You need a vagina to benefit from a vaginal microbiome intervention

[VaginalMicrobiome]

Namechanged as discussing my job and potentially outing product.
I work in a biotech company where we've been researching and developing a new probiotic treating various aspects of vaginal dysbiosis (thrush, BV, HPV risk and other conditions associated with a disturbed or sub-optimal vaginal microbiome). The formulation we've been working on is nearing market readiness, and this week I (as lead researcher on this project) have been briefing the non-technical members of the company as to the mechanisms of action and clinical applications of the product. In my presentation I addressed the need for a better understanding of the impact of vaginal microbiome disruption, and of women's genitourinary health in general. I used the word 'women' a lot, as one would expect when talking about vaginal health. Anyway, at the end of my presentation, some bright spark in marketing mentioned that we should probably say our product was for 'women and those identifying as women'. Afraid I just could not help myself and snapped back, in front of the whole company, 'well, I do think you would actually need to have a vagina in order to benefit from this product'. He did have the grace to nod and say 'well yes, I guess so'. I possibly should not have reacted so strongly, but was so furious as I felt that all the work I've been doing developing an intervention to help WOMEN was undermined in seconds by a 24 year old male asking for men to immediately be included.
After this, I spent some time searching the published literature on the 'neo-vaginal microbiome'. There hasn't been much research yet, but it seems that, surprise surprise, a neo-vagina is colonised by completely different bacterial species from an actual vagina, so taking a probiotic targeting vaginal health will do diddly-squat for a man with a 'neo-vagina'.
Not sure what I really want out of this thread except to share my despair that women's health issues are being co-opted everywhere, even in an area that could not be more pertinent to female health.

No women will do just fine. The only ppl who need this are women as women are the only ppl who have vaginas no matter how they identify.

Neo vaginas are not the same at all

Why is it always women being asked to give up more & more?

[quote Onadifferentuniverse]@Vermeil of course there’s shame attached otherwise people wouldn’t get these mutilating surgery’s to change what they have down below.[/quote]
That's why many of us have little objection to the addition of 'and transmen'. Who are the group the bright spark the OP responded to didn't think of at all.

In an ideal word none of this would be an issue @ MaudTheInvincible
I think all these labels are quite negative and contradictory.

I think women are important, definitely. So important I think the word isn’t necessary on a medical product because it could put off someone using it if they don’t identify as a women.

I’m rubbish at articulating my thoughts on all this- it’s hard to discuss this subject also without offending.

I miss jj

My issue with the "people with vaginas" language isn't that I find it dehumanising. It contains the word people or person after all. It's more de-sexing, isn't it? It's the fact that it makes the issues that women have general issues that "people" have. So people who give birth, people with cervices, people who have periods, people with vaginas. All those things are the reason women have been oppressed, treated as property, raped, banned from voting, etc. Suddenly these become general issues. Sex is written out, and if women don't have this anatomy, how do we talk about sexism?

@IwishNothingButTheBestForYou2

I miss jj

I think women are important, definitely. So important I think the word isn’t necessary on a medical product because it could put off someone using it if they don’t identify as a women

Do you know there are many many woman who don't know they have a cervix. Not using the word woman actually prevents women from knowing something is aimed at them.

Its far more important those women know something is fir them than we pander to people who know they are female, know they need it but need to get over themselves and stop thinking anyones taking the blinder bit of notice what they are buying

I've bought "mens " products hundreds if times. No one cares.

And no, we won't give up our word to cover the arses of those spreading lies that leave them in danger. That makes us complicit. And we won't do that.

But this whole ‘putting off’ thing is a big problem, and it’s implications are constantly ignored. If someone finds their own biology off-putting, then they’re potentially putting their health at risk. How is ‘inclusive’ pandering actually helping them? Why has affirmation become so much more important than helping people accept their inescapable biological reality, while at the same time using language that is exclusionary to the vast majority?

Do you know there are many many woman who don't know they have a cervix. Not using the word woman actually prevents women from knowing something is aimed at them.

Exactly. Similarly, the percentage of women who can correctly label a diagram of female genitalia is shockingly low. If the word women/ woman is used, they know that it is referring to them.

Yes whateouldscullydo I find it weird that I & most other women must live in some parallel universe where we routinely buy products that say “for men” without a second thought

Ppl who work in shops couldn’t gaf what you’re buying - they sell things to hundreds of ppl everyday, they barely give you a glance or a thought.

There’s not a shop alarm signal that goes off when women buy products for men or men buy products for women

if the word women being missing on a box for a vaginal health product offends you as a women, I think that’s more of an issue than the ‘issue’ itself.

You can say exactly the same to people who don't think it should be there. Let them deal with their identity issues themselves and stop pandering to a tiny minority. Only female people have vaginas, however they identify.

THANK YOU @VaginalMicrobiome !!! Thank you for the bluntness of your direct comment back to him. You would not have been the only person thinking that but many would have been on the back foot as to what to say! Thank god these idiots are being put back in their place.

Well done you!!

if the word women being missing on a box for a vaginal health product offends you as a women, I think that’s more of an issue than the ‘issue’ itself.

It's really not about 'offence', from a feminist POV anyway. Is that really what you think it's about?

