Can you help me challenge this in my workplace

[doingmybitforwomen]

Hi all, we recently had a workshop where the language used was 'people have periods'.

I asked that they consider using different language going forward with the following which I took from the 'standingforwomen' site

'Only women have periods. We do not say that 'people produce sperm'. Throughout the legal framework of women's sex based rights and protections, we use the word woman. It is essential that this word is retained to mean 'adult human female' only. Without this word, all our rights and protections are lost.

Our rights were never created for our gender but our sex. Our sex being female, the sex that bears children, the sex that requires maternity rights; privacy rights' equality with the male sex in the work place; specific health issues; reproductive rights and so on. If our rights become dependent upon gender, then they are no longer women's rights.

They've come back with ' the language was appropriate, deliberately chosen to be inclusive'.

I want to respond back with something definitive that explains it's not about inclusivity. Can anyone help me craft something as I'm not an expert but feel strongly about this because if I don't keep on, they will continue to use that language until everyone else feels that it should be used without question and don't think about the wider impact for women.

Sorry for longwinded post. This is a new account for me as I can't seem to resurrect my previous one but I have been here a while.

@Cleanandpress

Periods used to be unmentionables. Now we can mention them only if we don't mention the women that have them.

Progressive, I think not.

Interesting that it's a green agenda. Women and girls cannot be mentioned in the green agenda.

The Green Party have allowed themselves to be taken over by entryists. There are about 300 VERY vocal TRAs in the Greens. The membership is much larger but most are looking the other way at the moment and the leadership are pandering to the TRAs.

It'll turn eventually, as there are enough members to overrule them if they gave a shit and got involved, but that will probably only after the mainstream public really gets to grips with this, I imagine.

And repeat, more or less, with most other political parties...

@yetanotherusernameAgain

I think you'll find it difficult to challenge that wording.

Picking up on a few PPs' comments:

It reduces women to bodily functions which is really dehumanising

No it doesn't. Saying "people who have periods" is no more dehumanising than "women who have periods". Terms like 'menstruators' or 'uterus-havers' are the ones that people consider dehumanising. Although I don't find them any different to common terms such as 'pensioners' (instead of people who are drawing a pension); 'school-leavers' (adolescents leaving school); football fans (people who like football) etc etc. There are lots of terms names we've taken the 'person' out of the term but we either don't realise/don't mind.

You could argue that "women and people who have periods" would actually be a more inclusive expression (ie women plus any women who don't identify as such) but strictly speaking the term "woman" is problematic because it's linked to age (adult human female) and doesn't include girls.

Yes, in context we know that "women who have periods" includes girls, but it we want the phrase to be accurate (and inclusive of non-female-identifying people's feelings) we'd have to say "women, girls and people who have periods". In which case we might as well shorten it to "people who have periods".

A lot of effort has to go into this sex denialism.

Can't they say women who have periods?

This always confuses the fuck out of me because TW won't be buying them anyway because they don't have periods. Why do they want to be included?

OP did they say "people have periods" as stated in your OP because apart from anything else this is just wrong. I live with three other people and none of them have periods!

When we start using words like people in this way, we are at risk of completely confusing statistics eg. 11% of people have endometriosis.

Thanks everyone, I’m grateful for the help.

I’ll read through everything posted and craft a further response. I can’t let it go.

@yetanotherusernameAgain

I think you'll find it difficult to challenge that wording.

Picking up on a few PPs' comments:

It reduces women to bodily functions which is really dehumanising

No it doesn't. Saying "people who have periods" is no more dehumanising than "women who have periods". Terms like 'menstruators' or 'uterus-havers' are the ones that people consider dehumanising. Although I don't find them any different to common terms such as 'pensioners' (instead of people who are drawing a pension); 'school-leavers' (adolescents leaving school); football fans (people who like football) etc etc. There are lots of terms names we've taken the 'person' out of the term but we either don't realise/don't mind.

You could argue that "women and people who have periods" would actually be a more inclusive expression (ie women plus any women who don't identify as such) but strictly speaking the term "woman" is problematic because it's linked to age (adult human female) and doesn't include girls.

Yes, in context we know that "women who have periods" includes girls, but it we want the phrase to be accurate (and inclusive of non-female-identifying people's feelings) we'd have to say "women, girls and people who have periods". In which case we might as well shorten it to "people who have periods".

Do you also think that LGBTQIA should be shortened to "the gays"? Might as well, right? Or are other groups allowed to ask others to make an effort with language? In which case, why aren't women afforded the same right?

