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.

Perhaps a more detailed comparison would be someone who was assessed and confirmed not be autistic taking up the role and insisting everyone affirms that he is autistic despite knowing he isn’t.

“He is also now suing the Labour Party because he has been refused entry to the Labour Women’s conference”

He is first and foremost an advocate for transgender male people.

Like the male people taking up “women’s officer” positions meant to ensure female people are fully considered and represented in policies and political activities. Those male people turn the female advocacy role into a transgender advocacy role by nature of them simply being in the role. While they are in the role is not ever a female person advocating for female people. It is a male person speaking on behalf of female people.

There is no way to disprove the logic. What ends up happening though is some people who find the linguistic and philosophical theory arguments compelling and they then cannot acknowledge that misogyny that is inherent in the appointment of male people in female representational roles.

If only he lived in Kenilworth eh? Kenilworth East Region.

Many charities, of all sizes, prioritise creating a platform from which those with lived experiences (linked to the charitable aims) can be heard. Where the charity is focussed of those who cannot easily communicate their experience directly, they tend to do joint appearances/ presentations where possible.

Endometriosis is not a condition that impacts communication skills and it is not the case that they couldn’t get someone with the condition to be the representative. If they are struggling to attract a better suited representative, they should look inwards and work out what is putting suitable representatives off.

As a bit of an aside, but a related note, lots of charities attract omnicausers who love to wedge in causes beyond the specific charitable aims under the guise of ‘intersectionality’. The leadership of well run charities have cottoned on to the problems that arise with this and have dialled back their comms (wider virtue signalling). Added to this, they are struggling internally with endless identity related unreasonable ‘reasonable adjustment’ demands.

There's an thread about a Guardian interview with Kezia Dugdale. In it it's said there are around 2000 LGBT charities! I hope most of these do good, necessary work. If SR wanted to do something useful in the charity sector it would seem there are plenty of places he could have slotted into. Either these charities didn't want him because he didn't have anything they could use or the charities themselves didn't scratch Steph's itch.

Yes lived experience is vital. I advocate that with passion! People with lived experience should be on the board and should be part of service development and evaluation at the minimum.
But it doesn’t have to apply to every role. You can have medical doctors providing treatment for diseases and conditions they have not personally experienced. You have CEOs who have come from many different charity backgrounds. The important thing is that the beneficiaries are included at the right moment. That voices are heard. The charity should be elevating those voices. But the person creating the plan to do that doesn’t have to be the ‘expert by experience’ themselves.
And this is a tiny charity with a tiny budget, without the luxury of a team of paid staff. The only question that matters is ‘are they fulfilling their purpose?’ They seem very inclusive. I imagine having a trans woman visibly on the team could be a massively positive signal to non-binary and trans men who are worried about endometriosis, in a world which is not always easy to navigate for trans people.
And anyone who doesn’t like it - there are other endometriosis charities. Start your own support group. Just move on. Live your lives.

Yeh. We could start a female only charity. How long before the TRA claim it’s not inclusive and bigoted and try to defund/shut it down? I mean look what happened to the only female only rape crisis centre in Canada. TRA nailed a dead rat to its door and successfully got it defunded. So tell me again what makes this man a suitable advocate for a charity supporting a condition only experienced by females? Why not get a transman in that position if they wanted to be “trans-inclusive”?

His disgusting behaviour at the Filia conference - whipping up a protest mob of aggressive males, who chanted and held up placards with messages like Suck My Dick as conference attendees tried to reach the venue and survivors of war rape spoke inside it - should automatically disqualify him from any female-centred organisation anywhere, ever again.

Anyone simping for this nasty, selfish, misogynist piece of work is either terminally hard of thinking or a badly disguised TRA (although on reflection the Venn diagram is more or less a circle, there).

“As a bit of an aside, but a related note, lots of charities attract omnicausers who love to wedge in causes beyond the specific charitable aims under the guise of ‘intersectionality’.”

It is a problem when it happens. It detracts from the focus of the charity. There is a difference between making sure the charity is compliant to policies and detracting from the focus of the charity.

I imagine having a trans woman visibly on the team could be a massively positive signal to non-binary and trans men who are worried about endometriosis, in a world which is not always easy to navigate for trans people.

