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.

“Didn’t scratch Steph’s itch”

Oh please, some of us are having brunch you know. I don’t think I can face my cheesy croissant now.

I expect this thread is saturated by women who have volunteered and led voluntary organisations. Women tend to dominate in the field of unpaid work! What evidence are you drawing on to come to this conclusion?

Presumably you think that all organisations, big/ small, profit / non profit, should fill all positions with the most suitable candidates and should work hard to do so.

Do you believe that Stef is the best candidate they could attract? If so, what do you think that says about the charity and those leading the campaign to appoint a CEO?

She has no expertise in leading a charity, no expertise in endometriosis as a medical condition, and no lived experience.

Why didn’t they double their efforts to find a strong leader rather than appoint Stef? Why don’t they aim higher?

Would you admit that Stef isn’t a great appointment due to he lack of relevant experience - lived or other.

“Steph’s pronouns are she/her, whatever you think.”

This is some kind of ideological logic (or illogic, perhaps ). A man can demand whatever words he wants to demand be used to describe him. It is completely irrelevant though as to whether anyone else chooses to use those words to describe him or not. He cannot force that except for those who allow that force to change their language.

Material reality though will remain that the man will always be male and the English language protocol is that sex is observed for language and not someone’s purely subjective reality. Therefore, it is the opposite to this poster’s view. Richards’ pronouns are he/him, regardless of anything anyone says to the contrary. Because he is male and that is how our language is structured.

Remembering of course that Richards started Translucent around the same time Richards joined the Labour Party. During his time in the Labour Party, wasn’t he women’s officer for three years? While also founding and running Translucent?

While also organising actions against women. Was he women’s officer when he organised the protest at Filia?

Talk about a massive conflict of interest in any case. Translucent has been very vocal about forcing male access into female single sex provisions. And he is known to take roles meant to advocate for women, thereby removing a female voice that should be centring female people.

I think it is very clear that this man is only about his own career as an activist. Everything he does is for his career and was to build the profile and field of influence for Translucent- his organisation.

He is a very clear example of what happens when these male people take roles meant for female people. It becomes about them and their activist careers that do not centre women.

My takeaway from this conversation is that you refuse to address any of the issues that I have raised.

My takeaway is it is more interesting which questions activists won't answer than the ones they will.

Yeah. It’s always interesting to see which are swerved.

They work on goodwill.

Goodwill from a substantial proportion of the population is thrown away by appointing a strident, aggressive male with no possibly of any actual life experience of a health problem to represent women with that health problem.

Agreed, the questions they seem to avoid are the one's that have an obvious answer, an answer that's contrary to the answer they would want to give.

It's why dealing with them is so annoying, they're slippery as fish. A straight answer to a straight question is game over for them.

Interesting, or predictable?

Not to mention that once a man has successfully taken a women's post to 'represent women', the only 'women' he is ever interested in representing are other trans identified men.

I speak from bitter experience. I was once all shiny eyed and open minded - I think at the point that boy took the women's officer post for Labour - and thought why shouldn't a man represent women if he has a passion for women's issues and progress for them? And he was the first such man I encountered in a women-only job who was quite open that any 'women's issue' was only relevant and acceptable to him if primarily about the experience of a TiM and at the very least something that happened to both sexes. All women's actual issues were axed as 'transphobic'. He had absolutely zero interest in anything but his own experience of womaning and being celebrated for it, and for capturing a woman's post to the much more important kind of person and wringing it free of any lingering use or purpose to actual women. Silencing those things, disposing of them, scolding and harassing women who tried to resist. You could be his cheerleading squad or you could sod off and hopefully die in a greasefire.

Of course this was before I realised the percentage of such men - again from bitter experience - for whom this is a very sexually exciting experience. Then I got even more troubled and revolted. This has happened again, and again, and again. Like the women's Rape Crisis services that wring out and dispose of the women who are not willing to be performative resources for the male experience and the male leadership, leaving them with no support at all, not to mention additional trauma.

This particular ride on the womanhood themepark should be shut to men. Obviously.

I too was unaware of AGP until the activists started their campaign of violence against women, thought "WTaF is going on here?" and went and found out about it.

I feel very sorry for the people who genuinely feel at odds with their own body that their needs are being overridden by a bunch of men who get sexually excited by pretending to be women.

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

Having a trans-identifying female in that role would do that much better, because of shared gender dysphoria experiences and actually being at risk of endo.

Bruh, I've served as secretary to one. Take your mansplaining elsewhere.

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

This claim is in the same ball park as ‘none of yous know any trans people’. As if what someone insists on the interweb is true is materially real when it is just someone’s opinion that is not based on material reality.

No it doesn’t have to apply to every role.

But one place where it should apply is any public advocacy role concerning a painful medical issue that only affects women and which has traditionally been downplayed or dismissed outright by a healthcare system that has a long tradition of ignoring women’s illnesses and women’s pain.

Otherwise it’s just yet another case of a man deciding whether women are in enough pain to be taken seriously.

As for your point about trans people benefiting from seeing a transgender person in that public-facing role, surely one who could at least potentially HAVE endometriosis, ie a trans man, would be far more appropriate there than a trans woman who could not possibly have endo?

Why are you so eager to defend yet another transidentifying MAN taking a position instead of a woman when you could better achieve your stated goal by having a trans man in place? It always seems to be about putting males in positions to talk over women. And that’s what Steph Richards is doing.

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..

Nobody who is suffering from endometriosis is likely to reject help just because they don't relate to anyone on the team. Suffering trumps, 'gender identity', NB's and 'trans' IDing women will soon remember what sex they are if they suffer from endometriosis.

Having a faux women pontificating about something they can have no 'lived experience' of, is not likely to have any traction with women who are denying they're women.
If the only way you can get such women to seek medical help is to pander to the imagined self, they've got more problems than endometriosis to worry about and a 'transIDing' man isn't got to fix anything of those problems.

Quite.

This is blatantly nothing to do with wishing to help women or endometriosis. This is just women and their exciting gynecology providing a special stage for a man to perform on for his own reasons and purposes.

This. Great post.

LOL.
Not the impression that I've got at all.

And I have plenty of experience of 'small voluntary organisations'.