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).

I prefer the "women and" approach to inclusion, e.g. women, girls and other people who menstruate".

Women is inclusive of all human beings who are female and therefore likely to menstruate. The danger with "woman and..." is that it reinforces that woman is not a descriptor of sex but rather a gender/gender identity. Also given the growing number of gender identities (upwards of 100) then it will always exclude some women who claim one not listed.

@WorkingItOutAsIGo

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.

Thank you @WorkingItOutAsIGo, I've not thought about it in this way before but you've made several good points for me to have a think about.

^"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?"

More than reasonable, and I think it's great that you're doing this OP.

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.

How are they going to talk about girls yet to have menarche or women who are menopausal and post-menopause.

I don't think those setting up campaigns such as this have spent much time considering the whole life of women. In my opinion its shallow and often more about wanting to be activists than really engaging in girls and women's lives.

@WorkingItOutAsIGo

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.

Excellent post. This is how I feel about the issue also.

I wouldn't support them either and I would explain why. Many excellent suggestions on this thread. I also don't like the 'women and...' for same reasons as previous posters.

I wouldn’t ever donate to them and I’d tell them why. I’d also tell them that I was giving the money I would have donated to a charity that doesn’t erase women and girls. I’d say that their language was dehumanising and misogynistic, and that I was shocked to see it from them.

I wouldn't support a charity that can't eve name who it supports. And 'menstruator' isn't even a dictionary defined word.

I'd email and tell them.

Poverty is a vicious cycle as a result of and because of poverty many of those who suffer are those who are lacking in education/literacy/access to information so language needs needs be plain, simple and factual to ensure those affected understand that the help is for them. Those so poor they can't afford pads will not be worrying about their gender presentation it will be so low down on the list of concerns, so this is done to appease people that period poverty doesn't even affect

Its such an important point, that use of inaccessible language eg "menstruators" is exclusive. Woman and girl are both high frequency familiar words. The language of gender ideology comes from the middle classes and university campus. Many of those who do not speak English as a first language and/or have limited literacy skills will be excluded and campaigns that have not considered this are revealing their own limitations.

Great thread with so many insightful comments.

I would say something too

Allow them to keep the annoying “people who menstruate” phrase but ask them to include the word women too.

How can they smash period stigma if they erase the humanity or woman and girls by removing our names, language and dignity.

They have clearly forgotten that there is a whole human being that surrounds the menstrual process?

I say that as a woman who should menstruate - but doesn’t due to medical reasons.

I always worry , when schools or whatever sign up to these projects to help theor students , what do they do with the stuff.

I mean its not am endless supply is it. Will these very needed products get to those who need them or are some wasted by being shoved in a basket in the boys toilets.

I would pull them up on their use of ridiculous terminology and once it's been changed to the correct wording, I may consider a small donation.

Serious question: what is "period equity"? I thought that was about removing the tax on tampons? Which already happened on 1/1/21.

Agree that I wouldn't support a charity which describes its potential beneficiaries as "menstruators". It's demeaning. Why insult something in the order of probably 99% of girls and women, just to save the feelings of a small subset of transmen and people claiming various other gender identities?

Perhaps if enough people (of either sex) make a stand and refuse to support charities using these kinds of phrases or to buy goods from companies which use this kind of terminology, they will finally start listening.

I think your reply is good because anyone who donates to charities who do this is reinforcing the language they use and you are refusing to do this.

Doing nothing in these situations isn't an option, something has to be said. I have started emailing and pointing things out to organisations that I come across and have managed to get a few things changed already. These little steps all make a difference.

Sorry also meant to add this. I am assuming you are in an English speaking country? This charity need to be mindful of the fact that many people in poverty are migrants, they don't have English as a second language but they will know what a woman is, they won't have a clue what a menstruater is.

Surely as a charity they need to reach those most in need.

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.

Got it in a nutshell.

I won't donate to any charity that erases the word woman & replaces it with anything else & that includes adding the deeply offensive cis on the beginning.

If they want to have people actively avoid donating because they are more interested in pandering to men than supporting women then they should keep their nasty language.

I only support charities that know what women are & none of them have had to transition to become women.

💡 moment for me... @WorkingItOutAsIGo thank you!

So many great points in here that I’ll incorporate into my reply; thanks everyone.

@coronabeer I’m not in the uk and we still have tax on period products here. The charity doesn’t actually define period inequity on their website (thank you for prompting me to read through the marketing-speak to see what they are actually trying to do!). Their aims relate to period education, access to products, access to healthcare, and removing period shame/stigma.

To the other points re poverty, they definitely talk about poverty more broadly and there’s a lot of mention of kids missing school due to lack of access to period products.

@Changemusthappen yes it’s an English-speaking country however the language point is so relevant. We have a very multinational population and the website even refers to the fact that certain minority groups are disproportionately affected by poverty in general.

I’m so glad I posted here as I’ll now send a much more comprehensive reply to the donation request. On deeper reading of the website I can also now see how the language they’re using is actually misaligned to some of their aims (education) and values. I’ll be interested to see how my acquaintance replies.

Just to add on to some very well put points, one thing to note about the word "menstruator" is how many of the activists who favour it can't spell it themselves.

But a teenage immigrant who doesn't speak English (and who might be here because she's a refugee with all the educational interruptions that might mean) is supposed to just learn it and cope.

To the other points re poverty, they definitely talk about poverty more broadly and there’s a lot of mention of kids missing school due to lack of access to period products.

Its only girls who would miss school through lack of sanpro.

No I would never support any organisation which describes women as menstruators.