Anti-Woman Brands Website - Boycotts, Alternatives, Resources

[Bosky]

This seems to be a very new site with plans to add more. Very handy reference and there is a Submission/Contact Page to submit extra entries.

ANTI-WOMAN BRANDS
https://antiwomanbrands.neocities.org/

Women continue to be mocked and sidelined by countless companies.

• Necessary items and procedures for women remain inaccessible.
• Charities, organizations, and women's only spaces are disappearing.
• Women are increasingly demonized by TRAs for speaking up about women's issues.

All brands listed here have chosen to align themselves with persons, organizations, and movements that continue to hurt women. Most brands like to align themselves as "woke" so it's probably impossible to compile an exhaustive list. Things are added as they come up.

Brands
> Brands Master List
https://antiwomanbrands.neocities.org/brands

> Megacorps
https://antiwomanbrands.neocities.org/megacorps

> Health/Beauty
https://antiwomanbrands.neocities.org/HealthBeauty

> Food/Home
https://antiwomanbrands.neocities.org/foodhome

> Clothing/Fashion
https://antiwomanbrands.neocities.org/clothingfashion

> Dylan Sponsors
https://antiwomanbrands.neocities.org/dylan

Other things
> Misogynistic Brands
https://antiwomanbrands.neocities.org/otherbrands

> Find Alternatives
https://antiwomanbrands.neocities.org/alternatives

Submissions
> Qualifying Process
https://antiwomanbrands.neocities.org/process

> Submit/Contact
https://antiwomanbrands.neocities.org/submissions

More info
> Charities
Please consider donating to or supporting women's organizations that work to help women and children in need around the world.
https://antiwomanbrands.neocities.org/charities

>Plans/Change Log
https://antiwomanbrands.neocities.org/plans

> Resources
https://antiwomanbrands.neocities.org/resources

As mentioned in the OP, this seems to be a very new site and submissions for additional sites are invited 👇

https://antiwomanbrands.neocities.org/process

The problem with that line of argument is that the website being linked to is not limited to those areas of publicity or promotion which are specific to biological sex.

It includes attacks on brands for using trans people to promote, to use your own example, beer. It includes attacks on brands for using trans people to promote supermarkets. Or make up.

Based on its attacks, the only way the objections of this website could be addressed is if trans people simply do not promote any products or any brands. At all.

Of course those of us who support trans rights have long argued that that eradication of trans people from the public sphere is the ultimate objective, and the whole 'womens rights' and 'wear what you want and call yourself what you want' mantra is a trojan horse for that agenda. This website (and those on here who are promoting it) prove that point.

Of course those of us who support trans rights have long argued that that eradication of trans people from the public sphere is the ultimate objective, and the whole 'womens rights' and 'wear what you want and call yourself what you want' mantra is a trojan horse for that agenda. This website (and those on here who are promoting it) prove that point.

We might equally well then argue that the ultimate objective of at least some trans activists online is to erase the female sex from everything, including from being used as the basis for how many women define themselves?

That's not my view, of course, and I'd ask you to think carefully if you aren't making that mistake in the other direction, probably by defining the presence of trans people in the public sphere in such a way that they are to be viewed eradicated if they are not treated exactly as if they are born to the sex they identify with.

There are other approaches, and they serve better in cases like this where the rights and demands for rights do clash.

You might have a point if there was a website attacking brands for using cisgender women in publicity or promotion, and if I was linking to that website favourably.

But I’m not.

On the other hand, there is a website, which this thread is all about which attacks brands not only for having trans women doing publicity for products which are specific to biological sex, but for having trans women doing publicity for any products at all.

So no, we might not ‘equally’ argue that those who support trans rights are trying to ‘erase the female sex from everything’.

So no, we might not ‘equally’ argue that those who support trans rights are trying to ‘erase the female sex from everything’.

I had in mind the way in which the female body is now being turned into a gender-neutral one so that those of us who have embodied identities are now told that we are gestating parents, not mothers, or vulva people, not women, or uterus-havers or menstruating people and so on, while nobody much is interested in turning the male body into something gender-neutral by writing about impregnating parents rather than about fathers, or about penis people, not men, or about prostate-havers or ejaculating people etc.

And yet demands for inclusion should cause exactly those changes in how 'man' is defined. They do not, and that's why it sometimes looks very much like the eradication of the female sex as something that can be mentioned might be an intended goal here.

