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

So basically because they're not campaigning to solve every problem, they're not allowed to campaign to solve any problem?

You don't think they could use a victory with the tampon tax to spear head a campaign to overhaul the classification system afterwards?

Nothing should be classed as essential and everything should be taxed imo. Then no more arguments about this stupid stuff.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I've read the thread, and the parallels being made are exactly right.

I don't know why you seem to think that arguments by counterexample are a waste of time.

It's the first time you have said this. So far you have only mentioned tampons.

Do you know what colloquialism means?

Okay so now I will say

Tampons, Applicator Tampons and Mini Tampons- all sizes
Sanitary Pads- Extra Large, Large, Normal, Small (all with wings and no wings)

Just to avoid any confusion.

It's been dubbed the tampon tax. I've tried to use sanitary products more generally if possible but I didn't think I would have to spell this particular point out.

Because as a scientist, both anecdotal evidence and fitting examples to your theories is not logical and doesn't prove anything.

I'm also confused as to why this has evolved into a male versus female products debate and who uses more of what. Sanitary products are the only gender specific consumer product that are not a luxury, and are a consequence of a process essential to life on earth. That is why I believe they shouldn't be taxed.

If anyone can name another product that fits that category I would be interested.

And as I've said before, if men had an equivalent i.e they gushed sperm everywhere once a month for an entire week and it went all over their clothes and seats then I would support tax relief on that as well. This isn't a gender debate for me.

But that's an arbitrary reason to decide what should and shouldn't be taxed, would you not agree?

It might feel arbitrary to you, but try being on your period 25% of the time and come back to me.

Because as a scientist, both anecdotal evidence and fitting examples to your theories is not logical and doesn't prove anything.

I'm also confused as to why this has evolved into a male versus female products debate and who uses more of what. Sanitary products are the only gender specific consumer product that are not a luxury, and are a consequence of a process essential to life on earth. That is why I believe they shouldn't be taxed.

If anyone can name another product that fits that category I would be interested.

And as I've said before, if men had an equivalent i.e they gushed sperm everywhere once a month for an entire week and it went all over their clothes and seats then I would support tax relief on that as well. This isn't a gender debate for me.

Right, and what about the Inflammatory Bowel Disease sufferer with recurrent flareups of diarrhoea? Why's he/she getting taxed on toilet roll?

By "all sanitary products", I meant all sanitary products for men and women, including soap, cotton buds, etc. not just period-related products.

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?

Your answer is in your last question and your use of he/she.

As I said before which you highlighted but didn't provide an example for:

Sanitary products are the only gender specific consumer product that are not a luxury, and are a consequence of a process essential to life on earth. That is why I believe they shouldn't be taxed.

If anyone can name another product that fits that category I would be interested.

Toilet roll isn't an example. And you can't selectively tax anything based on some users supposedly needing it more than others due to a health condition.

But sanitary products wouldn't be taxed selectively- the argument is that none should be taxed and this would affect all women.

I don't see why "People who have IBD" and "People who don't have IBD" is any less of a valid categorisation of people than "Men" and "Women".

Defecation is also pretty necessary to life.

Search sanitary products on google and see what happens.


Yes the word SANITARY means of health and hygiene or whatever but 'sanitary products' is again, colloquial for women's period tings.


I asked in my previous post for something that is equivalent to tampons and period pads (spelling it out now to avoid confusion) with the following conditions:


Sanitary products are the only gender specific consumer product that are not a luxury, and are a consequence of a process essential to life on earth. That is why I believe they shouldn't be taxed.


If anyone can name another product that fits that category I would be interested.


I said some more of the same stuff to Chief Wiggum above so please feel free to read that.

Because there's no way a selective tax is feasible.

Tax removal on sanitary products is not actually discriminating against anyone within the population. All women would be affected equally and no men would because they don't have periods (at least last time I checked).

So it's simple. Remove it.

Can you do that and manage so that people with health conditions which necessitate more toilet roll are tax relieved but 'normal' people aren't?

You're using a hypothetical example which is distinct from the one in question and as such is irrelevant.

Frankly for all that you claim to be a 'scientist' and 'logical', you don't seem to be able to follow the simple logically consistent arguments that people are making and are stubbornly sticking to your view by continuously moving the goalposts.

Let's make it really simple and look at your main arguments.

1) Tampons are a necessity, they should not be classed as a luxury and taxed as such.

A: Many other products are also necessities but taxed as luxuries. Why are tampons specifically the issue, rather than a rewrite of tax codes generally?

2) Tampons are both a necessity AND their taxation is unfair to a specific group of people, hence discriminatory.

A: Toilet roll is both a necessity AND its taxation is unfair to a specific group of people - why are tampons specifically the issue, rather than a rewrite of tax codes generally?

3) Tampons are both a necessity AND their taxation is unfair to a specific group of people AND this group of people is defined by their gender AND safeguarding genders (specifically in this case, women) against discrimination is more important than safeguarding discrimination of any other categorisation of people.

A: Oh, so you're one of those people. Good thing you're logical and a scientist though, otherwise I could have sworn you're just a biased self-interested tart!

How much?

It's true. This also explains why they are complaining so much about the 'tampon tax'.

It's funny that people are saying I'm biased when the only people disagreeing with me are people who have no idea what periods are like. They are gash, to put it simply. A massive inconvenience every month to my life.