Skip to content

This is perfectly true

The world’s first tampons for men have been criticised by feminist campaigners as an “insult” to women who suffer period discrimination.

On another side of the packet it is stated that “periods are not a gender issue”.
Vuokkoset, a Finnish company released the controversial new sanitary product earlier this month to coincide with Transgender Awareness week and International Men’s day.

The product comes in a dark blue box which bears the words “For Men” on one side, but then extends this phrase around the packaging so it eventually reads “For Menstruation”.

Periods are not a gender issue, they’re a sex issue. As Transmen are in fact women then yes, menstruation – pace the drugs – is a possibility and so tampons, why not?

The nutters would be the ones marketing tampons to transwomen – and yes, those nutters do indeed exist. There’s even a brand which leaks fake blood to be really inclusive (no, really!).

21 thoughts on “This is perfectly true”

  1. I must admit the entire issue seems quite trivial to me.

    Still, I suppose life’d be too boring for these idiots if they couldn’t get their knickers in a knot about something ridiculous.

  2. The entire issue Bogan is power. Nothing else. A small but very vocal minority dictating what the rest of us have to put up with, in the same manner as migration and global warming.
    By the way, this years climate jamboree has kicked off in Dubai (does anyone else see the irony?), with 70,000 attendees (double previous years) burning as much fossil fuel as they like to get there but making plans to ban the rest of us using any.

  3. Femmale man tampons will sell in much smaller numbers that female women tampons. So the blue ones will likely be more expensive. Cue cries of price transphobia.

  4. “The nutters would be the ones marketing tampons to transwomen – and yes, those nutters do indeed exist. There’s even a brand which leaks fake blood to be really inclusive (no, really!).”

    Gad! Where do they put them?! I don’t mean in which bathroom cabinet…

  5. Is the company name a Finish translation of Fuckyouover, which it certainly will be doing to any numpty who buys this stuff. Being a gentle sort, and not worldly wise, could someone explain where men are supposed to put these things to help with their non-existent periods?

  6. Company says that trans men might continue to experience menstrual cycles even while undergoing hormone treatment to change gender

    The only way to tell for sure is to get Kurt Russell to test how their blood reacts to fire.

  7. The nutters would be the ones marketing tampons to transwomen

    Nutters? Or entrepreneurs prepared to cater to a untapped niche market?

    It’s the customers who are the nutters.

  8. It’s the customers who are the nutters.

    Are you sure about that? Your average FTSE 100 board member in 2023 professes political beliefs that would embarrass Rick from The Young Ones.

    *scoffs* Fascists…

  9. I wish people wouldn’t use the terms transmen and transwomen, because I have literally no idea whether they’re talking about blokes trying to be birds or vice versa.

  10. It’s simple.
    Transalpine is that area beyond the alps, where you’ve left the alps behind, no longer in the alps.
    Transylvania is that area beyond the forest, where you’ve left the forest behind, no longer in the forest.
    Transhumanism is beyond human, where you’ve left human-ness behind, no longer human.
    Transwoman is where you have gone beyond ‘woman’ and left ‘woman’ness behind, no longer woman.

  11. @Paul

    I think @jgh is japing with you by pointing out the etymological difficulty here. It’s Tim who is using it the conventional way around: a “transman” identifies as a “man” now, and the “trans” was the change to get there. Hence may still menstruate for example. As @jgh points out, this is not entirely consistent with the way “trans” is used in other contexts, but on the other hand neither would it make a lot of sense for someone to pick a descriptor centred around the gender identity they wished to leave behind. So “transman” emphasises the “man” because that’s what the person sees themselves as, and (generally) wishes for other people to see in them.

  12. If I remember from my A-level organic chemistry, a ‘Cis’ and trans are something to do with whether things are on the same side or not.

    The easy way to remember it.
    If it’s a transman or a trans woman, then they want you to pretend it’s whatever the suffix is.
    The trans bit lets you know they aren’t actually that because if they were, the trans bit is unnecessary

  13. Nutters? Wish I had their vision of that untapped market.

    I’d sell astrological charts if enough people wanted them.

  14. The maddening inconsistancy is that “they” use trans-X for somebody who both *hasn’t* had their bits chopped off *and* for people who *have* had their bits chopped off.

    If they insist on calling “normal” people “cis”, then “trans” means people who have not yet had their bits chopped off – their bits don’t match their head. Once they have had their bits chpped off, they are no longer trans, their bits do match their head. They are then cis!

    If they insist on using trans to describe people who have had their bits ciopped off – they have transformed – than they CANNOT use “cis” for “normal” people, as “cis” is NOT the opposite of transformed, “not transformed” is the opposite of transformed.

    Either way, they cannot use “trans” for both people wanting to chop their bits off AND people who have had their bits chopped off.

  15. To avoid confusion, we could use “emasculated” for blokes with their cock-and-balls chopped off and “emasticated” (from mastoid: boob-shaped) for chicks with their boobs chopped off.

  16. @jgh
    Doesn’t matter what surgery you have done, you don’t switch all the fundamental biology around. Sex goes right down the cellular or genetic level, there’s more to it than the (lack of) appendages. And even that respect involves a whole sequence of surgeries, not just one grand chopping off. It’s arguably more logical, not less logical, to frame the language in terms of identity rather than physiology, given the limitations of medical transition. Hence the shift from talking about “transsexual” to “transgender”.

    For what it’s worth there are still some hard-core self-proclaimed “transsexuals” out there who reject most of the transgender stuff and a lot of the LGBTQ+/queer theory that comes with it. Some see the issue more like you. My understanding of the way things work in Iran is also along those lines, where sex change ops are deemed an Islamically legitimate way of turning a man into a woman (or vice versa) so that eg an illegal relationship between two gay men can become a perfectly acceptable marriage between a man and a woman. There the focus rests more on the plumbing than the identity, even if at a biological level the thing that’s been done to the plumbing is pretty superficial.

    Should medicine advance to the point where some transwomen start getting transplants of wombs and ovaries etc, I am sure the language issue will change again. As well as an even steeper divide between transitioners who have gone “all the way” in pursuit of a sex change vs those who haven’t – and there’s already a fair amount of division between those who think a stated identity is all that matters versus those who think a certain amount of effort and sacrifice is required to validate your proclaimed identity. But at the rate the language is changing anyway – anyone using the terms from a decade or two ago looks hopelessly out of date or even bigoted, and swathes of the modern terminology popping up in school textbooks and corporate diversity and inclusion training was coined just a few years ago on Tumblr – I’m sure it will already have gone through several more iterations before we reach that point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *