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!

Exactly Datun. Which is why I have a problem with it. Because we are told to be kind, yet no one cares about including transwomen in prostate check up campaigns, no one says not all men have a prostate, some women have a prostate, no one has a pop at ads for erectile issues, because some women have problems getting an erection, no one insists it’s only right male bodies people (including trans women) are called sperm producers, yet any time a woman’s health campaign dares use the word “woman” there is condemnation until a grovelling apology is issued, with pledges to “do better.”

Why can’t testicle owners do better?

@Datun

Anyone, anyone at all with even an ounce of, I was going to say awareness, but it's actually eyesight, can see how one sided all this is.

Until men are called people with prostates, people with penises, people who ejaculate and Gillette start talking about the best a person who shaves can get, then you can fuck off with your sexist shite.

If people can't see the misogyny behind this, because they don't understand feminism or why women need a collective term, they can, at least, bloody well add up the amount of times this happens to women (loads) but not men (zero).

And then you can tell me why?

That one question.

Why?

Yup

Very well said

This is the thing that winds me up above all else...the onesidedness

I'm trying to figure out the logistics of this. So please bear with me.

Posters on this thread have asked why products aimed at men aren't removing the word men from those products. Citing examples such as razors, shaving cream, etc.

Shaving is something that both men and women do, so to produce and market shaving products specifically towards men or women doesn't exclude anyone. A woman can buy a razor marketed towards women. A man can buy a razor marketed towards men. Transwomen and transmen can do exactly the same. So there is no need to be inclusive in such products.

Same with Shaving creams.

Period products (towels/pads/tampons) however are a product that is specific to feminine biology. Labelling those as women's products is correct (for they are), but that label will trigger those biological women who identify as men (transmen). Or trigger those who identify as non-binary.

Women menstruate. Women need products to help them deal with menstruation. Because women need these products, they simply have to buy them. So while labels on such products may annoy, incite, anger some/many/most women, those women still have to buy them. Some women may choose to boycott a particular brand, but no woman can choose to boycott the product.

So marketing people, in trying to be "inclusive", may recognise that by relabelling these products, they will lose some custom, but will never lose all custom. Ergo, the product, even the brand, remains profitable.

Some posters here have posed the scenario of instead of labelling men as men, instead label men as "people who ejaculate". That doesn't work on products such as razors, or shaving cream etc, as those products have nothing to do with ejaculation. Whereas tampons and pads however are specifically to do with menstruation.

The most obvious product that could be re-marketed to refer to men as ejaculators are condoms. But looking at the packaging of condoms, the word "men" isn't actually used on the vast majority of them.

Now, all of the above is written from the perspective of trying to figure out what goes on in the minds of the people who brand their products. And I have to say, honestly, that if this IS what goes on in such minds, then it is a load of word soup garbage.

The intent, to me at least, is to word a product and brand it with the intent on trying not to trigger those who are most likely to be triggered, and ergo those who are most likely to kick up a storm, which itself will create unwanted negative publicity.

And trans people are a triggered group. That's not to say that trans people don't have legitimate concerns. Trans people do. Trans people are a minority and have struggles and concerns that are valid and need addressing and dealing with.

But not at the expense of any other group. Not at the expense of women. Not at the expense of men. Not at the expense of ethnicity. Expense of age. Expense of class. The moment anyone has to deal with their own concerns by encroaching on the concerns of others, is the moment that it will all eventually come crumbling down.

Which still doesn't explain it Ripples.

Gillette (my razor of choice incidentally when I feel like de-furring my legs) still use the strapline "The best a man can get." They're not changing it to "The best a person can get."

But pads are being marketed to "peope who menstruate."

So I'm just not buying this "razors are unisex..." line at all.

I tried to explain that in my previous post. Shaving is done by both men and women. Market a razor towards men, or target a razor towards women. Both (all) can use it.

Menstruation products can’t be marketed like that.

As I said in my previous post, I’m trying to understand the rationale behind this, and how companies (when challenged) may respond to criticism.

I also said in my previous post that’s it’s word soup. You’re right, it doesn’t cut it really. But razors, while marketed at men and women, are therefore by that definition, gender less. They are just not marketed that way.

The same can’t be said of menstruation products

I hadn’t thought of that.

Unisex products are aimed at men, products for just the one sex are for everyone.

So many feminists have been campaigning for years to ensure women who do not menstruate are not made to feel any less of a woman for not doing so

Ha ha.

Women have had to fight court cases just to be classified legally as ‘people’.

Feeling ‘less of a woman’ doesn’t come into it. It’s not as though you go through menopause and get a pay rise.

Or to put it another way @Deliriumoftheendless, unisex products don’t exclude referring to men.

But feminine products are now not referring to women.

Period products (towels/pads/tampons) however are a product that is specific to feminine biology. Labelling those as women's products is correct (for they are), but that label will trigger those biological women who identify as men (transmen). Or trigger those who identify as non-binary

Do we know actually who is being triggered and complaining?

*actually know who

Cervix havers for smear tests. But men for prostrate exams.

Would they ever refer to prostate havers? Because women have prostates too?

I would actually like to see ‘women and trans men’ more often. Why not call attention to the fact that women and trans men have much more in common than women and trans women?

kindness: the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate.

When they say: “be kind”, they’re not really taking about kindness, because kindness is small gestures that bestower can afford.

What “be kind” really demands is sacrifice.

