Do you think it's woke to say some women don't have periods?

[Anonymous]

Some women have health problems, or choose health treatments, which make it so they don't or can't have periods. It's simple fact.

But some people claim it's woke and liberal bs to say that not all women have periods. They say that all women have periods and only women have periods. But this obviously isn't true, because of what I said already, and also because children can have periods. As young as 10. A 10 year old is not a man or a woman, it's a child. That's child age. Like, you don't even have to know that trans women are women to know that not all women have periods.

So it's clear to me, it's just biological! Some women don't have periods. What you do think? Do you agree, or disagree? Why?

[Lliam]

It's not woke to understand science. It's a fact that some biological women do not have periods. Duh.

But it is woke (woke being a sarcastic synonym for being out touch with reality) to claim that biological men can have periods or to claim, on the other hand, that just because they can't have periods doesn't prove that they aren't women.

Biological men are NOT women, no matter how hard they try to twist language, logic and facts.

[Asker]

Thanks for sharing your opinion! I do have 1 question, if you don't mind.
"Biological women" as in... ? I assume you don't mean biological as opposed to "non-biological" as in like, synthetic robot people women. That I don't think is real, and hope never becomes real bc humanoid robots are unnatural and creepy. But I also assume you did mean some specific kind of woman, something to do with their biology that sets them apart from all other women. Just not periods. Because you say some "biological women" don't have periods. And that doesn't disqualify them from being biological women. So... it must be something else.. that you just assumed I knew what was..

[Lliam]

Good point. I should have said biological 'males', meaning born into a male body. Someone who is born male cannot magically or medically transform into a woman (female).

[Asker]

Okay.. so being a "biological woman" is just, not being born in a "male" body? So, what all do you need to have when you're born for it to be a male body? (Thanks for answering, I just wanna clarify. This will prolly be the last question.)

[Lliam]

How could you not know this stuff?

[Asker]

Well recently with everything getting so political, it's become a bit confusing from both sides. Some people on the left say intersex people aren't born as men OR women, and some people on the right refuse to say what makes an intersex person a man or a woman. And then of course trans people, who can change a lot of their biology, but some people say they can't change the essential biology peice (which they don't usually say what is), some say they can but disagree what the biology peice is that they need to change to change their gender, and some say they don't need to change anything biologically and they already are that gender.

So. It's not as simple as I used to think. I used to just think doctors assigned it and there was never any overlap or gray area, and trans people had 1 operation a "sex change" that changed them totally to the opposite sex biologically. Obviously, none of that is true. So I'm just trying to figure out what other people think. Maybe I'll find a better understanding that way, yknow?

[Lliam]

You can't change a male's or female's bone structure. When paleontologists dig up skeletons, they can clearly differentiate male from female. The skull and, especially, pelvis are dead giveaways.

People born male don't have a vulva, ovaries, uterus or clitoral structures. Clitoral structures are mostly internal. Those are the major differences, but there are others.
Surgery can create a hole, but not a functioning vagina.
Drugs can't give males breasts that can nourish infants.

Surgery can't give a woman a functioning penis, testicles or prostate.

The fact that people don't know this stuff is due to pure mind fuckery.

[Asker]

Oh. Well, some of that's not true either. There's a lot of overlap in skeletal structure. Drugs can give you breasts that nourish infants. And functioning penis. But the other stuff I haven't heard otherwise, so I'll assume ur right about those.

So, being a biological woman means having a certain skull and pelvis structure, a vulva, ovaries, uterus, clitorus, a functional vagina, and breasts that nourish infants. Okay. And women who don't have all these things, would still be women, just not biological women. Because of their biology not meeting the qualifications. That makes sense.

And if a man doesn't have specific skull and pelvis structure, functioning penis, testicles, and prostate, then he's not a biological man. And, of course, if a man has any of the biological woman things, he can't be a biological man either, even if he does have all the biological man qualifications. And the same for biological women. So you're one of the people who think some people aren't born as men OR women, and you can lose your status as a biological man/woman. Interesting. Im not sure if i agree with all that, but I guess it makes sense, as long as it's consistent. Thanks for explaining!

