"periods: a genderless function" FFS!!!

[whistleblown]

How greedy and selfish of us to keen periods to ourselves all this time. 🙄🙄🙄

Sorry, I can't. I think basing legal rights on these definitions is a very different issue.

Could that be because the two groups referred to in the definition have nothing in common apart from being humans?

Nonsense. Most women only term themselves such because it means adult human female. If the word can mean anyone of any biology, most women aren't women anymore and TW will have to find another reason why they think they are actually like the female bodied people they crave to be its either or and not both. The face that some dictionary writers are MRAs does not change what people actually mean by it.

That's correct.
Gender is a social construct.
Menstruation is biological. Related to your sex.

Yeh it’s utter rubbish

We want our stuff back - as said by someone in a link the other day, with more swearing

According to them I'm not a woman. Does excluding most women from the definition of woman not bother them? It's a disgusting definition and writing it is an act of aggression.

Every time I read this shite I feel like my mind has been put through a blender.

How are they locked out of talking about periods? They could spend ten minutes on here and have plenty of opportunity to bitch about moon cup sizes and period poos.

It's possible to discuss the hassle of periods without bringing it back to gender identity? Surely?

Unless it's not about moon cups and period poos...

I went and read the articles on the website. Whilst I don't agree necessarily with everything Oscar says, it's not a particularly militant interview. They're maybe asking for a degree of understanding that this experience is simultaneously the same and yet different for transmen.
The other blog post about periods and gender states very clearly that periods are a bodily function and nothing to do with your gender, also makes some good points around shame and secrecy. I also agree with some of why they're going with period care as a descriptor rather than feminine hygiene.
They're a bit fast and loose with the word woman but concede that menstruation only happens in a female body.
I probably won't put my Modibodi pants in the bin just yet.

Look at the definition - I'm pretty sure that it includes you.

Pretty sure a definition that relies on how you identify will exclude a large number of those previously known as women because they don't see it as part of their identity

It's not my identity, nearer a curse or affliction

It could, but see my previous answer to this question!

Ducking hell.

I always quite admired ModiBodi as a brand.

Not after this.

The way the definition is structured in that dictionary it's either/or.

I can't accept a definition that could imply that it's my identity

And I can't accept a definition that is not a definition but a set of options because that's not a definition

No. I don't identify as a woman. I have called myself it whilst it's a biological term. Nothing to dobwith identity.

If woman is everyone female bodied and grown up, then Oscar is a woman. If woman is those people who identify as women, then most women aren't one. This either or does not make sense.

Just had a little look at Modibodi's IG, Which is covered in "period pants for all genders" shite. Nope. Another brand off the list. Why is it so hard for manufacturers of products for women to accept that their customers are women?

Transmen would be better off with counselling to enable them to confront the reality of their bodies rather than rewriting logic and science out of the whole conversation. This is just ‘x upsets me so you all have to talk about it differently. Doesn’t change whether I have a period or not, does confuse the narrative substantially, hurting the slow path to women and girls being treated like humans , but I want it this way.’

"This nuanced topic..." - is this the first sighting of nuance on that side of the debate?

Erm… this is just insane.

So today the Tate and modibodi have shown themselves to hold some pretty strange views…

So it’s not a definition, then.

One job. A dictionary has one job….

Nope. The new definition excludes anyone who, like me, doesn't "identify as" anything.

And even if I did identify as something, I still do not have even the faintest clue what trans women are identifying with, so how could we possibly share any kind of identity?

Well, yes, that's the point I was making.

If "woman" can now mean EITHER "adult human female" OR "person of either sex who believes their gender identity is woman", it has two completely unrelated meanings, and people falling within these definitions are two separate and unrelated groups, not one group.

By your logic, the fact that the word "sole" can mean either a type of fish or the bottom of a shoe means that these two things have something in common. Other than both using the word "sole", they don't. And we can tell from the context whether we are talking about fish or shoes, so using the same word for both doesn't cause any particular problems.

Male people who use the word "woman" to refer to themselves are causing a problem because they would have us believe that they have something in common with adult human females and are therefore entitled to use our spaces and compete in our sports.

Indeed. Oscar has (a) actually being a woman, and (b) not identifying as a woman, in common with the majority of women. Almost as if Oscar isn't that different to the rest of us after all.