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 much preferred the sanitary packets with the female sign to the stupid pink and flowery shit, but that was seen as offensive.

Well, most of us find the flowery shit offensive!

So if we can’t have the female symbol and we don’t want infantilising pink gubbins (or that nasty flowery scent) what are we left with? Maybe all brands should go plain wrapper like cigarettes are now 😂

www.webmd.com/women/news/20191024/always-removes-female-symbol-from-pad-wrapper

(Full disclaimer - these days I use cut up flannels at home and pink wrapped Always when out, purely because the pink Always are the only ‘sensitive’ option I can find locally. I woulda loved to have boycotted Always over this but contact dermatitis on my vulva says no)

So if we can’t have the female symbol and we don’t want infantilising pink gubbins (or that nasty flowery scent) what are we left with? Maybe all brands should go plain wrapper like cigarettes are now

It's such a slap in the face isnt it. They charge extra for the fact it's for women then dont even think we are important enough to name. It's bad enough the entire sanitary towel industry these days seems to be about creating problems so they can sell us the overpriced "solution" and genuinely making us feel shit about ourselves, and now we dint even deserve a name.

Here is the set of definitions I mentioned yesterday. Looking at them it seems clear that the accurate, scientific term vagina is being appropriated for the trans women, while biological women get left with the offensive term ‘front hole’.

This looks like erasure of women to me.

@SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius

Here is the set of definitions I mentioned yesterday. Looking at them it seems clear that the accurate, scientific term vagina is being appropriated for the trans women, while biological women get left with the offensive term ‘front hole’.

This looks like erasure of women to me.

Idiots.

Please tell me that's a parody.

Not a parody. Look at these helpful corrections for ‘allies’!

I think the issue for me is by using 'person' it's something that affects probably less than half the population. But if you say 'women' then it affects pretty much all of us at some point.

So it obfuscates the importance - something that affects all of a population, vs. something that only affects half.

Sometimes I think, although many would see it as a capitulation, I’d rather just let trans women have the word “woman” as it’s so corrupted now. After all, it has “man” in it and basically means a variation on a man. Then those of us who would like to identify as a sex class could adopt a new name, such as Ofab (observed female at birth) or some other thing that some may have already come up with.

Maybe all brands should go plain wrapper like cigarettes are now

Perhaps with a dire warning about the dangers of invalidating people's gender identities?

@JoysOfString - I suspect that, if we adopted a new term for biological females, the trans activists would immediately demand that we include them in it. I do not think they could countenance allowing us a term that excluded them. Only complete capitulation on our part would be acceptable to them.

My reply from Superdrug. Absolutely no care for offending me as a woman.

Then those of us who would like to identify as a sex class could adopt a new name,
Not me. For one thing, I don't identify as a sex class, it's what I am and what all females are. Identity has nothing to do with it and that's the point.

Plus I just can't see it working as they would just come for that word too, just as they're now starting to try and claim 'female'.

Yes but my cunning plan is to have a term that inherently excludes them, eg ofab. If you weren’t you weren’t. No argument because you can’t just “feel” the registrar wrote down something they didn’t, and there’s a birth register. I’m not saying they wouldn’t try, but at least It would be indubitably nonsense if they did.

I'm sick to bloody death of the language around periods 'including' everyone except WOMEN. SICK OF IT!

Absolutely I agree that it’s not an identity, it’s a fact - but there are some —handmaidens— women who don’t care for that category and want to be in the class “women including men”. So it would be a matter of identifying yourself on that basis and forming pressure groups on that basis, for that sex class.

It’s just a pondering I’ve been having - not saying it’s some kind of great solution. But I don’t know if “woman” can ever be hauled back.

So it obfuscates the importance - something that affects all of a population, vs. something that only affects half.

I have half memories of some kind of org blithely switching out ‘women’ for ‘people’ and not realising how nonsensical it made their statistics... can anyone remember what that was? It was a doozy.

Yes but my cunning plan is to have a term that inherently excludes them, eg ofab.
I think I see what you're saying but I still think they would come for the word 'female' (which they already are doing) or 'observed' - or even 'at'.

Was it the bbc dudu

Their article on period poverty that didnt once mentioned girls?

I don’t think it was that (although that was also a doozy) I think it was something to do with some kind of disease that either disproportionately affects women or only affects women. My peri menopausal brain will probably remember it in minute detail at 2am!

As an example it was almost as stupid as the following (example made up by me to demonstrate the obfuscation)

A) Menstruation occurs in almost all girls by the mid to late teens. If it has not begun by the age of 16 a doctor should be consulted.

V

B) Menstruation occurs in almost all people by the mid to late teens. If it has not begun by the age of 16 a doctor should be consulted.

—————

A) is accurate, and explains when to seek appropriate professional advice

B) is completely inaccurate and if you followed it to the letter you’d end up with loads of 16 year old boys needlessly being taken to the GP.

Essentially, you can’t just swap out woman/girl for person and still communicate the same message.

Sounds a bit similar to the cervical cancer stuff "people with a cervix " staff. And the absolute cognitive dissonance when they published figures about how the jade goody affect had worn off and screening uptake was at an all time low..

Men have been trying (and succeeding in the past) to undermine and belittle women for centuries.

Now they are removing who we are, our identity....but that’s okay because men who have periods have rights.....

C) Menstruation occurs in almost all people who menstruate by the mid to late teens. If it has not begun by the age of 16 a doctor should be consulted.

Obviously c) doesn’t work either, because you wouldn’t know whether to take your 16 year old to the doctor or not - you could feasibly assume that your daughter simply fell into the ‘people who do not menstruate’ category (which obviously has implications for the life long health and well-being of women and girls).

We can’t give up the terms ‘women’ and ‘girls’ because we need them! If we budge up it will be women and girls who suffer.

We can’t give up the terms ‘women’ and ‘girls’ because we need them! If we budge up it will be women and girls who suffer

Yes , we can't solve problems if we cant see them and/or name them.

DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong

I much preferred the sanitary packets with the female sign to the stupid pink and flowery shit, but that was seen as offensive

Where did this ridiculous myth come from that sanitary products were packaged in "stupid pink and flowery shit" ?

Sanitary products were and are packaged in a wide range of colours- including bright, bold primary colours.

Oh and just because you personally don't like pink and floral that doesn't make them "stupid shit"