"Always" to ax female symbol from sanitary products packages in nod to trans users....GOD HELP US!

[Toni]

You have manufactured the 'attract new families' reason.

The children with dietary restrictions imposed on them by their parents were already included, because they were already at the school.



Or the rest of the families affected--you know--all of them.

I honestly don’t understand your outrage. Do you personally find it essential to consume pork at every meal? Pork is not essential in a healthy diet, no matter how essential your personal tastes might find it.

Of course you don't understand it. The fact that you think my concern is based on your vapidly idiotic suggestion that I find it "essential" to consume pork at every meal tells me you are probably incapable of understanding. I never made that argument and I never even hinted at an argument like that. Why the fuck would you believe that was my reasoning?

Seriously, Toni, why the fuck would you believe that?

But, in case the multiple times I've listed the reasons why I think it's a stupid decision evaded you in this and the other thread, I will list them here again.

• The change was instituted to ostensibly benefit the children of people who didn't ask for the change nor were consulted about it.
• The change was instituted without consultation of any parent involved, in fact.
• Avoiding any food because you think god wants you to avoid it is a stupid reason to avoid it.
• Anointing yourself a white savior who alters convention to cater to a small minority while the majority pays the price is an objectionable thing to do.
• Having something no longer available to you in order to satisfy the dietary preferences of a small minority means you have been deprived of that something no matter how trivial or time-limited you think that deprivation is.
• Institutions should not impose the same religious restrictions on their clients that religious people choose to impose on themselves; freedom of religion means freedom from religion too.
• No one the fuck ever claimed pork was essential to human development or that children would starve without it so stop the fuck pretending anybody said that.
• Manufacturing post-hoc ostensibly secular (but still false) "benefits" from this ban to justify it is a sure sign the real reason for it is a bad reason.
• Do not the fuck piss on my boots and tell me it's raining. If you can't even bring yourself to admit that everyone else is paying a price to satisfy the conscience of white saviors, you are simply more morally stunted than I had imagined. Diversity is great except when it isn't, apparently. Not having something that you like to eat means you are paying a price. You are less happy than you would have been had you been able to have that thing.

The bottom line is, you have every right to accept when white saviors impose their preferences, without consultation, on you, to salve their own conscience. But you have no business telling everyone affected they are irrational, illogical, that they are suffering no harm or paying no price, that only the dietary preferences of some cultures matter, and that the people with dietary preferences in cultures that don't matter should change schools or bring their own sandwiches and that they should be willing to pay the price to indulge the white saviors.

Terrible story. You should not tell it at dinner parties out of concern for appearing to be an ill mannered and illogical bigot with reading comprehension and reasoning deficiencies.

 

[Metaphor]

You have manufactured the 'attract new families' reason.

The children with dietary restrictions imposed on them by their parents were already included, because they were already at the school.



Or the rest of the families affected--you know--all of them.

I honestly don’t understand your outrage. Do you personally find it essential to consume pork at every meal? Pork is not essential in a healthy diet, no matter how essential your personal tastes might find it.

Of course you don't understand it. The fact that you think my concern is based on your vapidly idiotic suggestion that I find it "essential" to consume pork at every meal tells me you are probably incapable of understanding. I never made that argument and I never even hinted at an argument like that. Why the fuck would you believe that was my reasoning?

Seriously, Toni, why the fuck would you believe that?

But, in case the multiple times I've listed the reasons why I think it's a stupid decision evaded you in this and the other thread, I will list them here again.

• The change was instituted to ostensibly benefit the children of people who didn't ask for the change nor were consulted about it.
• The change was instituted without consultation of any parent involved, in fact.
• Avoiding any food because you think god wants you to avoid it is a stupid reason to avoid it.
• Anointing yourself a white savior who alters convention to cater to a small minority while the majority pays the price is an objectionable thing to do.
• Having something no longer available to you in order to satisfy the dietary preferences of a small minority means you have been deprived of that something no matter how trivial or time-limited you think that deprivation is.
• Institutions should not impose the same religious restrictions on their clients that religious people choose to impose on themselves; freedom of religion means freedom from religion too.
• No one the fuck ever claimed pork was essential to human development or that children would starve without it so stop the fuck pretending anybody said that.
• Manufacturing post-hoc ostensibly secular (but still false) "benefits" from this ban to justify it is a sure sign the real reason for it is a bad reason.
• Do not the fuck piss on my boots and tell me it's raining. If you can't even bring yourself to admit that everyone else is paying a price to satisfy the conscience of white saviors, you are simply more morally stunted than I had imagined. Diversity is great except when it isn't, apparently. Not having something that you like to eat means you are paying a price. You are less happy than you would have been had you been able to have that thing.