[gorydetails]

No one says it's woke and liberal to say not all women have periods.

[Asker]

You don't think it's woke, cool!
Thanks for sharing your opinion!

[Anonymous]

‘Not all women have periods’ is supposed to make trans women feel better about not having periods in my opinion. Whilst it’s true, not all biological women have periods. But trans women do not have periods because they are not biologically female. I don’t think there’s anything woke about saying that some women do not have periods because it is the truth.

[Asker]

The truth is supposed to make trans women feel better? How nice for them.
Thanks for sharing your opinion!

[Opinion Owner]

Apparently so 😅

[Anonymous]

Trans women aren’t women. If they did a DNA chromosome test it would likely say they are male

Also biological women who don’t have periods most likely because of old age or because they have medical conditions

Trans women don’t have periods because they are biological males.
Not because of health issues it’s because they are men

[Opinion Owner]

A person born in a female body but cannot get pregnant or menstruate because of hysterectomy, medical reasons or old age is totally different than a person being born in a male body who lacks the ability to menstruate and get pregnant.

[Asker]

So the difference is, one of them lacks the ability to mestruate or get pregnant. And the other... lacks the ability to mestruate or get pregnant. I see. 😶

[Opinion Owner]

No one lacks because of old age or medical reasons most likely.
the other one can’t because they are a man. Not because of medical reasons

[Asker]

What makes it a medical reason? I understand like, having cancer, that's a medical reason. But just not having the ability to, by itself, isn't necessarily a medical reason. It could just be the way a cis woman was born, she just can't. Same as how with a trans woman, it could be just the way she's born. Nothing "wrong" with either, medically, that like is gonna kill them if they got pregnant. They just can't do it. Like some of any group of people, they're infertile. And sometimes that's just how they are. No medical cause or fix, just that way sometimes. It's unfortunate.

[Opinion Owner]

I’m assuming you must be a trans because it’s uncommon for women and men who aren’t trans to use the word cis

one lacks the capability to get pregnant because of old age or medical reasons most likely.
the other one can’t because they have the body of a male. Not because of their age and medical reasons

[Asker]

Assume whatever you want. I don't give a shit. Some women can't give birth because of non-medical reasons, just bc of how they are. Cis and trans. That's just how it is.

[Opinion Owner]

Im not sure about 100 percent of cases but I’m sure it’s mostly because of age or medical reasons why a person born in a female body can’t get pregnant or menstruate

[Asker]

Yeah, a lot of people age out of it. Some people have medical problems. Some people are just born that way. Again, both cis and trans. Pregnancy is amazing but it's also rlly complicated and kinda weird. Nobody's guaranteed the ability, for any reason.

[Anonymous]

I agree and so do the conservatives you think you're refuting with this very post. You're being pedantic. Obviously they're not saying children can't have periods nor are they say each and every women ever to exist always had periods.

What they're saying is women are females, and those who socially and physically transition are not woman (but rather transwoman if anything).

[Asker]

Like I said, politics aside, it's just a fact that not all women have periods. Facts don't care about your feelings, right? I thought conservatives loved facts. So why do they call this fact "woke"?

[Opinion Owner]

I've already explained that. It's because they're speaking generally, not pedantically. It's like saying dogs have tails even though SOME dog breeds don't have tails.

You don't question people when they say dogs have tails, do you? Because you understand they aren't saying "all dog breeds have tails," they're saying "dogs generally have tails."

[Asker]

Oh! Well sure, when you put it like that. Women have periods, and women don't have periods. I don't see how saying one of those is "woke" still though. Both are true.

[Opinion Owner]

I don't mean to be rude but you know exactly what they're saying. Whether you disagree with it or not, you know by them calling it "woke" they're calling into question whether a male can have a period, and sequentially, whether a male can be a woman.

When people say "some women don't have periods" (or some variation of that), in modern day context, in nearly all cases, they're indirectly saying males who they consider women don't have periods.

