ATP: 'Corbyn supporters are angry single females with sporadic menstrual cycles.'

That's a completely different debate - toilet roll is used by all people groups so the tax doesn't disadvantage anyone.

Secondly, pretty much everything has VAT on it, the tampon tax is actually a duty, like duties on cigarettes and alcohol.

Are you sure? I'm willing to bet women disproportionately use bidets. Women also poo less and in smaller quantities. In accordance with your logic, this is systemic discrimination against those who poo more frequently ('those who poo more frequently' is just as arbitrary a group as 'women', or 'men').

It's not though. Opting out of the shaving process will affect your marketable value - you'd look like a hobo and I only need to traverse a few progressive websites, or Facebook, to find hundreds of thousands of comments from women who 'hate the irritation of stubble.'

In any case, if you want to remove taxation from one you have to remove taxation on the other - much like toilet roll, water, and every other product orientated around biological imperatives.

Also I'd like to clarify that if release of the male reproductive gamete (sperm) was equally taxing (accuse the pun) and caused the same consequences as our periods I would in no way support taxation on a sperm catching product.

But it is essentially irrelevant. We have periods that we can't control the are essential to life on Earth. That isn't a luxury. It's not something I'm choosing to do.

Exactly.

Using that logic, it could also perhaps be argued to be discriminating against those with medical conditions. What about people with flare-ups of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, for example? They may need more toilet roll at that time if suffering from diarrhoea.

I don't choose to poo more frequently, or in greater quantities, than you. Yet, I have to use more toilet paper than you do and therefore I'm systemically discriminated against.

That's really not true. Yes lots of excretions are biological in origin but they aren't fundamental for the prosperity of human life!!!

Do you think we evolved with tinder and websites and stuff? Shaving is not something that stands the test of evolutionary time. Unsurprisingly, female eggs do and always will.

If you're talking about technology being more important Than the fundamentals of biological reproduction than guess what? With the technology there now is women can reproduce without a man and populate the planet with females only. Men can't do that.

In addition some women LOVE stubble- it's not an exact science. If women don't have eggs and periods- no babies. If all men have beards and stubble you're really saying - no babies?!! I mean obviously you're not using logic and just presenting a fallacious argument but it would be much more helpful in a discussion for you to think.

The trouble is, what you have started on in that paragraph is incorrect. What the poster said was not logic so you cannot use that logic. Periods are the only real fundamental biological difference in the production of male and female gametes. All other excretions/conditions are unisex- we all sh*t okay. And I bet woman use more toilet roll overall- we go for a wee all the time and use toilet paper every time. When you wee you don't even use toilet paper or not from my experience

And if male production of gametes caused the same burden to men I would fully support the tax relief on appropriate products.

But as it is, you only release gametes except in extreme circumstances when you're aroused and when you want to or when you're having sex. Once a month you don't get sperm leaking everywhere for one week.

Yes, they are. If you don't poo you'll die. If you don't shave you won't attract a mate. If you don't wash you are covered in bacterium.

Men sweat more and thus have to buy more deodorant than women. I'm discriminated against!



As above. Can you imagine life in a razor-free world? Would you be happy copulating with a man with hair coverage similar to that of Robin Williams? If he doesn't shave, you won't be attracted to him. If you're not attracted to him, you won't have children with him.


Actually, it's close. Women will soon be redundant in a biological sense and your biological imperative - reproduction - is far more important to you (as a female) than it is me (as a male). It's what your gender has relied upon for millennia to ensure its protection and survival.


In a world full of full hair coverage, would you want to sleep with men? What's more, if men feel less confident about how they look, they are less likely to ask women out - if they have hair on their back, shoulders, armpits, ass, and every other body part which they are disproportionately taxed for, you won't want to date them. No poo either, we're taxed disproportionately for that too. And yes, that's exactly what I'm saying (see above). We won't be using deodorant either, we're taxed disproportionately on that too - we sweat more. Yet another reason children won't be born.

Resorting to insulting women on their menstrual cycles clearly represents the lack of solid political arguments that you can bring to this debate.

I don't think any of that is terribly relevant. Whether men or women use more toilet roll, I don't especially care. But yeah, if women use it more, then using the same logic, it could be argued to be discriminating against women (as well as discriminating against people with diarrhoeal illnesses, of course).

If people are suggesting "taxing a tampon is unfair, since only a subgroup (women) have to use them", then you can make the same argument about other products and other subgroups. I think that is entirely logically consistent.

It's not logically consistent. It's a ridiculous. You think it is because you're fitting examples to your theory and that's NOT how science works and is and bad logic.

I have studied a lot of evolutionary biology and trust me, all this other anecdotal sh*t like toilet paper is irrelevant in human evolution. Periods and egg production aren't.

Do you actually think you're putting across a convincing argument? I'll give you a clue: you're not.

I understand what you're saying about pooing sweating etc. But someone just isn't gonna stop pooing unless you successfully have held in an urgent sh*t for longer than a day? Is that possible?

Nothing you're saying will stop the proliferation and survival of humans in the same way that the absence of female egg production does.

People can wash with water and be fine- you don't need a lynx deodorant can to keep the human race alive. How arrogant.

Like I've said, if men had an equal counterpart to periods/egg production that stands the test of evolutionary time and is irrelevant of cultural and societal influences then I would support tax relief on that. If not then please stop using ridiculous comparisons.

Actually, the cost of razors for women, who are also expected to shave, is much more than the cost of razors for men.

Shaving is more of a choice than having periods. Women can't just choose not to have a period or to have them less frequently. You get one every month whether you like it or not.

Posted from TSR Mobile

That's a completely different debate - toilet roll is used by all people groups so the tax doesn't disadvantage anyone.

Secondly, pretty much everything has VAT on it, the tampon tax is actually a duty, like duties on cigarettes and alcohol.

Do you actually think you can use pop psychology to convince onlookers of the validity of your opinion? Declaring your own victory, or my ignorance, is a bit like laughing at your own jokes.



It's not about whether or not they stop, it's about the fact they have to do it. Men have to do it more than women. How do I know that? According to the NHS and the DoH, men have to consume at least 2,500 kcals per day, women have to consume 1,500kcals - 2,000kcals per day. Where do you think it goes?



Water and food.



Men who stink aren't as attractive as men who smell nice. Or are you disputing that as well now? If all men stink, women don't want to sleep with them.



There's nothing ridiculous about any of my comparisons. I'm just tired of paying more tax for pooing more, sweating more, eating more and drinking more.

The tax on razor blades is higher than the tax on tampons.

Men need to shave more frequently than women. Correct - women can't just choose not to have a period. Much in the same way I just can't choose not to grow a beard. So...there's a simple solution. Men won't shave and women will bleed freely. Sorted. Either that, or we both accept taxation, much like there's taxation on ALL of life's necessities.

To me, all this demonstrates is women aren't willing to pay their way on EQUAL terms to men - I thought women were strong, capable and empowered? On that basis, why should they be afforded preferential treatment? So, do you want preferential treatment, or equality?

But what's the relevance of evolutionary biology here? Why should taxation depend on whether something was relevant in human evolution or not?!

Women don't want to be taxed for having periods. Decent quality tampons and pads are actually quite expensive. I say decent quality because the really cheap ones feel horrible and don't work as well.

Women have to shave with the same frequency as men do. We also have a larger area to shave. That means that razors wear out faster. That means that we have to spend more money on razors that are more expensive.

Posted from TSR Mobile