The bottom line is, you have every right to accept when white saviors impose their preferences, without consultation, on you, to salve their own conscience. But you have no business telling everyone affected they are irrational, illogical, that they are suffering no harm or paying no price, that only the dietary preferences of some cultures matter, and that the people with dietary preferences in cultures that don't matter should change schools or bring their own sandwiches and that they should be willing to pay the price to indulge the white saviors.

Terrible story. You should not tell it at dinner parties out of concern for appearing to be an ill mannered and illogical bigot with reading comprehension and reasoning deficiencies.

Oh, what a calamity! Toni doesn't like my 'story' which isn't a story! Toni, whose reasoning skills and empathy I find to be nearly incredibly high thinks I'm an illogical bigot! Whatever shall I do?

I'm crestfallen that this has probably prejudiced my chances of being invited to one of your famous meat-free meals that all the neighbourhood kids loved. Oh, the deprivation. Oh, the loss! Those neighbourhood kids can talk of nothing else except how wonderful those meals were and how nobody likes pork and they're glad you never served it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Non. Pork is a central part of traditional German cuisine, and the children who like pork and are missing out on it are paying the price.

What exactly is that price?

The price of not eating pork because other people's parents don't eat it is the enjoyment you would have gotten if pork had remained on the menu. This doesn't seem like a great mystery to me.

If my work banned pork, I would pay the price by not having the enjoyment I would have gotten had I otherwise been able to enjoy pork at work.

Also, I was almost going to say the children are paying a cultural price, but the only culture white people have is rape culture.

Is this in dollars or British Pounds?

 

[Metaphor]

The price of not eating pork because other people's parents don't eat it is the enjoyment you would have gotten if pork had remained on the menu. This doesn't seem like a great mystery to me.

If my work banned pork, I would pay the price by not having the enjoyment I would have gotten had I otherwise been able to enjoy pork at work.

Also, I was almost going to say the children are paying a cultural price, but the only culture white people have is rape culture.

Is this in dollars or British Pounds?

Your English language skills are very impoverished.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Man, this is funny.

The OP concerns people whose main problem is not being terribly comfortable with the bodies they were born with, and striving to be taken seriously. They're in therapy to come to terms with this discomfort, they're in the news as they seek recognition, and this is in politics because Halfie denies their entire problem in her usual sensitive way.

She doesn't even want them to think they have a right to pick the gender they present to the world independent of the original plumbing.

But right now the discussion centers on kids from two German day-care centers who, in 20 years, will activate their iPhone's Therapy app and complain that 'when i was little, five meals out of twenty one I didn't get pork.'

 

[Toni]

Man, this is funny.

The OP concerns people whose main problem is not being terribly comfortable with the bodies they were born with, and striving to be taken seriously. They're in therapy to come to terms with this discomfort, they're in the news as they seek recognition, and this is in politics because Halfie denies their entire problem in her usual sensitive way.

She doesn't even want them to think they have a right to pick the gender they present to the world independent of the original plumbing.

But right now the discussion centers on kids from two German day-care centers who, in 20 years, will activate their iPhone's Therapy app and complain that 'when i was little, five meals out of twenty one I didn't get pork.'

Well, we already know about one person who is severely triggered and he's not even in Germany! I can only imagine what the next 20 years will bring!

 

[Toni]

Terrible story. You should not tell it at dinner parties out of concern for appearing to be an ill mannered and illogical bigot with reading comprehension and reasoning deficiencies.

Oh, what a calamity! Toni doesn't like my 'story' which isn't a story! Toni, whose reasoning skills and empathy I find to be nearly incredibly high thinks I'm an illogical bigot! Whatever shall I do?

I'm crestfallen that this has probably prejudiced my chances of being invited to one of your famous meat-free meals that all the neighbourhood kids loved. Oh, the deprivation. Oh, the loss! Those neighbourhood kids can talk of nothing else except how wonderful those meals were and how nobody likes pork and they're glad you never served it.

Actually, you're invited to dinner at my house any time.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, we already know about one person who is severely triggered and he's not even in Germany! I can only imagine what the next 20 years will bring!