[Asker]

The only times I've heard it said we're in response to people saying all women have periods, or not having a period makes you not a woman. So someone responds saying no, some women don't have periods. And then they get called woke. I've never heard someone unprompted say "some women don't have periods." It's always a counter-argument against dumb shit that's not even true, and makes some cis women feel bad for no reason.

[Opinion Owner]

It seems like you may have misspoken. When I was trying to make sense of it I went back to read my response and I realized I spoke in a way that wasn't very clear, I used "they" to refer to two different people/factions in the same sentence. I'm not sure if it caused any confusion.

But I'm not really sure precisely what you're referring to when you say "I've heard it said." You say "I've heard IT said we're in response to people saying all women have periods" so "it" in this context seems like you're referring to the conservative's response. But then you say "or not having a period makes you not a woman" which is the (possibly misrepresented) conservative's response. So it seems like you're saying you've heard "it" (the conservative's response) in response to "not having a period makes you not a woman" (also the conservative's response). So it seems like you're saying a conservative argument responded to a conservative argument.

Also, you say "I've never heard someone unprompted say 'some women don't have periods,'" that inner quote being the conservative point of view but then you say "It's always a counter-argument against dumb shit that's not even true" which would be the point the conservative is responding to, or in other words, the liberal point of view. But I don't believe you meant to regard the liberal point of view as "dumb shit that's not even true."

[Opinion Owner]

But for the record, the stance that "not all women have periods" is absolutely an unprompted left-wing stance.

Additionally, do you really think that if a conservsative had a mother, sister, daughter, or female friend who suddenly became unable to have periods that they would now considert that mother, sister, daughter, or female friend as no longer a woman? That'd be silly to suggest. So while, yes, some women might be offended by that statement, that's only because they'd be taking it literally rather than figuratively. Would it be nice if conservatives came up with a more considerate means of expressing their position? Of course. Would it be reasonable for women without the ability to have periods to assume they're not speaking literally, and thus, not get offended? Also yes.

And if it might encourage some form of understanding between us, rather than senseless bickering of what might be interpreted as opposing factions, I do believe that gender is a social construct. And I do believe that males can be feminine and fit the social role of a feminine being. I do believe a male can socially effectively be a woman and naturally be treated as such (passable transwomen, for example). But while many conservative's wouldn't agree with that, one thing they and I both agree on, and which I'd argue is fact, is that a male is not, and with our current means of medical prowess, cannot be a woman. I'd argue they CAN be a transwoman, and be treated as women typically are. But when conservatives say "only women have periods" or something like that, they're just opposing the notion that a man can be a woman.

[Asker]

What? Okay no, sorry. I guess I wasn't clear either. I've only heard "some women don't have periods" in response to dumb shit like "not having periods makes you not a woman" and "all women have periods."

"Some women don't have periods" isn't a leftist stance. It's just a fact. And liberals will bring it up when conservatives fucking deny it or ignore it, because it's an obvious blatant fact that even conservatives can't deny to its face (and shouldn't deny even when it's not been said in the past 10 minutes). Of course someone who says dumb shit like "not having a period makes you not a woman" Wouldn't actually act like that's true when someone they know or like doesn't have a period and is a woman. Because they know it's not true. Everybody knows its not true. Most conservatives don't give a fuck about truth tho, they just don't like trans people, so they twist or ignore facts to attack them.

Look man, I agree with you too. Everybody knows trans women and cis women are different. That's why there are different words for them "trans" and "cis" because they're not the same. But also woman in common understanding refers to gender, not sex. So not only can a man not be a woman, but also that idea doesn't even make sense. It's like saying a happy person can't be a sad person. Of course they can't, they're not sad—but that has nothing to do with their DNA.

People shouldn't be forced to live as a gender they're not just because of their DNA when we know that it's 2 different things and life is like 90% social (gender)—and trans people are very aware of their physical body and that they have different medical shit than cis people of the same gender. It's not like anyone thinks trans people become cis people when they transition. Obviously not. We aren't denying facts, we're just being as accurate and inclusive as the words allow. Nobody is hurt by being accurate and inclusive.

