The intended effect

Wait who is doing the obsessing here?

Arwa Mahdawi wrote a column on creepy advertising by Tampax and Balenciaga, but in the process she managed to take a swipe at The Designated Enemy.

If any brand has licence to make jokes about things being up vaginas, it’s Tampax. Sexualising tampons, however, is revolting. Still, the tweet had the intended effect, I suppose, which was to get people talking about Tampax. The gender-neutral language also sparked a heated argument about trans people because, hey, what doesn’t spark a heated argument about trans people these days? While I admit spending 60% of my life on Twitter isn’t healthy, it’s not as unhealthy as spending 99.99% of your waking hours obsessing over trans people’s right to exist, which is what a depressing number of people seem to do.

No they don’t. That’s a stupid lie, which keeps being told despite the billions of corrections.

It’s not that we think trans people don’t have a right to exist. Saying we do implies, none too subtly, that we want genocide of trans people. The issue is not existence, it’s definition. We think that trans people don’t have a right to define themselves as literally the sex they are not, and then proceed to help themselves to the rights that go with being that sex.

Definition is not the same as existence. I’m not a tulip, and I don’t cease to exist if I’m told I’m not a tulip. You can swap any noun for “tulip” and it remains true.

4 Responses to “The intended effect”