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.

@Onadifferentuniverse

All I can see recently is how every angle of these arguments is contradictory.

If someone has a vagina they should be entitled to buy a product of health for it.
Same with a penis.

How do they know they've got a vagina? How do they know they've got a cervix? How do they know they've got a uterus?

Do they have to wait until someone tells them, because it's suddenly become relevant?

Seriously, what IS the criteria for knowing whether or not you have one of these things?? Tell me. Because I know you know, but you've suddenly just lost the word to describe it.

This isn't about choosing your words carefully so as to not offend a vanishingly small number of women who, frankly, never actually seem to object to it at all.

This is about the deliberate decoupling of the word woman from their biology.

Notice there is no such campaign for men. I can guarantee there is no marketing team anywhere, attending meetings for an erectile dysfunction product and telling the people they need to say the product is for men, and anyone who identifies as one. Or for women with a penis.

Women with a penis aren't interested in policing the language of men. It's not men's biology that is the issue.

Women's is. It's to make sure that women don't have a collective term to talk about their numerous shared experiences, which place them all in the same category. A category which excludes women with penises.

This is about the deliberate and systematic erasure of women as a political, biological and linguistic group.

How are you going to do deal with sexism and misogyny if you can't name the group at which it is aimed?

Are you going to say that sexual harassment only happens to people with breasts or bottoms? What about verbal sexual harassment? How will you identify the group at whom that is aimed? What did they have in common? I'm reminded of the transman who was raped in the back a taxi, sobbingly telling a police officer, but I kept telling him I was a man. Sexism couldn't care less about how you identify.

How are you going to describe the group who suffer from the mummy penalty? When you are working out statistics, will you have to take a random group of people and ask them whether or not they have a uterus? And how will they know?

Sexism and misogyny means that women as a collective are treated as lesser than. They need a word to describe that, across the board, showing how it affects them in umpteen ways.

What are you will end up with is a whole series of platforms on which women are discriminated, without having one single word to connect them all together.

This has got absolutely nothing to do with being kind to a handful of dysphoric women.

Spot on Datun
This would be less of an issue if all sexed/gendered terms were being treated in the same way and if we didn't have ingrained structural inequality.

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.

Why though? People with neovaginas should be fully aware that neovaginas are not the same as vaginas. If they aren't aware of that, then it's the job of their specialist healthcare provider to give them better information, not the job of a probiotic manufacturer! There are very few people with neovaginas in the world anyway and I'm sure the standard "consult your doctor" disclaimer that you get on the packages of this kind of product would cover them in any case. There's no need to specially mention this tiny population!

People with neovaginas should be fully aware that neovaginas are not the same as vaginas

Sure they all have after care instructions/literature don't they?

Tbh i think the only ones who would buy it are the ones who would buy it anyway. The ones we aren't allowed to talk about

Notice there is no such campaign for men. I can guarantee there is no marketing team anywhere, attending meetings for an erectile dysfunction product and telling the people they need to say the product is for men, and anyone who identifies as one. Or for women with a penis.

This is a particularly interesting point, because given the side effects of female hormones you might expect there to be a demand in some parts of that population. Why on earth isn't there a pink and sparkly marketing campaign for this stuff?

You said exactly the right thing. If people are going to go around spouting mindless bollocks they should expect to be taken to task by those who've remembered to engage their brains. Same as it ever was.

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.

Do you think condom packets should carry a paragraph that says they should not be used on a transman's phallus?

Do you think that someone who has had their genitalia altered and surgically re-contracted to resemble those of the opposite sex should ever have had that done, if they don't have a smallest clue about what it entails??

*re-constructed

Why should it say "not for transwomen's vaginas" any more than "not for elbows" or "not for knees"? Both of those are as much like a vagina as a hole made from an inverted penis. And we're talking about 10% of less than 0.1% of the population. You may as well write "not for Lancelots".

@Vermeil

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?

Yep Everything we know about depressive thinking (obsessive thoughts, brooding, black and white thinking, hyper vigilance, Catastrophic thinking, compulsive, paranoid thinking etc). We try to teach people NOT to do these things and to get some perspective. We try to foster resilience and capability. We don’t collude with this stuff. If you don’t like the thoughts you’re having, try to change your thoughts.

