In a parallel universe where the requirements of the transgender activists are actually reasonable and fair and take into consideration the impact on women and girls, we may well even be cheering on that sentiment and agreeing that is a progressive and inclusive step we all align with. it may well be a step towards eradicating period poverty, looking at how it effects everyone rather than just women - because even in this more reasonable parallel world, there is still a high level of misogyny - am i right!??
No, I don't agree with this actually. In fact for me the existence of this argument is the biggest reason why we need to avoid gender-neutral language. Periods affect women.
When we talk about men's mental health, we don't say it's worth addressing because men have female relatives, so it affects everyone - although male mental illness does have an enormous impact on women and children, through caring responsibilities, domestic violence, suicide and more. We talk about it because men deserve to have the best chance to be healthy and happy, like everyone else. We don't try to cure prostate cancer because it affects everyone - we try to cure it because men have a right to life, just like everyone else. But when women have needs, suddenly we talk about them in relation to how that affects men.
Women are human, and we are entitled to campaign for the things we need. We don't need to apologise for our needs, or to argue that our needs should be addressed because they interfere with our role of looking after everyone else.
My issue with talking about "people with periods" has nothing to do with any group's activism other than feminism. It's because the effect of doing so, whatever the intention, is to make women's issues - yet again - about men. The core of my feminism is being able to say that women matter in our own right.