Two. Halfie has her panties in a wad, too. She's so upset she can't even tell fact from fiction on the matter.
Her therapist is probably on speed-dial.

"Tell me, how does that make you spiel?"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Terrible story. You should not tell it at dinner parties out of concern for appearing to be an ill mannered and illogical bigot with reading comprehension and reasoning deficiencies.

Oh, what a calamity! Toni doesn't like my 'story' which isn't a story! Toni, whose reasoning skills and empathy I find to be nearly incredibly high thinks I'm an illogical bigot! Whatever shall I do?

I'm crestfallen that this has probably prejudiced my chances of being invited to one of your famous meat-free meals that all the neighbourhood kids loved. Oh, the deprivation. Oh, the loss! Those neighbourhood kids can talk of nothing else except how wonderful those meals were and how nobody likes pork and they're glad you never served it.

Actually, you're invited to dinner at my house any time.

Oh sure... invite him over for dinner. But I show up at the door, admittedly, drenched in blood with a large knife in my hands, and everyone starts panicking and calling the police.

 

[Toni]

Actually, you're invited to dinner at my house any time.

Oh sure... invite him over for dinner. But I show up at the door, admittedly, drenched in blood with a large knife in my hands, and everyone starts panicking and calling the police.

It was Halloween and only the one time. Jeeze, just get over it. I posted bail.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's hilarious that Half-Life creates these parody posts and the usual suspects actually sign on to them, affirming completely hysterical, irrational arguments over insignificant things.

 

[starwater]

It's hilarious that Half-Life creates these parody posts and the usual suspects actually sign on to them, affirming completely hysterical, irrational arguments over insignificant things.

Yes it's very entertaining.

 

[laughing dog]

You did claim that sending pork to school for your kid no kid of substitute for the school's pork - a claim is incredibly stupid.

No, you regard it as an acceptable substitute, but then again you think the thing given up was completely trivial.

You wrote "no kind of substitute", not me. And to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding English, replacing a menu item (pork) with a replica of the menu item is substitute.

In my opinion, having one form of protein taken off a nursery school menu is trivial not withstanding the handwaving rhetoric to the contrary.

Well, it's true that cultures are static and the Germans changed nothing about their culture after the war.

Yet, here you are arguing.

 

[ronburgundy]

'when i was little, five meals out of twenty one I didn't get pork.'

For the record, pork comprises 60% of all animal protein eaten in Germany. Also, since young kids tend to dislike the unfamiliar, pork is probably over 90% of the animal protein eaten by many German children, and since it's much cheaper than other options (many pigs in Germany), eating almost no proteins other than pork this would be even more common among poorer kids.

So, while it won't cause trauma, it absolutely will massively reduce kid's options (eliminating the majority of dishes they like and are familiar with) and force them to eat foods they otherwise would not and force parents to alter their home cooked meals (such as cooking nothing but pork at home to make up for it's elimination at school). Plus, some kids don't like chicken or beef at all, so they won't get anything they enjoy. And all of this will fall most heavily on poorer kids.

That' more than enough reason to roundly reject any such efforts to negatively impact the diet preferences of the majority to accommodate the ideological preferences of a minority. Not to mention, such a policy is religiously discriminatory. Why only eliminate pork? What about Hindus who morally object to eating cows?

So, while not the source of severe trauma, the food policy has far more real negative impact than any imagined and self imposedin harm triggered by seeing a scientific symbol for female organisms on a product designed for people born with female reproductive systems . Not only are those standard symbols of biological sex, not just cultural gender, but thy were originally used to denote the sex of plants used in cross-breeding (and plants don't have cultural gender). So, only people trying to manufacture an offense would be in any way affected by those symbols being tied to what they have always been most strongly tied to, reproductive systems of biologically female organisms. Other people encouraging and supporting such manufactured offense is likely to do more long term psychological harm to transgenders than the the thing they are offended by. In fact, such offense is itself an indicator of more general psychological dysfunction rather than the object of offense being a cause of that dysfunction.

Yes, transgenders do deal with more real difficulties caused by other people than the still non-trivial difficulties imposed on kid's and families forced to eliminate most of the familiar and preferred foods for their lunches. However, this food policy is the actual direct cause of those difficulties whereas a female symbol on tampons is not a real cause of difficulties. Note that this is independent of Half-life's anti-science denial of gender dysphoria, a faith-based dogma that does cause transgenders real harm but is in no way implied by the product packaging in question. IOW, Don2's characterization of "hystertical, irrational, arguments over insignificant things" more accurately describes any notion that the symbol used for 3 centuries to denote biologically female organisms should be removed from any association with reproductive systems.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's hilarious that Half-Life creates these parody posts and the usual suspects actually sign on to them, affirming completely hysterical, irrational arguments over insignificant things.

