I can see that might be the case but I don't think that's absolutely clear from the job description.
But even if you're right about that, I guess my question is, can a man have the necessary insight into periods to figure out how to empower and engage women on this subject? Even if it's not at grass roots level, and from a distance, how can he possibly have an idea of the nuances that girls and women struggle with? And how to overcome that for better engagement?
When I attended a breast cancer unit recently, all of the staff were women. All of them. Consultants, nurses, reception staff, cleaners etc. I don't actually have any embarrassment at all about being examined by a male doctor. Absolutely none. I wasn't expecting an all-female unit but I felt surprisingly grateful that it was. I felt very heard and understood in a way that I don't think would have been possible if the staff had been male.
By the same token, a man having treatment for prostate cancer and facing impotence etc may find it easier being treated by a male doctor. Lived experience certainly helps in some cases, even if it's not technically essential.
While Jason may well have the technical credentials to be a project manager, I just don't see how he has the insight into what engages and empowers a young woman who's struggling with her periods. Even if there's no direct contact I don't think there's any man who has better insight into the driving factors than a woman.
And even if you don't accept that, there's also the optics to consider. On an issue which is entirely female, where women should be centred, putting a man in such a prominent position is a terrible idea. It would be like appointing a male as the Minister for Women in government. Technically they could do the job but lived experience contributes to a more rounded view.
I'm trying to be even-handed and view things objectively but arguing for a man in this role seems deliberately contrary.