Do we Really Need a Menstruation Leave?

The demand for a dedicated menstruation leave has grown louder across jurisdictions in the world, including Australia. While proponents frame this as a corrective to gendered workplace disadvantages, I argue that a segregated, biology-specific leave entitlement is structurally flawed, likely to deepen the inequalities they purport to address, and add fuel to the ongoing debates over sex and gender. Drawing on desk-based research and my experiences as a policy advocate in WASH and research in Indonesia, I demonstrate that menstruation leave presents a protectionist rather than an integrative model of gender equality, and it might reinforce negative stereotypes of female fragility, benefit a limited segment of women who work, result in employer discrimination and hinder the meaningful adoption of the leave and, most importantly, contribute to the growing conservatism over the definition of ‘woman’. I contend that the case for menstruation leave entitlement misreads the functional scope of existing personal leave frameworks, and that the perceived lacuna is, in most jurisdictions, better characterised as a failure of cultural implementation than a failure of statutory design. Finally, I propose a universal alternative grounded in flexible work design, explicit clarification of existing legal frameworks, transformative change in workplace cultures, and enhanced universal personal leave entitlements for all workers.