Conflicted - whether to support period charity that uses ‘menstruators’

[Seraphinite]

An acquaintance of mine is on the board of a new period charity and has contacted me about donating to their fundraising appeal.

I think it’s a great cause (their vision relates to achieving period equity, smashing period stigma, access to period products etc) however I can’t find a single reference to women or girls on their website and they use the term ‘menstruators’. Other sentences use ‘kids’, ‘students’ ‘people with periods’ but not ‘women’ or ‘girls’.

I’d like a sense-check here please: I was going to reply to say I think the cause is great but their terminology has an impact on my decision to donate to them. Do you think that’s a reasonable reply?

I honestly do admire the aims of the charity but feel so frustrated that it has to be done with that language.

On the one hand I feel they should know they are alienating potential donors. But equally I could just delete it and say nothing and let them get on with it.

I think part of my hesitation is that if I reply and don’t donate, I’m not actually doing anything constructive myself to change period inequity. (And if I don’t reply, I’m not challenging the approach)

Would love some thoughts on my best approach please. (By the way I’m not in the uk if that’s relevant).

But you would be doing something constructive, as you'd be communicating to them that their language is alienating potential donors. I think you should do it.

Sensible reply. Someone here might know a better charity so you can still support the cause.

No I wouldn't support them. It will do your blood pressure no good in the long run.

Agree, your suggested reply sounds excellent.

I think I know the charity you're talking about, and I agree with you. If you feel able to say that I think that would be great.

I like your reply

Meanwhile, other period charities exist. Find one that uses the term "women and girls" and give them your support.

You could say that some women and girls identify very strongly with those descriptors and will be confused and put off by their exclusion, as users and supporters of the enterprise.

Replying to say something along the lines of ‘you’d really love to support them but that the language erasing women and girls is dehumanising and you cannot support a charity doing that’ would be a good thing.
Charities need to know if they are losing out on donations because of the way they are referring to women. It’s quite possible there is not internal agreement about the language they are using and feedback like yours helps that debate

I don't think you can end stigma around period's if you are too scared to name the people it impacts - women and girls.

Your reply is fine, you could mention that calling people menstruators is viewed as offensive and could harm what they are trying to achieve

Oh wow, thanks for the quick replies. Ok this is really helpful to reassure me that it’s worth piping up about it! And good point @StillFemale that perhaps there has been internal debate. Thanks all!

I think this whole focus on period equity is borne out of something slightly macabre, and it is no coincidence that TRAs and trans women are often involved in these charities. Period poverty is nothing different from actual poverty. So why not campaign on that? Period products do not cost that much, and the issue is the benefit system, low wages etc - but that’s not sufficiently gendered or easy to solve is it? I think the whole period campaign somehow works both to create stigma and lock girls and women into victim hood, whilst providing a great false flag environment for a whole load of campaigners who will never actually have a period but show how ‘womanly’ they are by focusing on it. And then they use the campaign to somehow do a sleight of hand and decouple menstruation and women.

So sadly I mistrust it. As I mistrust anything focused on women these days until I know they know what a woman is.

I think you should tell them, yes. It is dehumanising language and it is completely inappropriate. Shocking, really, considering women and girls are dehumanised due to having periods in the first place. You'd think they would put two and two together.

@WorkingItOutAsIGo makes a good point as well. Period poverty is just poverty, surely? If a woman can't afford sanitary products, she likely can't afford a lot of things. But it's a lot easier to create a pithy slogan and donate a few boxes of pads than it is to look at the bigger picture and lift women out of poverty in general. By all means, keep donating to charities, I'm not saying not to, but "period poverty" simplifies women's lives and struggles down to a tickbox exercise.

I don’t get this whole ‘menstruators’ thing companies are doing, why reduce women to their biological functions. Do condom manufacturers refer to men as ‘ejaculators?’ Do viagra companies or E.D charities refer to men in such disgusting terms? I don’t believe so. Surely it’s more inclusive for period companies and charities to refer to ‘women and transmen who menstruate’ I don’t know, it’s a bit less dehumanising than ‘menstruator’ and I think, OP, it would be good if you could give them your opinion.

WorkingItOutAsIGo - good points - I think Maya Forstater did a Twitter thread about the Tampon Tax campaign being virtue signalling as the average woman would pay around 19p per year - in fact using this money as Tampon Tax funding to support organisations working with women and girls is likely to have more of an impact on those who are disadvantaged than removing the tax completely.

Hmm interesting points re period poverty v poverty; thanks.

