Guardian eradicates women

[ASmallMovie]

The Guardian, a once fantastic champion of women’s rights, managed to write an entire article about periods without using the words ‘girls’ or ‘women’, presumably lest they offend.

Utterly depressing.

The original speech by Jacinda Ardern talks about ‘girls’ missing school due to period poverty, but this article avoids the apparently now offensive word ‘girl’ and refers to ‘9 to 18-year-olds’.

How the fuck can the Guardian editor and all its reporters be okay with this?

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/26/new-zealand-supermarket-chain-countdown-becomes-first-to-use-period-label-on-menstrual-products

They're okay with it because we are just a subset of humanity.

Menstruators and those who like to pretend they have periods are far more important.

Break down the language barrier by using the word period, but eradicate the word women...
What a fucking shitshow we are living through!

Has the word men in it though.

I’ve gone off the Guardian anyway.

I can't believe we live in a world where the word woman can be deemed offensive (yet obviously man is fine...)

Wouldn’t you though knowing the absolute shit storm you’re going to unleash if you do dare suggest periods are a female issue?

I don’t really mind the way that article is written. Describing us as menstruators pisses me off but just keeping it factual with no labels is fine. Hopefully they’ll afford men the same privilege when discussing prostrate issues.

They did mention "men" though, in the final sentence

The article mentions an organisation called the period place. Here is their website. Tells me why the article was written the way it was, I wish we could just say women and girls.

I know I'm against the grain here but I think when talking about periods it's fine to say 'menstruators' etc as it is in the context of talking about a specific group - people who menstruate. I can't get up in arms about wanting to call trans men women when they'd prefer to be called trans men.

We're not talking about all girls or women either so I think in this context it is factual and a concise way of referring to the relevant group.

If an article was using 'menstruators' to refer to women in general then that'd be insulting and incorrect.

In that grauniad article they are happy to use the word "men" at the end - presumably to piss off women even more?

Sorry not the first to clock that.

The Guardian lost my respect a long time ago when they made a near apologist piece regarding the Cologne attacks on women. They will throw women under the bus if there's any conflict with another agenda.

The Guardian never fails to disappoint. Yesterday I started a thread on here about how they'd published a history of Pride that overstates the role of transactivists in the gay rights movement and refers to the Get the L out protesters as "transphobic". It was pretty grim.

@Wondersense

The Guardian lost my respect a long time ago when they made a near apologist piece regarding the Cologne attacks on women. They will throw women under the bus if there's any conflict with another agenda.

That’s absolutely correct. It’s a little like the less maniacal religious sect getting thrown to the dogs to appease the faction that will blow you up. Makes perfect sense.

It’s wonderful if you feel happy to be called a menstruator or a person who menstruates. But you don’t have that right to decide for the rest of us.

My preteen daughter would completely have no idea she was a menstruator and if my language skills weren’t high, I’d probably not realise any communication talking about menstruators was aimed at me.

It is very simple.

If you want to communicate to the largest audience you can to get a message across, you use language they can understand immediately. Otherwise, you are just virtue signaling and your message will fail. And in the case of women’s health, that doesn’t seem to matter anymore.

It is like a social experiment at the moment. Will dehumanized language convey the health message as intended and as many people as possible get the right message? Or... will those with the issues with using women and girls feel great but the message fails and women and girls are put at risk?

Because they're far more worried about offending men than women.

They really don't see the irony in obsessively avoiding mentioning women or girls, even when quoting the speech that specifically mentioned girls, while having no issues writing that something is challenging for 'especially men'.

I absolutely loathe The Guardian though I regard myself a liberal in many ways.
Their attitude to women is appalling. Look at who works there though- someone who tried ti get themselves on a birth certificate as the father despite the fact that they gave birth to a child. It's Woke Towers.

Again.

We're not talking about all girls or women either so I think in this context it is factual and a concise way of referring to the relevant group

We pretty much are though? Females who don’t are either past menopause (so have had the experience) or pre-pubescent (so will experience it). There is a small subset of girls who have medical conditions — if you don’t get a period by a certain age, it’s a clear sign that something isn’t right and you have to see a doctor to find out what’s going on.

A girl who misses school because of period poverty will not likely recognise herself as a menstruator. The message will be lost.

But fuck her for not keeping up on woke terminology, right?

@SpilltheTea

Because they're far more worried about offending men than women.

Ain't that the truth!

The paper that printed a cartoon of Priti Patel as a cow with a ring through its nose living down to subterranean expectations. Again.

We're not talking about all girls or women either

Yes but the young persons we are talking about, the ones missing school because of their periods, are young human females.

wines was your comment aimed at me?
I just don't think you can deny that "menstruators" is a term with a specific biological meaning. It isn't even used in the article, which is about menstrual products and the language used to make it clear they relate to periods. I think the article is pretty clear?

I'm not going around saying women should be called menstruators, but when differentiating between women who do and don't menstruate, it's a useful shorthand in that specific context.

It's like if you were talking about dvla changes and said "drivers" rather than "car owners" if the changes were specific to people actually driving. Car owners would include people that don't drive and exclude people that drive cars they don't own.
Would your daughter consider herself "someone that has periods"? Is it just the m-word that is offputting or unclear?

mango loads of women on the mini pill don't menstruate.

A girl who misses school because of period poverty will not likely recognise herself as a menstruator. The message will be lost.

I agree. Completely. But this is a news article about how period products are marketed, it's not calling anyone a menstruator or expecting anyone to identify as one or not.

Apologies if people are referring to other issues than the one in the OP, that specific article is what is I am discussing.