, like bearing children, dealing with periods, being multi-orgasmic, being physically weaker than men, living longer than men, being less driven to risk-taking in our youth.

Then there are indirect social results of that biology like the need for maternity leave.

Then there are social expectations of women’s capabilities and acceptable behaviours that are not in any way biologically driven but still affect how we are perceived and treated and which most women (the female type) have internalised to some extent.

Then there is a whole pile of cultural stereotypes around personality traits, life priorities and interests that have been erroneously mapped onto “female”

The first set of stuff just is.

The second set of stuff requires woman (the female kind) specific products, services and support.

The third set of stuff needs legal and social frameworks to ensure women don’t end up disadvantaged.

The fourth set of stuff also needs legal and social frameworks, firstly to ensure women don’t end up disadvantaged, but also to continuously challenge, disrupt and disprove the assumptions with the long term target of getting rid of them altogether.

The fifth set of stuff needs to be framed away from “women’s stuff” and just opened up to anyone.

So, of the 5 types of stuff that currently pertain to women, the only one not predicated on female biology and therefore potentially open to men is the last. But that’s just moving between culturally assigned boxes, and boxes that are different shapes and sizes depending on the culture they are in. We as a society will be much better served by working to untangle the gendered expectations altogether than we are by just moving people from one box to another and (metaphorically) cutting off the bits that don’t fit to make it work.

In other words, once you take cultural conventions out of a practical definition of woman there simply isn’t a space within that definition for males. It really is just about the biology and the direct impacts of having it.

^^. 👏 👏 👏