These linguistic and social changes which are now demanded almost entirely go in one direction, which is towards the erasure of female people.

I see Dylan Mulvaney's adverts for female clothing as part of this overall trend. I would be perfectly fine if Mulvaney said that these clothes are great for trans women, for instance, but that is not the message of that Nike ad.

Rather, the message seems to be that Mulvaney (who is not a girl, even agewise) should now be regarded as a girl in that ad, even if it's a parody of a pre-teen girl's possible behaviour.

People keep on calling it an ad like Nike pumped millions into it. It's a paid partnership (or whatever they are called) with an influencer, similar to arrangements companies have with thousands of other (mostly women) influencers. It probably wouldn't have reached too much further than her followers or at least the SM she posted on. Now it's everywhere!

But again that’s just not correct.

I have no issue and know no one else who has an issue with recognising that the majority of people who give birth or need smear tests or mammograms, or who menstruate or go through menopause etc are women.

And the vast majority of the language used reflects that.

But I also accept the validity of the identities of trans men. So I think it is perfectly sensible for organisations to recognise that not everyone who (for example) gives birth is a woman. Trans men should not have to accept people claiming they are women just to access healthcare.

And you’re absolutely right - the same should apply to mens healthcare etc, where not everyone who needs to be aware of prostate cancer etc is a man. If there is a deficiency there then that is a case for inclusive language across the board, not an argument against inclusive language where it is already used.

the majority of people who give birth or need smear tests or mammograms, or who menstruate or go through menopause etc are women.

All. All of them are women.

Only if you dismiss the identities of trans men, which I obviously do not.

Im not sure what ‘dismiss the identities’ means. Only women menstruate, go through menopause, give birth. How someone likes to refer to themselves is their business. I won’t change my language and acceptance of biological reality based on someone else’s beliefs though.

No. Some trans men menstruate. Some trans men give birth.

I get that you want to insist that they are women (which is ironic, given that you complain about others forcing labels on women, when in fact it is you forcing labels on people you consider to be women).

But of course this thread does the same thing every thread on this forum does, which is to refuse to engage in any substance and instead loudly trumpet your determination to impose your language on others.

Meanwhile, you ignore the OP championing a website which attacks brands for just having trans partnerships even for products that are not limited by biological sex.

I get that you want to insist that they are women

Im not insisting anything. I’m simply stating biological facts. The female sex menstruate, give birth, experience menopause. Women are adult human females. Like I said, people can identify however they want, have whatever belief system you want. Whatever. I won’t change my language and belief in basic biology though. Most people think the same way. You are the one insisting. I’m afraid that simply doesn’t work for most people, as we are now seeing.

They are women (biology) who happen to also be transmen (gender identity). Both are correct.

Or are we suddenly insisting that gender identity and biology are the exact same thing now @TeaKlaxon ?

your determination to impose your language on others.

You seem to have got confused, TeaKlaxon.

It is the TRAs who wish to change the use of language. The accepted use of which dates back since forever. We have always had terms to distinguish the male sex from the female. It is only in the last few years that there has been this new push to label people along gender identity lines, and insist this trumps the accepted language usage that categorises on the basis of sex.

It’s the TRAs who are attempting to impose their new labels on others, who don’t necessarily share their beliefs. GC people just wish to continue using the same language and labels we’ve all used for millennia.

If you wish to label yourself in a way that’s aligned with a gender identity that you’ve decided for and by yourself, that’s fine and dandy. Crack on. You don’t get to control the speech and beliefs of other people, though. You don’t get to dictate that others lie. You don’t get to dictate they have to use a form of language that doesn’t match with reality and is counter to their beliefs.

But I also accept the validity of the identities of trans men. So I think it is perfectly sensible for organisations to recognise that not everyone who (for example) gives birth is a woman. Trans men should not have to accept people claiming they are women just to access healthcare.

I see this as a problem which happens with inclusion when it means, unavoidably, that someone's identity is invalidated. I am a woman because I have a female body, not because I feel, in some abstract sense, feminine, and, more importantly, because my own "lived experience" is about living in a sexed body, about the freedoms and limitations that body inherently has, and also about how the rest of the society treats me because that body is female and not male (sexism, sexual violence etc.).

So validating the identities of trans men here invalidates my identity. There is no way around that fact.

