Steph Richards (TIM) again appointed to a position at endometriosis charity

[Whatchamacallitt]

The headline dishonestly implies that the issue with this appointment is because Richards is trans-identified, rather than because he is male. I wouldn't have any issue with a trans-identified woman affected by endometriosis being appointed. You'd think they would have learnt their lesson from last time when he was appointed CEO. If Richards and the charity gave a damn about women they would have taken on board the level of offence generated then.

The bigger issue here is not Steph. Steph’s gonna Steph and he’s got his big court case to concentrate on now. The issue is that an endometriosis charity TWICE hired him, and their whole raison d’être, as strapped across their front page, is that they are an “inclusive” charity. It’s great that they are supporting trans-identifying females affected by endometriosis, as they should, but why is a charity for an issue that is rooted in female biology so in thrall to the whole gender identity bollocks first, above concerning themselves with the material reality of what endometriosis is? I don’t suffer from endometriosis fortunately, but if I did I wouldn’t feel like they’re a charity that’s inclusive of me, a regular woman who thinks pronouns and gender identity are akin to a religious belief.

Here’s their (very girly-looking) website. I note that they’ve removed their list of who’s who since I last looked at it, for some reason.

https://endometriosissouthcoast.com

No they're not, they're really not. 😂

I can see a full 'Meet The Team' page on their website. Steph no longer included.

So if someone you disagree with politically says something, anything, you have to disagree because of who they are? If they say it looks like rain, you say no it doesn't? What are you, 4 years old?

.

Steph doesnt own everyone else's words, does he?

Do you not see the hypocrisy of saying you can use what words you want, while trying to police the employment and volunteering opportunities available to trans people?

There's a difference between someone using whatever words they want and telling someone else what words they HAVE to use.

Steph can refer to himself as 'she/her' all he likes, but he can't demand that others do.

And no-one is 'policing' the options available to trans people, they just have to comply with the law (EA2010 or otherwise) like everyone else.

It's got nothing to do with the fact that Steph is trans. It has everything to do with the fact that Steph is male.

Like any other male - either trans or not - Steph would be welcome to be a parliamentary representative for a prostate cancer charity, but would be an inappropriate choice for an endometriosis charity.

I've just sent an email asking what percentage of females get the condition, not 'people' as they quote.

Why?

I work in charity and lots of people go from charity to charity with skills in fundraising, policy, business management, as employees, volunteers and trustees. If she has the right skills for what they need, and the only reason you object is that she’s trans, your position is discriminatory and illegal.

You are indeed correct but Steph's first, last and only career focus is promoting Steph and the line TWAW

steph is only interested in anything that furthers his profile

I very much doubt he gives a flying fuck about endo

There are many roles that a man (a biologically male person, whether he identifies as a woman or not) could do well in the charity sector. I have no issue with that. If they are the best person available for the job, then they should get the role.

If a role would be inappropriate for any male person, then that includes all males, including those who identify as trans.

If the role is one that should be reserved for a woman (a biologically female person, whether she identifies as a man or not) then that is what should happen.

The EA2010 recognises that some discrimination due to sex is legal. Some things should be exclusively for women (female) for their privacy, safety and dignity.

You keep saying this is because Steph is trans. It isn't.

I genuinely don't care that Steph is trans. I only care that Steph is male.

The OP clearly states:

'I wouldn't have any issue with a trans-identified woman affected by endometriosis being appointed.'

Did you not read it?

But you don’t know that.

She might have very good of reasons for wanting to help. Maybe she was asked, because of her skills and experience. Maybe she has a friend or relative who has endo. Maybe she just sees the need and wants to help. It’s not really your business.

Or maybe he wants everyone to treat him like a woman, and being a representative of a specifically female only charity is all part of it.

Or, and I'm not saying this about Steph, I don't know him, but many men get a thrill out of exactly this kind of appointment.

Reason enough to discount them as candidates in the first place.

Maybe he's the lovliest person to walk the Earth and has the purest of motives.

However, some women have made it clear that they think this should be a role for a female person.

Can you admit that he is male and that this is their issue?

I’ve had quite enough of men in the medical profession not taking gynae issues seriously, let alone a support charity for a gynaecological issue. It’s a complete pisstake to put someone in that position who is male and hasn’t any idea of what it’s like to live with this condition.

Most women have experienced menstruation, so can empathise by extrapolating out from that experience even if they don’t have endo. Someone who has never even possessed the right plumbing is not a suitable advocate in this most female of arenas.

Having a man in his off the shoulder dress in a pale colour looking at you from their literature is a mocking insult if you’re a woman who can’t wear anything other than black trousers because she bleeds so profusely.

I’m sorry, I have every sympathy for anyone with body dysmorphia but this sort of thing is so inappropriate that it’s made me very angry today.

Apologies, it seems to have been my IT issue. I can see it again now.

You don't have a problem with women only shortlists for job opportunities do you? You do, in fact, have no objection to the principle of policing job opportunities at all.

Your objection is that people born male are not allowed on women only shortlists.

Well women aren't allowed on men only ones either, so that's all equal.

If Steph was experienced at running charities in a similar area of operation then there would be no problem with them being appointed CEO.

But they have been appointed, and now resigned, as a representative and women have every right to complain about someone being appointed to represent them who is physically incapable of experiencing what women experience.

Suella Braverman is apparently fond of the works of Marcel Proust. Should everyone stop reading and appreciating ‘In Search of Lost Time’ because it means you agree with her batshit policies?

Suella Braverman presumably knows that today is Friday. If I agree that today is Friday, am I now turned into a right-wing Reform supporter purely because I agree with her on what day of the week it is?

I think someone who is acting as an advocate for a charity needs the ability to speak with passionate experience to argue for funding (and understanding) from parliament. It’s baffling that a man was appointed to this position. As others have said, it wouldn’t be a problem if a trans-identifying female with experience of endometriosis had got the job.