Always: 61% of young people have felt ashamed for having a period

[TeenPlusCat]

Ad just on TV as above

That can't be right can it?

Even if every single girl felt ashamed that would still make up only 51% of young people...

(sorry if this has been covered before)

@anadulthumanfemale

Not saying you can't use the word girls. Just saying that in this instance it isn't necessary for it to be understood. So trying to force specific wording isn't needed. I thought we were against compelled speech anyway? Or is that only for TRAs?

What if it had been 31%? No-one would know what had been meant!

We only know now because it's 61% and we know the total number of girls can't exceed 51% of adolescents.

How do you imagine the discussion for the ad campaign went:

A: so we have this statistic, 61% of girls...
B: why don't we make the statistic less clear, lets say people ...

But I thought you said it's a very slippery slope when you leave people to know what you mean without specifying. And that unclear statistics upset you. Just saying girls would leave it too unclear. This is all about accuracy after all right?

Or do we only apply those standards when it suits us?

@anadulthumanfemale

So you are agreeing that it would have to say "61% of young people who were born female who live in the UK and who have started having periods and who replied to our survey...." then?

Because just saying girls would be unclear and inaccurate too. As you say, you can't just leave it at 'girls' and expect everyone to know exactly what you mean.

61% of young people, does that mean all young girls and 11% of young boys? In which case we have a massive problem...

If it was 61% of young girls then it would be 31% of young people surely?

I mean what is the point of quoting statistics and paying for ad campaigns when you end up talking complete and utter bollocks?

Let's not be disingenuous, we know exactly why they used "people". It's normally perfectly reasonable to say 53% of homeowners don't test their smoke alarm weekly or whatever.

Without interrogating what a home is, does it include shared ownership, what counts as a smoke alarm.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Let's not be disingenuous, we know exactly why they used "people". It's normally perfectly reasonable to say 53% of homeowners don't test their smoke alarm weekly or whatever.

Oh, but you can't just say that. It's too unclear? What about tenants? They don't own their homes. What percentage of tenants don't test their smoke alarms. This is indeedy a very slippery slope.

We must demand every statistic is 100% clear about their criteria!

If I want to know details of who they surveyed then I look at the small print.
You should not need to look at the small print to know whether one of 2 sexes has been included.

What justification would the advertisers have for using a word which automatically doubles the size of the potential group, even though they weren't included?

"If I want to know details of who they surveyed then I look at the small print."

That's a good solution. Maybe we just do that instead. Then we don't have to compel anyone's speech.

Normally you use homeowners to mean people who own their own home (or have a mortgage), and households to mean groups of people responsible for their own living accommodation.) So yes, words matter. If you mean girls, say girls.

@anadulthumanfemale What justification is there for using the word 'people' instead of 'girls' if actually they mean girls? It is a longer word, that is less clear. It doesn't enhance understanding, it obfuscates it.

Ah the old "no one is saying you can't say girls/women"

Except here, and here, oh and here, nope, no reason to say those naughty words. Thinking it is good enough. knowing it is good enough. Mustn't say it.

When can we say it? We get to say it when the subject matter can include the males I guess! Can't used sexed language about female biology though, that's bad. But it's ok everyone, we can all think it!

Requiring advertisers to be clear isn’t compelling anyones speech, you nana 🤣

If it is, the Advertising Standards Authoritity just got a whole lot darker as an organisation.

You’re not wrong, teenpluscat. It is important to be accurate, and “girls” is the most accurate word here. We should always be clear and plain with language around menstruation.

@anadulthumanfemale

"If I want to know details of who they surveyed then I look at the small print."

That's a good solution. Maybe we just do that instead. Then we don't have to compel anyone's speech.

What do you mean 'compel'? Do you think they asked all young people or just girls?

What was the point of asking the boys this question?

Oh, but you can't just say that. It's too unclear? What about tenants? They don't own their homes. What percentage of tenants don't test their smoke alarms. This is indeedy a very slippery slope

Yes I made that point first, thanks, pointing out how ridiculous your argument is.

[quote TeenPlusCat]@anadulthumanfemale What justification is there for using the word 'people' instead of 'girls' if actually they mean girls? It is a longer word, that is less clear. It doesn't enhance understanding, it obfuscates it.[/quote]
Even if some people disagree with them, there are people out there who have had periods who would not see themselves as girls. You can say they are wrong all you like. But they will still not see themselves like that. And would be hurt to have someone define them in a way they did not agree with.

So one justification would be basic human empathy. Even if you think they are wrong, you can still have empathy.

And I personally think showing empathy is a damn fine justification to use people instead of girls, especially as any confusion can be cleared up by reading the small print, as you yourself have said. If an extra 10 seconds of reading is all that is required of me to save someone pain, then that is acceptable.

Unless you think saving that time is worth hurting people?

So we shouldn't use the word girl in case it offends someone but every knows we mean girls? But if no one can tell anyone that only girls have periods then how do we all know that only girls have periods. God this stuff blows my mind. Increasingly I'm realising that pronouns appended to your name is just to signal to people that you're thick as pig poo.

I get what you're saying but I think they're referring also to girls or women who identify as male so may not want to be called female.

So your justification is that some girls don't think they are girls so prefer to be referred to as 'people'?

But I am meant to just 'know' that actually the statistic referred to just girls ?

Talk about double think.

'Be kind' is more important than 'be clear, be accurate'. And yet again girls are pushed out, even from advertisements aimed at them.

We know full well why this obfuscation is occurring. I think clear language around women's health issues is more important than their sensibilities.

And how, exactly does the language change help these youngsters who don’t identify as girls?

They’re still going to be getting their periods.

They will still have to cope with that, and all of the manipulation of language in the world won’t change that biological fact.

If they don’t think it applies to them, then they can ignore it, of course.

I’m not seeing how creating more obfuscation, more shame around the topic of menstruation by not even being able to say who menstruates is of any benefit to the vast majority of girls.

Exactly. How do they think it helps the majority of girls?

I get what you're saying but I think they're referring also to girls or women who identify as male so may not want to be called female

Are these the extra 11%? What about boys that want to be called girls, are they ashamed of not having to be ashamed of anything?

This is all such utter tosh.

@TeenPlusCat

So your justification is that some girls don't think they are girls so prefer to be referred to as 'people'?

But I am meant to just 'know' that actually the statistic referred to just girls ?

Talk about double think.

'Be kind' is more important than 'be clear, be accurate'. And yet again girls are pushed out, even from advertisements aimed at them.

No, as you said yourself, you can read the small print. You aren't expected to just know. But most people do, and will.

So for those who require clarity, it is still there. No one is pushed out. Nothing is lost. Except the time to read the small print. And if you aren't willing to do even that little for the sake of another's feelings, well, that's that I guess.

What about the distress that the ad could cause to the proportion of girls who haven’t got their period yet, if we’re looking for groups who wouldn’t feel “seen”? Weird how they wouldn’t get a look in for inclusions sake…?

Perhaps we shouldn’t talk about any of it all, for fear of upsetting people who should feel included, but don’t, aren’t included but feel they should be, don’t want to be included but are, do want to be included but aren’t…

Or we could just go with something factual “61% of girls and young women have felt ashamed for having a period”, which seems like it does all it needs to.