One of the more interesting discussions my wife and I had recently revolved around the idea of providing additional paid leave specifically for women experiencing menstrual cycles. It’s a proposal that has been discussed in various forms around the world, and while I understand the reasoning behind it, I found myself disagreeing – not because I don’t believe those challenges are real, but because I believe we’re asking the wrong question.
The goal should be to build workplaces that recognize people have legitimate health issues without dividing benefits by demographic groups.
At first glance, giving women additional leave sounds compassionate. For many women, menstrual symptoms can be painful and disruptive enough to impact their ability to work. That’s not something that should be dismissed or joked about. If someone is dealing with severe pain, they deserve understanding and flexibility.
But then I started thinking about where the line gets drawn.
Should someone who suffers from debilitating migraines receive additional leave? What about the employee with Crohn’s disease? The veteran dealing with chronic back pain? The worker with severe anxiety attacks? The person undergoing fertility treatments? There are countless legitimate medical conditions that don’t fit neatly into one category.
If our answer is to create separate pools of leave for each circumstance, we end up building a system that rewards labels rather than recognizing individual needs.
I’ve always believed equality means everyone starts with the same opportunities and the same expectations. That doesn’t mean pretending everyone experiences life identically – it means creating systems that are fair to everyone.
Instead of saying one group receives additional leave because of a biological condition, why not expand sick leave or personal wellness leave that anyone can use for legitimate health reasons? The woman dealing with severe menstrual pain could use it. So could the man recovering from kidney stones, the employee battling migraines, or the parent caring for a sick child.
The accommodation exists, but it isn’t tied to your sex. It’s tied to your need.
Ironically, I think that approach is more compassionate because it doesn’t force people into categories. It simply recognizes that human beings occasionally need time to recover.
Some people would call this equality. Others would call it equity. I think the distinction matters less than the outcome. The objective should be to support people without creating unnecessary divisions between them.
The discussion also reminded me of something we’ve become too quick to do in society: assign motives to disagreement. Because I questioned whether additional leave should be exclusive to women, someone could conclude that I don’t care about women’s health or that I’m being misogynistic.
But disagreement over policy isn’t the same as disagreement over someone’s worth.
I can fully acknowledge that menstrual pain is real while also believing that workplace policies should be designed around universal principles rather than demographic categories.
The best systems don’t ask, “Which group deserves this benefit?” They ask, “How can we solve this problem fairly for everyone?”
That’s a conversation worth having.