If all sorts of people, not just women and girls, can now have a female body, and if this means that 'woman' is altered so it no longer can be based on the female sex, then my embodied gender identity is certainly erased!

In a very real sense I am ordered to be something else than a woman when the new definition has nothing to do with being of the female sex, and when the alternative definitions offered are either empirically empty (circular, say), pseudo-religious (the possession of a gendered soul) or explicitly retrogressive and sexist (liking pink and high heels, being submissive in life and in sex etc.)

And this problem could have so easily been avoided if the gender identity framework had created a new set of terms about identity so that those who wish could have used them and the rest of us could have our sex-based definitions of that part of ourselves (being a woman) retained.

But this didn't happen, so here we are.

Note, also, that once again it's groups other than bog-standard women who are prioritised, just as in the way the male sex is not being erased. Trans women are quite rare, as a percentage of the female population and even rarer as a percentage of those who give birth.

But the language is changed to benefit them even if that harms so many others, including women who don't speak English as their first language, but not only those as one study done in the UK showed that almost one half of the women they surveyed didn't know they had a cervix, yet just yesterday a local council tweeted about screening for people who have a cervix between certain ages. The same council, last November, tweeted about prostate cancer and men, not about people who have a prostate.

Can anyone help with a list of all the brands that were successfully lobbied by the #bekind anti-women brigade to pull advertising from Mumsnet? I feel like submitting them for inclusion on the "Corporate Misogyny" page:

https://antiwomanbrands.neocities.org/otherbrands

Although it was trans activists who lobbied them so maybe this does not really apply?

"Ongoing list of brands that are not trans-adjacent, but still take advantage of or hurt women."

Perhaps the pro-woman person who runs that site could be persuaded to highlight them in some way, to indicate that they side with trans activists who go out of their way to attack Mumsnet.

It's really awful how some people hate women and children so much that they would try to destroy a website dedicated to mothers and parenting.

I did not know there were brands that stopped advertising on mumsnet because of the TRA. I think adding those would be a good idea.

It seem Dylan’s appearance for Bud Light has not been successful - although the subsequent message sent to the company has been quite stark…

https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/other-industries/bud-light-suffers-bloodbath-as-longtime-and-loyal-consumers-revolt-against-transgender-campaign/news-story/81742d02ea23a2b3a5c88c80568cc5c7

It is lots of things that cause issue with using transwomen in adverts. It is the advertising of things aimed at women when the person in question does not have a female body - does not have periods, or the same kind of skin, or go through the menopause, or get pregnant, or have hormones that go in cycles, all the different things that mean women's bodies need different stuff to men's. This might include skin care, cosmetics, hair care, hair removal, medications for anything from migraines to thrush, sports wear, underwear, period products, vitamins, clothes, shoes etc., pregnancy and nursing products, etc. Almost anything to do with the physical self.

It is also the way in which being a women is projected - the skipity, little girl dizziness projected by some transwomen is not how most women behave and at best is not a helpful role model for women and girls and at worst encourages sterotyping, sexism and is just plain offensive to women as an unpleasant form of 'womanface'.

If a transwoman, unsexualised, non-child-like, was, say, just buying car insurance in an ad I would have no problem with that though I'd think the trans person was just beign used for points. And Iw oudl rather not have any politics of any kind from products except where it is to do with the production of the product that the compnay has control of or is responsible for: ie locally produced, organic perhaps, fair trade, pays its workers properly, uses factories in countries with labour laws, etc.

There is also a really issue of care for trans people in this - I remember the guy who played Crusher in Last of the Summer Wine losing his role because he lost a lot of weight for his health. That's awful. Becoming trans maybe well be a valid choice but we know many do detranistion - how awful to have made the wrong decision (or that decision to be no longer right even if it was for a time) and yet your livelihood depends on it. Because big companies want to use you when they get woke points but won't look twice when you've just gone back to being a plain man or woman.

No company I know of has ever used a detransitioner in an ad. Yet only trans people can be detransitioners so this is actually an anti-trans act. If gender is fluid then it is as valid to go one way as the other and these people are as valuable in society as anyone else yet they are hidden by woke companies, shunned in fact.

Would you support a company using a detransitioner in an ad @TeaKlaxon ? Do you think their gender choices are as valid as those made by people who transition just once? Because supporting detransitioners should be just as much part of the transcommunity as transitioners surely?