I dont even know why people think that any of these alterations of language on their products means they give a crap about you anyway.

I mean look at always . Told repeatedly by thousands if women that scented pads were causing rashes and infections and they didn't care. They also received hundreds if complaints about substandard products being sold in Africa and causing rashes etc not even sure if that's changed either. That's what they think of women. They don't care cos we have to buy it anyway but they will change the packaging to remove the venus symbol. Everyone celebrates them fir being "inclusive" but really it was just something cheap and easy to do. If they stopped thinking fir a secind that everything is about thembthey would realise that actually they didn't even do anything. Not anything that would improve the product or make it more accessible amd affordable and not cause you to suffer painful rashes.

So a hypothetical transman would be distraught/stigmatised/whatever buying probiotics labelled "for women" but absolutely fine buying probiotics labelled "for your vagina". Really?

Just a note - I'm somewhat encouraged that this discussion, which started because of a man trying to inappropriately include males, is now focussing on females. It shouldn't be in the least noteworthy on a feminism board but often it doesn't turn out that way.

@Cwenthryth

anger towards the young as a first response is not fair. It is what they were taught

I reject you framing women’s responses on this thread as anger - it gives the impression of emotion over reason and discredits our justified rejection of this man’s inane comments.

I can’t see a way to interpret the exchange described that reflects well on the young man to be honest.
He wasn’t actually considering transwomen - this product is not suitable for them even if they have had genital surgery.
He wasn’t considering transmen or non binary identifying females, ignored them.
Best case he was just parroting something he’s been indoctrinated with, which makes him sound unintelligent/lacking in critical thinking skills, and bloody rude mansplaining to a senior female scientist, in front of the entire company no less!

😂

Sorry to ask again, OP, but - do you think your product would actually work on transmen who are taking T and possibly other medication? Would not their vaginal environment have altered too much?

Or maybe it would be protective against the vaginal atrophy that goes hand in hand with T?

The reason I ask is that I think labelling should be functional.

If a product won't 'work' on a neo-vagina, it should say so. Not just so that transwomen don't waste their money; so that they get proper help for neo-vaginal issues rather than assume that a product formulated for actual vaginas will work.

Ditto transmen. They might have a natal vagina, but if transition has made it fundamentally different in 'climate' terms to what it was before transition, then again, the product might not help and they need to know that.

Yes, it's the words are cheap thing. For a lot of companies, trans activism is a dream: just change the words or the sign on a door, and get hailed for your inclusivity. So much easier than making somewhere wheelchair-accessible, or working around childcare or something.

@Onadifferentuniverse

In an ideal word none of this would be an issue @ MaudTheInvincible I think all these labels are quite negative and contradictory.

I think women are important, definitely. So important I think the word isn’t necessary on a medical product because it could put off someone using it if they don’t identify as a women.

I’m rubbish at articulating my thoughts on all this- it’s hard to discuss this subject also without offending.

The word woman isn't a label. It is a sex signifier. The word does not denote one's identity or personality nor does it say anything about any preferences or rejections of the sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes associated with one or the other sex.

It means a human being who has reached maturity and is of the female sex.

Adult human female.

Cow, doe, lioness, mare, hen, sow.

Not identities. Category names for the mature females of specific animal species. Like woman.

And if you still haven't understood why erasing the word woman from all issues that directly affect and concern women is not a benign impulse but deeply misogynist, then I recommend some more reading.

The end goal of what you are arguing for, the open, publicly declared end goal is not kindness and inclusion. It is to remove sex as a legal category from all laws worldwide. And that means the erasure of all legal set asides for women, women's rights and women as a political class.

The word 'woman' is important on products for women.

Approximately 1.5m people in the UK have a learning disability and just under 10% of the UK population have English as a second language. These groups far outweigh transmen. The word 'woman' helps add clarity for people who don't recognise themselves as 'vagina havers' but do recognise themselves as women.

Sorry, I meant to add these links to my previous post.

www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/demographics/english-language-skills/latest

www.nhs.uk/conditions/learning-disabilities/

So much easier than making somewhere wheelchair-accessible, or working around childcare or something

I'm sure there are plenty of disabled trans people and trans parents . But any tweeks would benefit everyone so.....

I mean its like a toddler isn't it. They don't realky want it but they don't want anyone else to have it either. Cos its only inclusive of they are the only ones included .

I dont recall any scented pads that smell like lynx or having them also sold in the mens grooming section

Its not about adding . Its all about taking away

The word woman isn’t necessary. It’s self explanatory *

Its unhelpful, not every woman has a vagina

@Onadifferentuniverse

You state it’s obvious the product is for women so why signal it’s for women. But then you say not all women have a vagina. Both of those comments are opposing and both cannot both be true.

Don’t you think it would be just a little bit helpful to explain exactly who the product is aimed at?! And not trigger a large percentage of the population by denigrating them to the status of “cervix / vagina haves”?

I'm glad you spoke up and responded as you did. This ignorance/arrogance/stupidity should not be encouraged.

It's hard not to despair.

I would be very interested to see the reaction if vaginas were heavily taxed for some reason. Calls for exemption on the basis of having a neo-vagina would come thick and fast.