[Opinion Owner]

Regarding your second paragraph, I think this is where (with all due respect) your issue lies. You admit that a conservative wouldn't actually believe all women have periods but then try to confemn them for it. That's not the actual point they're making, and I've already mentioned thsi a few times now and it seems like you're refusing to address it.

The point they're making isn't that literally all women have periods, but rather that males who transition (illegitimately, in their eyes) are not women.

I'll provide a few screenshots that just so happen to be the first several results on a search engine, almost all of which have the pretext that not all women have periods AND regard transgenderism as the underlying topic (I don't know where the screenshots will appear, but I'll provide them).

So when liberals say something along the lines of "not all women have periods" in the context of transgenderism, they don't mean "some females have medical conditions that render them unable to have periods", no, they mean "some people I consider a woman who happen to be male don't have periods but are still women in my opinion."

[Opinion Owner]

Then, when conservatives respond and say "no, if you don't have periods, you're not a woman" they, too, are not referring to females with medical conditions, they're referring to males that liberals regars as women.

And woman for a long time did not refer to gender, it referred to sex. You can claim now that it refers to gender but if you do, you cannot deny that you are hijacking that term and trying to force it to mean something different. You can't reasonably tell me that 250 years ago when people said "women" they were actually referring to the person's gender identity.

If you want my opinion, I do think society needs a term for feminine genders, distinct from someones biological sex. There are some transwomen out there who are males who I don't think are accurately described as "men." But conservatives, and even myself, don't think hijacking a term ("women") that is already used for something else is the right way to go about it.

And I agree with the gist if your last paragraph.

[Opinion Owner]

I forgot to add the screeshots, and on mobile I don't see an option to add them. But you could probably just search "not all women have periods" and see the results. I personally used DuckDuckGo to search it, but I'm guessing Google will have similar results.

[Asker]

Nope, that's what I tried to explain already. Conservatives in an attempt to attack trans women, define women as purely based on physical shit that not all women (including cis women) have. They make up bunk definitions of women trying to exclude trans women, which actually excludes cis women too. And liberals point that out (how it excludes some cis women) to show even by conservatives own standards it's a bad definition. It's not true—even by conservative beliefs. Liberals say it talking about cis women, because that's the women conservatives agree are women. Pointing out to a conservative that their claim would make some cis women not women anymore is what actually makes them have to admit that their claim is bs. If we said trans women they'd just say no that doesn't count and ignore us. It wouldn't make any sense to talk about trans women in that context.

[Asker]

Anyway, no, we didn't hijack the word woman either. Words naturally evolve meaning based on how people use them. And people use woman to refer to gender WAY more often than to refer to sex. That's why female is used for sex. And woman is used for gender. Except sometimes they're still interchanged, but it's becoming less common now as everyone is up to date with how the words are being used in general society. So yes, a word for the feminine gender is very helpful. That word is woman. It has been for a while. It's really the simplest and most sensical option, rather than inventing a whole new word for it and changing what woman means to only mean sex. That would be a much bigger adjustment, and hasn't happened naturally. So no we didn't hijack the word, unless by "you" you meant society in general, and by "hijack" you meant acknowledge the natural adjustments in language that have been happening throughout all time.

250 years ago people had no fucking clue about chromosomes, but people did still call a man a woman as an insult to his character, skills, or role in society. How different roles were lived out in society changes, and how wr refer to them changes, but there have always been trans people. And there have always been understanding that they don't fit the role of their sex in society. Now language has evolved in English to speak about different kinds of people and different roles in society more explicitly and more accurately. I don't see how that's a problem.

[Opinion Owner]

"Nope, that's what I tried to explain already. Conservatives in an attempt to attack trans women, define women as purely based on physical shit that not all women (including cis women) have."

But a moment ago, you said that conservatives would still consider a mother, sister, daughter, or female friend that is incapable of producing periods as a woman. If their definition of a woman is "a human being capable of producing periods," then why would they consider a female in that situation to still be a woman if she can't produce periods? These two opinions you claim to have cannot coexist, they are antithetical to one another. So which is it?