Reaffirms over and over, including to a rising generation of little girls: males are the real humans, the default humans.

The word 'woman' is rapidly becoming a dirty one, and when it is used it is not supposed to mean 'female people'. Female people aren't supposed to be mentioned.

They are supposed to be ok with this. And accept that apparently there's no such thing as sex while still enabling this silent sex based oppression and enabling the prioritisation and centering of male people.

WorriedNHSer I think you may be onto something there. “Women and trans men” is an explicit pointer to the fact that trans women are different from women.

I just noticed on my twitter feed this is in the dailymail.

Failing to see the problem here. I've sent a lifetime of feminsim trying to be seen as a person. Every time I was defined as a woman was a time that was used to marginalise or limit me. I fully applaud seeing people as... you know... people. I am a person. I am a person who mensturates, but given my age, not for much longer. There have also been a number of times in my life, when I was young, pregnant, or on contraception, when I didn't menstruate then either. I was still a woman then, and over all the time I was a person. Can't see why anyone would be annoyed at being described as a person.... unless of course what is really annoying you is that someone else might not feel marginalised enough.

When I was a gel, there was a poster of a naked woman with no facial features. In the next frame, she had taken her sex organs and arranged them to make herself a face. It was a comment on women having no perceived identity outside their sexual one.

I feel we're somewhere back there now, as blank Potato Head figures for people to plonk female organs on to give us a temporary identity whenever it matters to them. To them, not to us.

From being fully fledged people, we're reduced to a random set of organs. There's never a voice, is there? We're never voice-havers. A mouth now and then, if required, but only for men's pleasure, never for talking through. 🙄

I fully applaud seeing people as... you know... people. I am a person. I am a person who mensturates

Absolutely - I want to be seen as a person.

However, regardless of how I want to be seen, I am observably female, and certain assumptions can be made about me with a high degree of accuracy, and because of that I need specific rights and protections.

I don't just need access to menstrual products, I don't just need access to birth control, I don't just need maternity pay, I don't just need female specific health care. I need ALL of these things rights and more because my sex is female. Chopping up all these things into minority issues enables sexism, particularly as everyone knows they only concern one sex.

Talking about sex shouldn't make anyone feel marginalised. We need to be able to use words that have meaning to protect our rights and discuss our health needs accurately. When companies feel they can't use the word 'woman' to talk about sex, they are endorsing the idea we all have to fit into 'man' and 'woman' gender boxes.

I can sympathise with people who feel marginalised because of gender dysphoria, but until recently 50% of the population were denied the right to vote or access education because of their sex, regardless of their identity.

The thing that protects us from marginalisation is legislation and policy, and we can't have those if we can't use language clearly.

@NearlyGranny

When I was a gel, there was a poster of a naked woman with no facial features. In the next frame, she had taken her sex organs and arranged them to make herself a face. It was a comment on women having no perceived identity outside their sexual one.

I feel we're somewhere back there now, as blank Potato Head figures for people to plonk female organs on to give us a temporary identity whenever it matters to them. To them, not to us.

From being fully fledged people, we're reduced to a random set of organs. There's never a voice, is there? We're never voice-havers. A mouth now and then, if required, but only for men's pleasure, never for talking through. 🙄

Fair enough @NearlyGranny What about a 'person's refuge' a 'person's prison', or 'person toilets/changing room', or 'person sports'?

The problem is that if defining women as a group is not allowed for fear of causing offence to TRAs then you automatically remove any safeguards or accommodations for women and girls in society.

Males and females are biologically different. Women are (generally) not as physically strong or fast, we don't have the same propensity to sexual or physical violence, we are more likely to be victimised. We're more likely to be discriminated against, to be paid less, to be tasked with childrearing and domestic responsibilities to suffer domestic abuse and sexual assault than males. These things are a result of our biology as well as social conditioning, and it is important that we acknowledge them and make accommodations for them in society.

We cannot do that if we are not allowed to name and define ourselves as a group. If we erase the meaning of the word 'woman' in society how can we effectively protect ourselves legally?

Refinery29 loves the inclusiveness of this move. The Evening Standard also reports on it as a positive thing. Might be interesting to learn if the same applies to most newspapers and websites, i.e., no opposing views will be entertained.

WaltzingBetty I think you and NearlyGranny are on the same page.

Society wants women to be sexual, ie defined by our sexual organs, useful to men in this respect....but only when it suits. When it comes to recognising our unique needs and vulnerabilities due to our sexed bodies, we're told we 'can't have it both ways' because feminists campaigned to not recognise sex.

That's not really true. We want sex recognised so we can identify, challenge and mitigate the disadvantage women suffer because of sex. Sometimes biological sex is relevant eg who has period pain and period poverty?

Other times, sex shouldn't be a factor because it isn't relevant, like whether we can vote, hold property, get a job, receive equal pay for equal work etc. That's what second wave feminists campaigned for - to not be treated differently when sex is irrelevant.

The argument 'you can't have it both ways, do you want sex recognised or not' is a straw man TRA argument. No one is saying they want to be recognised as a woman so they can continue to be paid less! Recognising sex when its relevant doesn't invalidate the struggle to not be discriminated against because of our sex.

It just suits (some) men to wilfully misinterpret it that way - so they can continue to ignore sex based inequality and disadvantage, or pretend that it's a 'natural' therefore deserved consequence of our biology.

Ugh, how dehumanising and of course you never see men's products advertised in this way.