Yes it's very entertaining.

Now the Tampon Brigade has changed the subject to the absence of pork in White male Christian children's daycare menus. Amazing. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of men are being used as fodder against each other and being brainwashed to torture and abuse other humans. But tampons and Pork. The only thing that'd be more inane is if they also started complaining about Ghostbusters in this tampon pork thread.

 

[ronburgundy]

It's hilarious that Half-Life creates these parody posts and the usual suspects actually sign on to them, affirming completely hysterical, irrational arguments over insignificant things.

Yes it's very entertaining.

Now the Tampon Brigade has changed the subject to the absence of pork in White male Christian children's daycare menus. Amazing. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of men are being used as fodder against each other and being brainwashed to torture and abuse other humans. But tampons and Pork. The only thing that'd be more inane is if they also started complaining about Ghostbusters in this tampon pork thread.

So, I assume you will attack as "hysterical and irrational" all complaints by transgenders and ethnic minorities about anything in society that doesn't rise rise to the level of severity of thousands of people abusing and torturing each other. I bet we can find countless posts by you that don't meet that criteria.

 

[Keith&Co.]

'when i was little, five meals out of twenty one I didn't get pork.'

For the record, pork comprises 60% of all animal protein eaten in Germany. Also, since young kids tend to dislike the unfamiliar, pork is probably over 90% of the animal protein eaten by many German children, and since it's much cheaper than other options (many pigs in Germany), eating almost no proteins other than pork this would be even more common among poorer kids.

So, while it won't cause trauma, it absolutely will massively reduce kid's options (eliminating the majority of dishes they like and are familiar with) and force them to eat foods they otherwise would not and force parents to alter their home cooked meals (such as cooking nothing but pork at home to make up for it's elimination at school). Plus, some kids don't like chicken or beef at all, so they won't get anything they enjoy. And all of this will fall most heavily on poorer kids.

That' more than enough reason to roundly reject any such efforts to negatively impact the diet preferences of the majority to accommodate the ideological preferences of a minority. Not to mention, such a policy is religiously discriminatory. Why only eliminate pork? What about Hindus who morally object to eating cows?

So, while not the source of severe trauma, the food policy has far more real negative impact than any imagined and self imposedin harm triggered by seeing a scientific symbol for female organisms on a product designed for people born with female reproductive systems . Not only are those standard symbols of biological sex, not just cultural gender, but thy were originally used to denote the sex of plants used in cross-breeding (and plants don't have cultural gender). So, only people trying to manufacture an offense would be in any way affected by those symbols being tied to what they have always been most strongly tied to, reproductive systems of biologically female organisms. Other people encouraging and supporting such manufactured offense is likely to do more long term psychological harm to transgenders than the the thing they are offended by. In fact, such offense is itself an indicator of more general psychological dysfunction rather than the object of offense being a cause of that dysfunction.

Yes, transgenders do deal with more real difficulties caused by other people than the still non-trivial difficulties imposed on kid's and families forced to eliminate most of the familiar and preferred foods for their lunches. However, this food policy is the actual direct cause of those difficulties whereas a female symbol on tampons is not a real cause of difficulties. Note that this is independent of Half-life's anti-science denial of gender dysphoria, a faith-based dogma that does cause transgenders real harm but is in no way implied by the product packaging in question. IOW, Don2's characterization of "hystertical, irrational, arguments over insignificant things" more accurately describes any notion that the symbol used for 3 centuries to denote biologically female organisms should be removed from any association with reproductive systems.

Uh huh.

Frankly, my experience with kids of daycare age is if they recognize the food in front of them, they'll eat it. Without a second thought. Unless it's one of those 'I don't like (fill in food they liked last week)' days. And they'll go home and eat whatever mom or dad puts on the table. I really doubt anyone's going to be forced to change their home cooking to 'cover' for any lack the kids feel from their lunch menus. Exactly one time, one of my kids complained at dinner that 'But we had this at LUNCH!' and i suspect he was channeling a TV show more than feeling bored by getting spaghetti twice in one day.