Sorry if anyone has already mentioned this, but of the biggest brands it seems Colgate-Palmolive are a bit less virtue-signalling than the rest? Does anone know any different?

I've been wondering about some of the issues around the idea of increasing the "visibility" of people based on the notion that they have an invisible, objectively unverifiable, self-declared sense of self.

Let's say a big corporation with multiple brands under its belt decides that it wants to include a person with magical essence of gender identity in every advertising campaign.

Some scenarios.

"You don't become trans, you have always been trans."
If that is true then it should be legit for the Megacorp to include footage or images of Elliot Page before Elliot "came out as trans" because, of course, Elliot "has always been trans".

"Trans people are all around you, most of them pass 100%"
A once-well-known C-list actress who has been out of work and out of the spotlight for years is put forward by her agency for inclusion in an advert featuring several women, on the basis that said actress claims to be "stealth".

There is incredulity and the agency is asked to supply a birth certificate. This states that the actress is female. It is accompanied by a reminder that neither the agency nor the Megacorp is entitled to ask if the actress has a Gender Recognition Certificate and also that it is against the law for someone who has gained knowledge of gender reassignment in an official capacity to share that knowledge.

The agency states that the actress wishes to remain "stealth" and points out that Megacorp's aim is simply to increase employment opportunities for trans people, not to "out" individuals. Megacorp acknowledges that it can achieve this aim whilst concealing the "trans status" of the actress by use of anonymous, checkbox "inclusion data" records.

No openly trans actresses are put forward for any of the experienced roles in the advertising campaign so the Megacorp takes on the "stealth trans actress" without any fanfare. Cue outrage from trans advocacy organisations when the campaign is launched, accusing Megacorp of backtracking on its promise, and a flurry of media speculation about which of the actresses featured in the campaign is trans - if any.

"Passing Privilege is unfair and so last year"
Stung by its experience with "stealth actress", Megacorp ramps up the "inclusion quotient" by vowing to target trans people who do not benefit from "passing privilege".

Unfortunately, Dylan Mulvaney and Jeffrey Thing (you know who I mean, I can't remember Jeffrey's last name) have already signed exclusive deals with other "feminine" brands (tampons, menopause medication, etc.) so they have to spread their net wider.

Daniel Muscato is also unavailable to advertise their new brand of shapewear for ladies with middle-aged spread but, luckily, a lookalike new face on the block is put forward. Coincidentally, by the same agency that represents "stealth actress".

Some people might not regard Skye, who has detransitioned mentally, as "trans" but Skye clearly has a "trans body". Others on Megacorp's LGBTQIA+ HR Oversight Committee argue that "once trans, always trans" and that Skye is obviously "gender fluid".

Megacorp's Marketing Planning Dept, always one step ahead, is ecstatic! Megacorp offers Skye the role in the original shapewear advert as well as putting Skye on contract for next year's multi-brand campaign targeting the emerging market of detransitioners.

The agency has played hardball and told Megacorp that they can only have exclusive rights to Skye if they also take on their other candidate, corpulent bearded Stan. Stan proudly "came out" last week, just after a permanent booking for a magician/comedian was abruptly terminated by a bankrupt Cruise line.

The agency pitches Stan, who eschews such fripperies as a new name and change of "street wear", as perfect for a proposed "fursona-friendly" range of adult continence products. (Stan comes under the "trans umbrella" as Queer due to his identity as a "Little" or "Adult Baby".)

One of the trans representatives on Megacorp's LGBTQIA+ HR Oversight Committee (they are all trans) demurs, arguing that "Adult Baby" is not a "gender identity". The other members call she/her/they/them a bigot, kick she/her/they/them off the committee and Stan is hired.

----

Obviously this is all nonsense and Megacorp will continue scrabbling for a piece of Dylan Mulvaney and Jeffrey Thing . . . meanwhile, on the drawing boards of Marketing Planning Depts, always and already poised to segment and expand markets, they are inventing products to be sold to consumers three years down the line . . .

You've transported us right there... to every board meeting.. @Bosky

The whole situation, advertising by identity, is awful for every body.

With a beer company using Dylan Mulvaney, I doubt they just happened to pick a trans woman.

If you choose to push a culture war, and customers can see that, then you risk a backlash.