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.

It isn't a conspiracy though is it?

I was in my usual, rather snide, mode when I wrote that. I do agree it is a female condition.

Before this second appointment, I wasn't aware of the truly vile things that Steph had posted. It was offensive enough that a TIM was put into this position. But having read up it makes it even worse. Take <a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220929071736/www.stephsplace.uk/the-trans-woman-toilet-question.cfm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this as an example. Posted onto his personal website the author opines about how TIMs supposedly can't get an erection due to oestrogen and so it's fine if one sexually assaults a woman in a toilet because all she will experience is a 'floppy dick'. And this is a man that people thought appropriate to represent a women's health charity?

If I remember correctly, Richards also organised the protest in front of the Filia conference. The one where men of all ages tried to down out the speakers in a remembrance session where women killed by domestic violence were being remembered.

The one where young men very merrily wrote about how women should suck their trans dicks on the pavement where children and women just passing by were walking. Did he ever really denounce those acts? I don't recall him doing so.

I am suspicious though, that much of his work about women being killed by men could well be as a defence for him being instrumental in organising that protest. Everything that Richards does is designed to support his role as a 'feminist', yet at the very same time as he claims these awards and makes such statements, he still posts to demonise women who reject his claims to be in any way female.

It is like it is fully performative. No person who claims to be a feminist should be posting about women going to hell for rejecting the philosophical belief that any male person can ever be female. Yet Richards simply continues to make those misogynist statements and organisations continue to support him and give him acclaim when they shouldn't even be giving him a platform.

@Shedmistress quite. It’s literally happened. Lesbians and gays are going to seem old hat. What I find disturbing is the vitriolic language used by the TRA groups and their hangers on condoning violence to any non believers.

“Translucent” is him though. So he’s going to condemn attacks on himself.

He’s not the only one.

Steph will tell you in almost every sentence how much he genuinely loves women but I think that's just the few that laud him, not our type.

That is actually vile.

Obviously, 'Julia' is another man authoring it, but Richards thought it was appropriate to publish.

It seems neither man understands sexual abuse and violence doesn't require penetration and yet... Richards is an awarded 'feminist'.

as the days of pandering to the sacred caste are now over, he and his mates are being held to account for their misogynistic, verbal incontinence.

Brilliant, Mrs O!!!

This rambling, incoherent piece is presumably an example of Steph's "feminism"? He shares his views about why men should keep abusing and protesting against feminist women who speak without their permission.

His first argument is that because men allow WI meetings to happen without protest, there's not a problem 😂😂😂😂

translucent.org.uk/why-trans-activists-protest-at-some-feminist-events/

The point of all these posts is, that this is the man who has been appointed by this charity to advocate for them in Parliament.

This is a man who this charity has decided has acted to support female people. It is almost like the founder of the charity either has not read Richards' work and the history of his actions or similarly thinks as he does and that any female person who points to his past is just hateful. The charity doesn't seem to be well run. Is it fit for purpose?

The question I would have is, can the candidate run the charity well and deliver its purpose?

It isn’t necessary to have lived experience of a health condition or societal issue to manage a charity that addresses those concerns.

e.g. You don’t need to have had cancer to run a cancer charity, or have a close relative spend time in a hospice to run a hospice.

You do need to have the capacity to understand the issues, to be au fait with charity management, and to be a competent leader and communicator.

And it's best not to hate women

The whole charity is a scam, funded by pharmaceutical company’s the only thing we can all do now is refused to donate and raise money for this joke of a charity, who incidentally still spouts shit about endometriosis being retrograde menstrual issues and yet can’t explain how a man even getting that basis.

They mandate woe in the office so clearly don’t ever want anyone with endometriosis in their spaces.

If you spend your days commenting disparagingly about women and insisting that the language of women is bigotry, you're unlikely to be the right person to speak for women in any way.
Which is what Emma B so clearly highlighted in the interview above.

As per the previous poster.

This is not a man 'running' a charity.

This is a man who has been appointed to a parliamentary engagement role. This is a man who has been put in a role to speak for female people.

This is a man with a misogynistic history, and one that overlooks intimidatory behaviour in others and himself, as a spokesperson for a medical condition that he does not have and a handful of male people will ever have.

This is not about a man who is merely 'running' a charity.

Indeed.

If he WAS RUNNING the charity, there would be that very glaringly obvious fact too.

If a man cannot control his hatred of women who disagree with him, he should not be in any role that is supposedly campaigning on behalf of women.

So Translucent condemns the Times article as 'defamatory'?

Which is in itself defamatory. Perhaps Steph should get his lawyer mate Robin to provide some legal advice.

This makes absolute sense.

You see: a born female does not know her own mind- being a male's intellectual and physical inferior counterpart. So therefore do not validate her expressed ideas of how she exists in her body. Proceed with caution and ideally impose ideas on her via authority and patriarchy. She might change her fragile, female mind, because let's face it - her views just don't matter as much, and she's probably wrong.

Whereas: a born male always is right. He is inherently better at being female than a female because they are better at everything. So believe him when he speaks, as the male speaks with authority and wisdom, and if he wants to be female that is totally fine, because he's gonna do a better job at it than us with our hormones and wombs, ingrained societal invalidation and whatnot. A born male knows his mind from the outset. And he is correct, at all times, and does not need time or input to make decisions. Especially about off the shoulder sartorial options in the office head shot, flirty head tilt.

The ideal: male. Next best: male in a dress. Many rungs down: female. See also- apex experts on breastfeeding, uterine conditions and living as a female.

The depressing thing is how many Labour MPs are potential sponsors. Kate Osborne and David Lammy, for starters.

David Lammy thinks a man can grow a cervix, which says a lot about him. All that education and he knows bugger all!

Steph is highly respected feminist, gushes translucent.

No he's not, he's neither of those.

Just listened to that interview on woman's hour, wow Steph Richards was torn to shreds!