Glad to see the story getting as much exposure as possible, but two things marred it a little.
The first is that it’s rather bizarre to say in the headline that “Thomas is not a woman”, but then to write the entire article strenuously avoiding pronouns in such a clumsy way. I have seen similar articles written which managed to avoid pronouns in a way that was so subtle that I hadn’t noticed until it was pointed out. I found it jarring and it made the article much more difficult to read. And if you are openly making the claim that Thomas isn’t female, then why not use the appropriate he/him descriptors that are usually used for non-women?
The second I only noticed when I scrolled back up. The photo used is one of the most feminine pictures of Thomas I’ve seen. Given the number of photos showing those huge shoulders, I can’t help feeling this is a bit like the opposite scenario from the standard Mail articles, where it’s reported that a “woman” has done some heinous crime, and they show the most masculine photo possible, because they’re editorially unable to say what they know to be true.
Thanks for sharing though, OP. I just wish they’d perhaps found a better writer for a topic that’s so important.