Emily Matcher asks if “paid menstrual leave” is “reverse sexism” or a “reasonable human rights move.” Let me explain something to you, Miz Matcher: paid menstrual leave is neither, as it is downright sexist.
If a particular woman has a particular problem with her own lady parts, she can use ordinary sick time, which may be used for menstrual issues just as it is used for the flu or a concussion. Your boss cannot stop you from using sick leave if it is your period, not a virus, that makes you vomit. But it is sexist to suggest that all women need paid sick leave for their periods, lest delicate flowers be forced to work and menstruate at the same time.
There has been a lot of discussion about how the “wage gap” is mostly due to differences in chosen occupation and hours worked. I would gently suggest that mandating “paid menstrual leave” will worsen such a gap: women will spend less time in the office, have jobs that are less demanding in terms of face time and reliability, and are implicitly saying that as women, they cannot be expected to do the same job that men do.
The entire concept of “paid menstrual leave” is sexist, counterproductive, and humiliating for women. Why this would be framed as “reverse sexism” (i.e. a benefit given to women but not men) is beyond me.