OP, the problem seems to be less about dehumanising language (at least they aren't referring to you by your individual body parts), and more about refusing to let women name themselves. The most common usage of the word "woman" is to refer to the female sex. It's how the word is used in the Equality Act and how it is used in everyday life.
Removing any marginalised group's right to use their word for themselves is very problematic. And doing so sits particularly uncomfortably in the specific context of women's rights, where there is a rich history of women as a group being denied agency and recognition as equal humans.

Yes, in context we know that "women who have periods" includes girls, but it we want the phrase to be accurate (and inclusive of non-female-identifying people's feelings) we'd have to say "women, girls and people who have periods". In which case we might as well shorten it to "people who have periods".

If we want it to be accurate, we would say ‘female people who have periods’, because it is female people who have periods.
If we want to care about people’s feelings, we would say ‘women and people who have periods’.
‘People have periods’ is neither accurate nor inclusive. It’s not considering everyone’s feelings, only a minority.

They've come back with ' the language was appropriate, deliberately chosen to be inclusive'.

But they've excluded women .... by erasing them.

It's a known dehumanising & bullying technique: stop calling someone by their name, and just refer to them by a feature of their body eg stop calling a woman "Mary" and start calling her "the blonde one."

It's how anti-Semitism and racism work.

The thing that pisses me off about this is that it's biologically ignorant.

Women are not constantly menstrusting.

There are many things in life that make them stop, temporarily or permanently.

How many women can know 100% their next period will come?

Pregnancy
Being underweight or exercising a lot
Illness
Breast feeding
Stress
Certain types of contraception
Certain types of medication
And of course peri/menopause

I mean if we're not currently having one then it's an assumption really.

The other point is that on the pill you don't have a period. You have a withdrawal bleed. Not the same thing.

So using people who have periods is a phrase that does not reflect the reality of women's lives.

Like with a lot of this stuff (people with a cervix etc) we're supposed to assume it means us.

Which is a hopeless way of using language.

Plus the points others have made about dehumanisation. The point that men in general are not being expected to accept this language.

Given the history with women's biological functions being seen as disgusting, unspeakable etc. To call us by these very things is pretty crappy as well.

Thinking about some of the other language.

The term people with vaginas is often seen as a good alternative to using women/ girls.

Having things referring to your cunt in a workplace situation is weird though isn't it? I mean isn't it reminding everyone including obviously the men that YES those ones have vaginas, getting that thought to pass through their heads?

If you're an attractive young woman in a male dominated workplace how would it feel to be sitting in a meeting and be told there's X going to happen for people with vaginas?

I mean that's pretty fucking weird right? In general we need men at work to be thinking about our bodies less, not more!

and inclusive of non-female-identifying people's feelings)

Why would we want to be inclusive of the feelings of the small minority of female people who identify otherwise, and not most other women who don't like being referred to in this way?

very good points @NiceGerbil

Suggested response, OP:

"As a matter of fact, “people who have periods” is no more inclusive than “women” because each of these denotes the same group, namely women. But “people who have periods” often has a connotation that differs from “women”, in that its use may indicate the tacit assumption of a particular (false) view, namely that these denotations may differ. Your response may serve to indicate this latter assumption, which is narrowly political as well as being mistaken.

"Using the connotation of such phraseology in support of a particular political view concerning how we as a society deal with the rights of women is particularly to be deprecated. So I would be grateful to see a return to the use of “women” to denote women."

I've just googled "do men get periods" and one of the links was -

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_menstruation

Includes the wonderful sentence under "In intersex or trans men".... "A scenario where a man undergoes menstrual bleeding, a biological process typically associated only with female reproduction." The word "man" links to the wikipedia article "man" which starts with "A man is an adult male human."

Quick update:
The amazing Dr Nicola Williams from FairPlay to Women responded to my query with the following response:

"Unfortunately there’s nothing unlawful about this use of this language in this context. All we can do is raise objections so they know it’s not universally welcomed. If lots of women object and boycott their products they might change their branding back so they don’t lose our custom. But in the end it’s an advertising decision.

So my suggestion is to continue calling this language out in public (if you feel able to). Raise it with friends at work as a conversation starter perhaps. Also, it might be worth replying back to the company asking them to use the phrase’ women and other people who have periods’ as a fully inclusive approach that doesn’t alienate women.

In the end this type of language only stops when it hurts their branding and sales"