I mean, I already know the answer. It's just difficult to get you to admit it. Conservatives do not define women that way, they're using loose rhetoric to express their opinion and you are willingly interpreting their words as literal when you know very well, as you have already admitted, they do not mean them literally. And you do this because you have a disdain for conservatives, and you'd rather suspend your rationale because you find in doing so that it is easier to attempt to discredit conservatives. You'd rather deceive others by deliberately misrepresenting conservatives if it means that you feel like pushing your agenda, or facilitating more control of your tribe, could be the result.

[Opinion Owner]

And mind you, this loose rhetoric isn't random, they're just re-using the loose rhetoric liberals were using when they made their point. Liberals could have said "males can be women" rather than the "um technically" lawyerism of "not all women have periods" as if that's just a random fact people state for no reason (no, they were trying to use technical facts to support the notion that males can be women).

When they say "a woman is a human who can produce periods" (or something similar) they're talking about human organisms that 'typically' produce periods, which is just a roundabout way of saying "a human female." More clearly, they mean to say "human females are women, human males who claim to be women are not women."

Again, yes, conservatives could speak more clearly (as could the liberals who the conservatives are responding to), but they aren't and that's the fact of the matter.

[Opinion Owner]

And yes, this movement did hijack the term. Terms can and do evolve with time, just like how "considerable" used to mean "able to be considered," but now means "large in extent or degree." But "women" is something that half of society agrees is one thing, and the other half agrees is another thing (and that half is even detestably supportive). You took a definition that meant "adult human female" and changed it to "adult human who identifies as a woman" (as if that doesn't break the rule of a definition, not being able to use the term it is defining in the definition, as it'd create an infinite loop). We are now at a point that if someone uses the term "women" it is unclear what they're referring to. Are they referring to adult human females? Or are they referring to human beings identifying as women? This is not a natural evolution of a term. As the definition of considerable was changing, nobody was confused as to what was being said, and half of society didn't oppose the change in definition. Your movement took this term and forcefully hijacked it.

And this "evolution" has caused issues in a plethora of fields, notably among lesbian dating apps. I distinctly recall and incident where males were joining that dating app, referring to themselves as women. The app was made "for women." But it turns out when the app said "women" it didn't mean "transwomen" it meant "women." And when transwomen joined and they said "but I am a woman" they meant "I'm a transwomen." The simple and obvious solution here is to not conflate "women" with "transwomen" and, if need be, come up with an additional term that refers to both women and transwomen, not try to forcefully mold the term "women" to refer to them both. All that is doing is causing problems and confusion just to validate the insecurity of transwomen, apparently they can't feel valid if we don't call them women (as opposed to transwomen), which is just silly.

[Opinion Owner]

"Rather than inventing a whole new word for it and changing what woman means to only mean sex." I apologize in advance for what is likely a bit of a rude remark, but I find it hilarious that you say "change what woman means to only mean sex" because that is what women means, that's what it's meant for thousands of years. Your movement is attempting to change it to something else, not the other way around.

"That would be a much bigger adjustment, and hasn't happened naturally." You think this change has been natural? Then why does half of society disagree with it? Why did lesbian dating apps have big issues about this? Why have transwomen found themselves being violently assaulted after a man they have been dating or meeting up with for a one night stand found out they're actually male (not that I condone that violence)? But if this has just been a natural evolution, why is there so much controversy?

People calling a man a woman to insult him does not support the notion that a woman can mean a man. It's an insult. I could call a larger lady a whale, and that doesn't mean that larger ladies can be literal whales.

[Asker]

Ngl I feel like you're misunderstanding me on purpose now. Lemme try one more time very bluntly.

"Some women don't have periods" is a fact that everybody KNOWS. Conservatives PRETEND to think "not having a period makes you not a woman" in order to say trans women aren't women, but they don't actually believe that, so they don't act like they believe it when dealing with cis women. Liberals say "not all women have periods" to force conservatives to not use trans women not having periods as an excuse to say they're not women. Because conservatives know their claim of "not having a period makes you not a woman" is FALSE. but they have to be forced to admit it, or they'll keep PRETENDING like it's true in order to attack trans women. That's not contradictory it's just conservatives lying out their ass. When they do that, shouldn't they be corrected and forced to stop attacking people with false claims?

