SomeoneElseMod@feddit.ukM to Murdered by Words@feddit.uk · 1 year agoMurdered by numbers.feddit.ukimagemessage-square72fedilinkarrow-up11.04Karrow-down138
arrow-up11Karrow-down1imageMurdered by numbers.feddit.ukSomeoneElseMod@feddit.ukM to Murdered by Words@feddit.uk · 1 year agomessage-square72fedilink
minus-squarewipasoda@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down5·1 year agothat’s what I meant. You wouldn’t give them to whoever not needed them. I called them man, you called them people without uterus. In other words, you don’t want to treat all equally.
minus-squarewipasoda@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down2·1 year ago there’s no equivalence here. So you would give menstrual products to people with a uterus but don’t say anything about not giving menstrual products to people without a uterus? But would you? If you do not, wouldn’t that make you treat people unequally, in some sense?
minus-squarepinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·1 year agoThat would mean some men would go without menstrual products they need. And would be wrong.
deleted by creator
that’s what I meant. You wouldn’t give them to whoever not needed them. I called them man, you called them people without uterus. In other words, you don’t want to treat all equally.
deleted by creator
So you would give menstrual products to people with a uterus but don’t say anything about not giving menstrual products to people without a uterus?
But would you? If you do not, wouldn’t that make you treat people unequally, in some sense?
deleted by creator
That would mean some men would go without menstrual products they need. And would be wrong.