I am absolutely sure that if the daycare company had not sent a letter home, then no one would ever notice a change on the menus. Thus it really looks, to me, to be outrage for the sake of outrage on some people's part. Especially since the way it was introduced to this thread was a fucking lie, created for the purpose of assuming outrage. The truth should have been rage-fuel enough for Miss Halflife, but further exaggeration was required for reasons of fear mongering.

So, that's my opinion. I don't have kids in those two centers, so i'll leave the resolution to those who are actually involved, or those who desperately need to sling their opinion into the hash.

Except for Halfie. I really would like to know why she felt the need to exaggerate the extent of this menu change and lie about the degree.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Now the Tampon Brigade has changed the subject to the absence of pork in White male Christian children's daycare menus. Amazing. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of men are being used as fodder against each other and being brainwashed to torture and abuse other humans. But tampons and Pork. The only thing that'd be more inane is if they also started complaining about Ghostbusters in this tampon pork thread.

So, I assume you will attack as "hysterical and irrational" all complaints by transgenders and ethnic minorities about anything in society that doesn't rise rise to the level of severity of thousands of people abusing and torturing each other. I bet we can find countless posts by you that don't meet that criteria.

You shouldn't assume anything. I am barely investing anything in reading this ridiculous thread or the arguments. Your latest bloated argument, though, seems very incongruent to anything that's been written. I could be wrong because I don't care to read hundreds of posts on stupidity, but it seems like a centerpiece of the arguments presented is not about the availability of food but about CULTURE which isn't about secularism versus religion but instead the protection of existing culture. Now that would be interesting to note that the very same people who make arguments against the concept of cultural appropriation are now arguing for the protection of white Christian german culture. Halfie of course goes on and on about how "the left" is contradictory on the concept of ethnostates and he is all for them. While I don't wonder that you've jumped in because of a secular interest, you've completely changed the argument from cultural or at least that's how it seems. I don't frankly care to argue in favor of religion over secularism because that would be inconsistent with my own thoughts but again it's not the kind of inconsistent, bigoted posts you've just joined and aligned to. Or at least I think. Kinda don't care.

 

[Half-Life]

It's hilarious that Half-Life creates these parody posts and the usual suspects actually sign on to them, affirming completely hysterical, irrational arguments over insignificant things.

No, it's not a parody.

What I do find strange is that transgender people can complain and whine about a packaging symbol so much that it ends up being taken off the package and I am the one that gets made fun of for complaining about the complainers. Notice the original complainers don't get put down, but the people who complain about them get put down.

So it's OK for trans people to make a hissy fit over nothing, but I can't point out how stupid that hissy fit actually is?

Can you picture a trans man (biological woman) going into a store and seeing these tampons with the female symbol, drops to her knees and raises the package toward the Heavens screaming, "NOOOOOO!" like some dramatic part of a movie? That would be stupid, right? Yet, this is what they would have to be doing in order to think they can't buy it just because the label isn't gender neutral.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's hilarious that Half-Life creates these parody posts and the usual suspects actually sign on to them, affirming completely hysterical, irrational arguments over insignificant things.

No, it's not a parody.

What I do find strange is that transgender people can complain and whine about a packaging symbol so much that it ends up being taken off the package and I am the one that gets made fun of for complaining about the complainers. Notice the original complainers don't get put down, but the people who complain about them get put down.

So it's OK for trans people to make a hissy fit over nothing, but I can't point out how stupid that hissy fit actually is?

Can you picture a trans man (biological woman) going into a store and seeing these tampons with the female symbol, drops to her knees and raises the package toward the Heavens screaming, "NOOOOOO!" like some dramatic part of a movie? That would be stupid, right? Yet, this is what they would have to be doing in order to think they can't buy it just because the label isn't gender neutral.

My thought here is that you don't really understand what happened. I doubt many people actually complained. You assume it's some massive outcry when it is likely none of the sort.

All it takes is one or two people noticing it and mentioning it to marketing. Because it isn't "how dare you put female symbology" so much as "you know, you could make some significant inroads and capture a market segment if you remove it and quit genderizing your product."

Trans people didn't make a hissy fit. They didn't kick, or scream. Maybe they felt bad when they had to use a product and it happened to misgender them with it's labeling. Maybe they even said something about it, likely in a fairly benign way.
.but here YOU are practically blowing a gasket over the fact that someone showed some actual empathy towards trans people