Removing the word women would be like removing all sizing from clothes in case they trigger an anorexic or fatter person. You’re still that size but now everybody has to play the guessing game. Vagueness doesn’t really help anyone.

If a product won't 'work' on a neo-vagina, it should say so.

I'm fairly sure that if it did, someone, somewhere, would claim the statement is transphobic and the product not inclusive. Because TWAW, and claiming otherwise is literal violence.

(... Amusingly, autocorrect rewrote that acronym as TWAT)

@Datun in general I agree, bar health products. I don’t think health products should be aimed at genders.

The word women refers to gender, not a sex. The sex is female and genetically defined.
Women can have penises
Men can have vaginas.

When you’re discussing vaginal/ penile health there’s no need to stamp it with a gender and to be honest, you shouldn’t need to define the sex either because it’s pretty obvious what the product is for and anyone who doesn’t know if they have a penis or vagina wouldn’t be buying the product without support anyway.

Yep
Everything we know about depressive thinking (obsessive thoughts, brooding, black and white thinking, hyper vigilance, Catastrophic thinking, compulsive, paranoid thinking etc). We try to teach people NOT to do these things and to get some perspective

Except in this case I don't think its perspective thats needed. Not in the trigger sense anyway. More on the wanting to be the centre of attention side is where the perspective is needed.

I mean you have periods every month and cope yet the packaging/wording is suddenly a problem? Would it be a problem if there wasn't a daily mail sadface or face book and twitter to post pics and get sympathy and attention for?

I mean are we supoosed to believe those who join the masons an exclusively male club and stay there after transition cope with being in an exclusively male club whilst simultaneously feeling that something isn't inclusive of them because it says woman and that's what triggers them?

None of it makes any sense. I mean you father children , something only men can do and we are supposed to believe or at least were supposed to believe their bodies are all wrong? Or they get pregnant the most female thing in the world and are then triggered by the word mother?

Or dye your hair bright blue and wear a bright orange tutu and complain everyone notices you?

The triggers seem awfully selective at times and the solution is always something that fucks over women

The word women refers to gender, not a sex. The sex is female and genetically defined.
Women can have penises
Men can have vaginas.

Woman isn't a gender. It means adult human female, and therefore refers to age, species and sex. It has nothing to do with gender, in its current meaning.

If woman is a gender then what are they transitioning too or from ?

According to the dictionary the word woman refers to an adult human female, therefore it refers to a sex class and not a gender.

• The word women refers to gender, not a sex. The sex is female and genetically defined. Women can have penises Men can have vaginas. *

No.
Woman still means 'adult human female' to the majority of the population. It will continue to do so. It's not a word women can lose. We need it.

The genderists are already claiming 'female' as well, and even 'biological female'. So, No.

Yes, the clue there is the word female.

Woman is a social construct.

Femininity is a social construct. Woman means adult human female - Like mare for horses or sow for pigs.

@Onadifferentuniverse

Yes, the clue there is the word female.

Woman is a social construct.

No, it's a sex class.

I don’t think health products should be aimed at genders.

I do agree with that. The words relating to gender are 'feminine' and 'masculine'. I'm more than happy to see menstrual products not being described as 'feminine hygiene' products any more.

“Woman is a social construct”

Riiiggghttt .....I don’t believe you’re posting in good faith

Transwomen are " transwomen " and are all male.
Women are " women " and are all female

@NothingTraLaLa

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

Indeed. It’s all bollocks.

The word women isn’t necessary, and I’d happily go without it on a box to ensure that another women could get the product without feeling any shame.

Probably wildly inappropriate but I was musing while reading this thread that my DH has always done the shopping and never flinched in the slightest at buying pads and tampons for me, and also later for his daughters when they were still at home.

And then I remembered a story from thirty years back or more, of a friend's DP shopping for "FHP" for her. He was with some buddies and slammed the box of tampons down at the till and loudly proclaimed, "Yup, gotta fill them holes!!"

No shame for them.