You have a good imagination. In what way could a man masquerading as a woman send a positive signal to women of any sort about a condition that by its nature only affects women? All it does is emphasise the delusionary nature of genderism.

We are talking about a role that is about representing the issues to government. It is a role that is crying out for lived experience. If there were 2 candidates, would you not think that the one with lived experience should get it. If so, do you not think it concerning that a charity could not get any interest from someone with lived experience to apply?

If there was a CEO with a good track record of running charities, I would not think anything of them being trans so long as there was nothing in their views/ values that conflicted with the needs of those the charity serves. Anyone who advocates for the protected characteristic of sex being replaced with the protected characteristic of gender identity is not suited to lead a charity whose focus is a female only condition.

When it comes to roles that require representation, if there is nothing stopping the people whose lived experience needs platforming from communicating effectively, it should absolutely be the case that the successful candidate should have lived experience.

Even if we are talking a charity with £20k, why couldn’t they attract a representative with lived experience and/or a CEO who has issues with sex based rights.

“You can have medical doctors providing treatment for diseases and conditions they have not personally experienced. You have CEOs who have come from many different charity backgrounds”

These are not representational roles. These roles are not comparative taking the place of someone who has at least got a deeper understanding of endometriosis by being female than any male can do. Whatever comparison you are trying to make is irrelevant to the issue.

”I imagine having a trans woman visibly on the team could be a massively positive signal to non-binary and trans men who are worried about endometriosis, in a world which is not always easy to navigate for trans people.”

WTAF? You think female people will find a male person speaking FOR them to be a massively positive signal?

I think that probably says it all about just how much you centre male people.

The size of the charity is no excuse. The issues were pointed out to the charity very early on when they actually had Richards on WH with the CEO. The pushback was very clear then that female people were not accepting of a male in the role.

Let alone a male person who has acted against female people’s needs so consistently and publicly for years. He is a misogynist.

His appointment to any role that is public facing with that charity was always problematic.

My takeaway from this conversation is that few of the contributors understand how small voluntary organisations work.

“I imagine having a trans woman visibly on the team could be a massively positive signal to non-binary and trans men who are worried about endometriosis, in a world which is not always easy to navigate for trans people.”

Just like the female non-binary athletes who complained that the marathon organisers who created a non-binary category needed to split the category into male and female so it was fair?

If you think the majority of female people with transgender identities are so desperate to have transgender representation that they would welcome a male spokesperson at parliament for endometriosis, I think you might be mistaken.

Principles apply whether you’re handling £50 or £50 million. A moral compass doesn’t depend on wealth. Misogynistic men don’t have the right to speak for and over women in any arena.

Oh we really do which is why we don't for one minute believe Steph just happened across this tiny charity and decided to give them a hand out of the goodness of his heart

Mine is that some contributors will ignore absolutely anything that would stop an entitled man being told No. However harmful to actual women's safety, dignity and privacy and however much they have to beclown themselves to do so.

Then you would be wrong.

Being a very small voluntary organisation is no reason to have a male person speaking for female people in a parliamentary influential role.

My takeaway is how interestingly unable you seem to be to hear the voices of women when they are trying to explain something. And how ignorant you must be of the make-up of the Mumsnet community. And how unaware you must be also of the extent to which women are and have been involved in small voluntary organisations across the UK and over time.

If it was a big endometriosis charity, would it have been more ok or less ok to appoint him?

My takeaway is that some posters have a fucking huge blind spot for the inherent misogyny of appointing a male person as a spokesperson for a female health issue. And just how far they will go to cover that blind spot.

The whataboutery on this thread has become fuckwittery.

And all to centre a male person.

On the contrary - I’ve been involved in a few, of various sorts, and none would have tolerated such a grifter, clearly involved purely for self aggrandisement and antagonistic to the very demographic that is supposed to benefit.
I’d bet that the proportion of Mumsnetters, perhaps particularly on these boards, is over-represented in the running of small charities compared to the general population.

Perhaps he sees himself as the UK's answer to Mr Tickle.

Would it be ok for someone pretending to be autistic, to be CEO of an Autism charity?

Would that be a 'massively positive signal'?

Also, many of us worked for or even shock horror started our own charities or voluntary organisations. So we know exactly how things work at this scale. Just FYI.