[Asker]

Anyway about the rest, honestly, if you don't know how words work I ain't gonna explain all that shit for you. You won't listen anyway, and I didn't get a degree in literature to explain basics of word history to trolls online. The simple answer: everybody uses woman and man as gender rather than sex when they use it to mean anything other than "someone with certain physical traits." Which is most of the time. "Whale" as having more than one meaning is another great example of this! If whale ONLY meant the sea animal, then nobody would call a woman a whale. But we understand that it also means "really big" so people can use it to mean really big and everybody understands, bc it doesn't just mean the sea animal. Exactly the same with woman, it never just meant female sex. It also means feminine gender. That's why you can call a man a woman as an insult, and why I can call a trans woman a woman as she prefers to be called. Bc it doesn't just mean female sex. And society in how we use the word understands that it can mean gender instead of sex. So it's not unnaturally forcing changing what words mean. It's using the same meaning that was already there, just being nice about it instead of mean about it.

[Opinion Owner]

"Ngl I feel like you're misunderstanding me on purpose now. Lemme try one more time very bluntly." Ironically, that shoe fits YOU. In the following quote, you've repeated a point you've already made several times, that I've already refuted several times. Of which you have not refuted my refutation once.

"'Some women don't have periods' is a fact that everybody KNOWS. Conservatives PRETEND to think 'not having a period makes you not a woman' in order to say trans women aren't women, but they don't actually believe that." As I've already stated, they aren't acting like they believe that, they're just re-using the terminology liberals are using when they attempt to make the point that males can be women.

And I'll use your own words from another discussion on this post as an example. "So the difference is, one of them lacks the ability to menstruate or get pregnant. And the other... lacks the ability to menstruate or get pregnant." You just spoke in a non-literal manner. You stated a point that aligns with your belief that is objectively false. Women can menstruate. SOME of women cannot menstruate, but since some (many) women can menstruate, the phrase "women can menstruate" is true. Apple are edible, even if SOME apples are not edible.

[Opinion Owner]

If I acted like you, I'd say "but you said women can't menstruate! That's false! Why are you acting like women can't menstruate!!!", despite knowing you didn't mean it literally (which is really childish and silly). The point you were making was that transwoman can't menstruate, and some cis women also cannot menstruate. You didn't literally mean "women can't menstruate," because I know that you know that they can.

Yeah, and I'm sure that one sociologist at Harvard didn't get a degree to explain to me why racism is prejudice plus power, and not just prejudice (explaining sure can be difficult when you're wrong). As if a Hispanic person, someone they consider without systemic power, calling a black person the N word, someone also without systemic power, isn't racist, according to their logic. (Not to mention how racist it is to say black people and Hispanic people can't have any sort of systemic power)

Just because you get a degree doesn't mean you're right, nor does being an "expert" mean you're right. Especially considering how biased and politicized everything has become. Because let's be real. That sociologist is either and idiot, or he's corrupt and using his position as an "expert" to benefit himself or his political agenda. And if you feel otherwise, I'd love for you to explain why this "expert with a degree" is right, and that black people simply cannot be racist.

[Opinion Owner]

I'd also point out that as someone who supposedly has a degree in literature, you seemingly struggle to differentiate figurative speech with literal speech.

So much like that sociologist at Harvard or Cambridge or whatever it was, you're either corrupt and biased, or you're incompetent.

[Opinion Owner]

And on top of all that, someone with a literature degree being like "hey, you know that term that has meant the same things for practically as long as the English language has been a thing? Yeah, we should change that to mean that but ALSO this other thing that applies like 3% of the time that half of society doesn't agree with instead of making a new term that can be used that 3% of the time" is immensely amusing.

Especially when that term used 3% of the time is already a thing, "transwoman."

[Asker]

Fuck I hope English isn't your first language. If it is, life must be very difficult for you to understand, so I'm sorry about that. Have a good life.

[Opinion Owner]

Personal attacks entirely void of the topic at hand (that lack merit, mind you). Who would have guessed? I'll take this lack of refutation as concession.