Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    wait does this mean socks and Kleenex shouldn't be taxed now :rofl:


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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nverjvlev)
    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.
    So something should only be taxed if it's used by every group of people equally?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AboveTheParapet)
    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').
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...s-periods.html

    looks like tampons really are a luxury item after all. check mate feminists.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AboveTheParapet)
    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.
    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 is now, 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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EtherealNymph22)
    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.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    wait does this mean socks and Kleenex shouldn't be taxed now :rofl:

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    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.
    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 :rofl:

    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AboveTheParapet)
    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.
    Please see my response above for this stupid use of logic. And please direct me to studies of gender difference in global toilet roll consumption to back up your point. Women have periods. Fact. Men use more toilet paper than women? Anecdotal.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EtherealNymph22)
    That's really not true. Yes lots of excretions are biological in origin but they aren't fundamental for the prosperity of human life!!!
    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!

    (Original post by EtherealNymph22)
    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.
    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.
    (Original post by EtherealNymph22)
    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.
    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.


    (Original post by EtherealNymph22)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EtherealNymph22)
    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 :rofl:

    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.
    I don't think any of that is terribly relevant. Whether men or women use more toilet roll, I don't especially care. :p: 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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AboveTheParapet)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nverjvlev)
    Resorting to insulting women on their menstrual cycles clearly represents the lack of solid political arguments that you can bring to this debate.
    he's just going with the flow
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    I don't think any of that is terribly relevant. Whether men or women use more toilet roll, I don't especially care. :p: 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 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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EtherealNymph22)
    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.
    But what's the relevance of evolutionary biology here? Why should taxation depend on whether something was relevant in human evolution or not?!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EtherealNymph22)
    Do you actually think you're putting across a convincing argument? I'll give you a clue: you're not.
    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.

    (Original post by EtherealNymph22)
    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?
    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?

    (Original post by EtherealNymph22)
    Nothing you're saying will stop the proliferation and survival of humans in the same way that the absence of female egg production does.
    Water and food.

    (Original post by EtherealNymph22)
    People can wash with water and be fine- you don't need a lynx deodorant can to keep the human race alive. How arrogant.
    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.

    (Original post by EtherealNymph22)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    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
    Nobody is preventing from buying razors for men. The problem is they are blue.

    (Original post by nverjvlev)
    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.
    How much VAT on tampons do you pay per year?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AboveTheParapet)
    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.
    Women definitely pee more than men but I'm not even gonna go down that route because it would mean adhering to your logic which is BS. But just to add some more anecdotal 'evidence', in my experience of living in a family with a brother and two parents, me and my mum definitely use more toilet roll than dad and brother. And periods use an unbelievable amount of toilet roll it's ridiculous. But what I'm asking for is some actual evidence around toilet roll usage between the sexes. You're also being misled by the societal construct that men poo 'more' than woman- again evidence?

    Also calories aren't an absolute indicator of the volume of the excretory product. Unless you again have some evidence for that. It depends on the amount of fibre in the diet for example.

    All of the things you pay tax on are your own consumer choices at the end of the day. We could all stop doing all of these things and the human race would still survive. And I wonder how you lot would feel when there is blood everywhere, on cinema seats, office chairs, sofas, public transport. The only reason that isn't a thing is because we take it upon ourselves to buy period absorbing items which aren't 'luxurious' in any way shape or form. And I'm not even saying we shouldn't pay for it, I'm just saying that as a matter of principle we shouldn't be paying tax on it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AboveTheParapet)
    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?
    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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    But what's the relevance of evolutionary biology here? Why should taxation depend on whether something was relevant in human evolution or not?!
    Although that isn't the argument is it. The argument is about taxing gender-specific items that are essential and non-negotiable in the proliferation and success of humans as a species. I argue that sanitary products are the only item that truly fit this category, unless you want woman to have an implant and not reproduce, or leave blood everywhere at an inconvenience to yourself.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    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
    Men expect woman to shave their legs, pubic hair and armpits. Female haircuts cost more and so do all female products. Men like woman to look pretty and wear make up. Make up costs loads of money and guess what- more tax. The reason shaving is an absolutely ridiculous example to talk about is because there are female equivalents. There is no male equivalent to a period. Period. (see what I did there)

    We could go on and on and on about what the sexes pay for and who is paying more tax but it's a first world problem and essentially sanitary products as a matter of principle shouldn't be taxed. Everything else is consumerism and isn't even relevant in the debate.

    Infact just the other day there was an article released on how women pay more on the high street than men. I can't believe I'm giving into the idiots on here to resort to this line of argument but if I can't beat them with logic then I will beat them at their own game:

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/money/...cle4668903.ece

    Oh look, I backed my point up with a link to some EVIDENCE. perhaps some of the guys on here can do that.

    Im not even gonna go into pay equality either.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 2, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.