It seems from their website that they’re switched on to the broader societal issues and their planned activities are focused on period education and access to health professionals as well as eliminating period poverty. They talk a lot about changing the conversation and banishing period shame. Which is where I find a real disconnect with their language - clear and human language would surely be more educational and lead to better conversations, wouldn’t it?

I don’t get a sense that there’s anything untoward but I understand your mistrust, @WorkingItOutAsIGo. And I have just found the ‘our team’ section which has lots of pronouns on display

Oops cross posted with a couple of replies here. Love all these suggestions and perhaps I need to be a bit bolder in my reply and include a few more of these points. Thanks!

I prefer the "women and" approach to inclusion, e.g. women, girls and other people who menstruate". This acknowledges that the majority of people who experience menstruation are women and girls, but also includes trans and nb people. For me the use of "menstruators" erases the gendered politics of period poverty, e.g. that the tampon tax was levied in the first placed was arguably due to society's sexism. That doesn't really make sense in an activist campaign.

I would also mention the clear double-standards in the replacement of language, i.e. there's no drive to neutralise the language of mens services.

I think there’s also an issue if there’s any language barrier too, the language the charity or companies use has to be very clear and direct so it’s accessible.

I agree with pretty much all the points made but chiefly that you cannot hope to de-stigmatise periods if you won't name the people who have them.

I disagree with using 'women and...' as a compromise in this case. No other people apart from women and girls menstruate, and nodding through ambiguous language is partly how we got into this mess. I would settle for something along the lines of 'Women and girls - regardless of gender.'

Yeah I would reply and state my reasons for not donating tbh. I suspect if it becomes clear how many women are pissed off and angry at terms such as 'mensturators' companies might click on and see that the tiny number of TRAs they have appeased, are way outnumbered by women who find this offensive, and common sense may re-enter the room.

I wouldn’t support them either. Anything to do with periods seems to become a focus for TRAs.
I am also really suspicious of the whole “Period Poverty” “Period equality” thing. Not having enough money to buy sanitary products for your daughters or yourself is poverty full stop, not just poverty for a week a month. Having a “gender neutral” focus on period equality when women are losing all their single sex spaces and may not be able to engage in public life because of this seems really twisted and hypocritical. If you can’t use a mixed sex loo then having free period products is bugger all use to you frankly.

Just to extend what I was saying earlier, and thank you to those who supported and developed my points.

The reason I care about periods, and rape, and other issues is precisely because they happen to women as a result of their sexed bodies. As a woman, aware of all the oppression women have faced for millennia, I want to focus my efforts on solving issues for women. So it’s because it’s women I care, not because it’s periods, or rape per se. I hope that makes sense? But it means if you take the woman out of the issue then it isn’t relevant to me.

So I abhor domestic violence, but will choose to donate to a refuge for women fleeing DV, rather than a mixed sex refuge, if such a thing exists. Not because I don’t care about men, but because I care more about women.

And I don’t want that link between women supporting other women to be lost in obfuscatory and dehumanising language.

A girl is a girl is a girl and is a whole lot more than a menstruator. They should be ashamed to reduce a girl’s identity to one biological function. I have spent my life saying biology is not destiny - you can be whatever you like even if you are a girl - and they are effectively saying biology is identity.

@Floisme

I agree with pretty much all the points made but chiefly that you cannot hope to de-stigmatise periods if you won't name the people who have them.

I disagree with using 'women and...' as a compromise in this case. No other people apart from women and girls menstruate, and nodding through ambiguous language is partly how we got into this mess. I would settle for something along the lines of 'Women and girls - regardless of gender.'

I agree with this. The wording 'women and transmen' may well be inclusive, but it comes at a cost.

The cost is that the word 'woman' ceases to mean 'adult human female' and starts to mean something else.

What that 'something else' is nobody can define. But this is the trade-off when you start to embrace inclusive language in this situation.

I wouldnt donate to a charity that used that language. It signals an organisation that doesn't care enough about women outside a middle class,metropolitan bubble. I would assume they are happy to exclude any woman who doesn't recognise trendy language, or any woman or girl with less than higher education standard literacy for that matter.

I also agree with the earlier point that the focus on period poverty seems strange. Own brand supermarket sanpro is really very cheap. If girls aren't able to access these products, they have bigger issues than just 'period poverty'.

I had a conversation with a woman once who talked about period poverty and thought sanpro should be free. I asked her if toilet paper should also be free. She said no, because in such a situation she could rinse off in a sink or shower if she couldn't afford toilet paper.