Meet the new CEO of Endometriosis South Coast

Perhaps the fact that Richards has no relevant experience in any area, and appears to hate women. Try reading the thread.
Great user name by the way.

Well for a start, his performance on WH. He is not a good speaker and cannot put together a cohesive argument. A CEO needs to be able to hold his own with partners, stakeholders and the media (if they want to charity to have a high profile). He must have known he'd be questioned about his appointment, but was either unprepared to give succinct and convincing arguments why his expertise trumped the critics' misgivings, or was simply too arrogant to believe this was anything other than a puff piece to praise him for his appointment. He was unable to handle a challenging interview, but not one that involved particularly difficult, scientific questions, just basic general knowledge about endo and its sufferers. He resorted to aggression towards the interviewer and accusations of phobia. That's not a good start, is it?

'think endo first'

I think Steph has a 'think Steph first' strategy.

The nasty, misogynistic blog he wrote about me for daring to stand up for women like his ex, for a start.

Let me put it this way.

On national radio, it was argued that endo wasn't a gynaecological disease, you didn't need to have been born with a womb to have endo and to think about men with the disease. It was argued that we should be inclusive and the word woman wasn't relevant. It was stated that framing endo as a woman's disease was the problem and if that wasn't the case, it'd get taken more seriously. Barnett bluntly asked if endo just needed a rebranding as a men's health problem too, to be taken seriously and they pretty much said yes.

I think if my hopes for improving my healthcare rested on the efforts of these two to increase awareness, I'd be very much crying myself to sleep tonight.

No. However, blocking women who don't agree with them or believe that Richards is a woman, organising protests at women's conferences to drown out women's voices discussing women's health and safety issues, and a slew of other very clear examples of this male person's behaviour makes my 'suspect' pretty fucking certain.

I do understand your point. However, you either don't know this individual or you are fine with a male who is the very depiction of 'misogynist' running this charity.

Steph cannot easily use the word woman.

Steph's ease at saying "men" will win research grants for the 29 men reducing the pot for studying women with the disease since steph can't name them..

Steph can't get any conversation started around women's health since she can't use the word.

And from Steph's perspective, women's health needs to be taken from everyone else's perspective to be taken seriously.

Nothing you want will come out of steph's appointment.

So why are you advocating for Steph? How do you see Steph contributing to your life?

''inclusive'' language being bullshit. As it isn't; it excludes women with a range of needs for plain, straight forward language about their bodies and health care.

In order to stroke the desires of a very questionable political lobby. The 29 men are being as much used in this as women are.

What is it that leads you to believe she can't?

I'd fully support a charity dedicated to transmen who suffer from this extremely painful condition.

Not even a mention of them from Richards in that interview or elsewhere.

From what I can see re Richard's attitude to women - I wouldn't trust Richards to tell me the time accurately, let alone represent women on a serious health matter.

Richards advocates for Richards, and men. Certainly not transwomen.

But this person isn't interested in women's health though.

They are interested in transactivism and inclusive language around endo.

And that's as far as their interest goes - it's about controlling how you talk about endo and the terms you are allowed to use.

Not a dicky bird about how women aren't taken seriously or listened to.

The fact that this person dismisses concerns about a conflict of interest and being more interested in transactivism (and this just being a vehicle for that rather than about endo), demonstrates an inability to listen.

If they don't want to frame it as a woman's condition and only want to frame it as a person's condition, how can you tackle how women's experience of pain isn't taken as seriously as men's?

They don't understand how women get intimidated by men/authority. They don't understand self exclusion. Or barriers to women speaking and being taken seriously.

This is just good for their CV.

Like I say, if she can make a difference to people like me who had to battle for diagnosis and treatment, or if she can get endo classed as a disability for the purposes of employment law so we have the same protections as other debilitating conditions I'll be thrilled. Even if she can just get conversations started about how piss poor womens health is in this country it's a bloody miracle.

Given that Steph used Steph's platform on Woman's Hour to highlight that 20 or so men have been diagnosed with a form of this condition, I wouldn't get your hopes up.

@SunsetBeauregarde What is it about Steph's qualifications that leads you to believe he can do any of those things?

If they’re a misogynist, they masked it very well in the interview.

Lol.

being trans doesnt automatically make her bad at this job just like being a woman wouldnt make her automatically good at the job, either.

But him being a well documented misogynist does make him likely to be bad at it.

There is absolutely no chance Steph will talk about women’s healthcare because Steph doesn’t believe biological women are any different to men who put on dresses

Steph actively campaigns against women having anything for themselves

Steph isn’t a friend of women at all, Steph is only interested in Steph self and trans issues

Why are you responding to me like I'm your enemy?

You 'suspect'?

You could say the same of any CEO, that they 'might' focus on the wrong things etc etc etc, her being trans doesnt automatically make her bad at this job just like being a woman wouldnt make her automatically good at the job, either.

Like I say, if she can make a difference to people like me who had to battle for diagnosis and treatment, or if she can get endo classed as a disability for the purposes of employment law so we have the same protections as other debilitating conditions I'll be thrilled. Even if she can just get conversations started about how piss poor womens health is in this country it's a bloody miracle.

You're saying the same thing as everyone else sunset...
I think you've missed the bit that actually grates...
I know it's easy to see MN as a nest of vipers but maybe read the thread?

Why was Jodie up for a diversity award? Rather than a woman's award. Or did I mishear that bit?

A 'diverse' sticker on your website is an easy route to funds and profile when so many businesses and organisations are looking to improve their EDI/DIE/EID rating by bunging a few quid or lending their name to 'charidee'.

I suspect though that this person is going to be rather focused on the trans activist version of what the charity should be doing. That is entire fucking point.

They are already very much focused with their own trans organisation, I doubt they are going to serve any woman well with their efforts here. THAT is why their 'trans activism' is an issue.

I have endo and I don't give a single shit that this person is trans. I don't care if they know what endo feels like and using 'woman centric language' is the very last concern i have in relation to my endo.

I would want someone in that role who can advocate for better diagnostics, a 'think endo first' campaign strategy where endo isnt the very last thing they fucking look for when you present with weird symptoms that aren't related to periods (for me, it was impacting my bowels so it took 3 years to get a scan and diagnosis). I want someone in that role who can raise funds and awareness and if that person doesnt have a uterus i don't fucking care, I won't have one soon either.

I have seen huge numbers of doctors over th last few years and from personal experience, it was the female doctors who didnt listen or understand what i was going through. Massive 'suck it up, you're a woman' vibes from the women, whereas the men were the ones who actually listened. It was a man who finally diagnosed me and got me the help I needed.

So yeah, her gender has absolutely nothing to do with her ability to do the job I need her to do.

yep. Richards is very keen to expand Richards' scope of influence and increase their feminist appeal. Richards is using this charity to do so and to get included in committees etc based on this being a women's charity.

The charity, from what I suspect, is equally hoping to raise its profile by having Richards on board.

What they completely fucked up is that this was supposed to be a women centred charity. Not even a 'female' centred charity unless they limited their remit to only trans people, which they have not. I am sorry that Jody is struggling. However, that really does not absolve Jody of Jody's responsibilities which in my opinion, Jody has completely misjudged and I am not sure even fucking understands.

It’s usually leadership, developing the charity’s strategy, delivering its operational aims, working with stakeholders and fundraising. The Trustees are for oversight and ensuring that the charity delivers for the public benefit and ensuring legal and financial compliance.

Steph did used to grace us with his presence IIRC.