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.

Thanks to the PP for posting the old WH interview. That said, in the week that we lost one great WH presenter, it was a bit jarring to be reminded that we quite recently had other brilliant voices (thank you, EB), compared to the current bekinders.

Or to belong to a group known to find the idea of cancer, or enacting a performance of having cancer, to be sexually exciting and personally fulfilling.

Hopefully a share token for comments

https://www.thetimes.com/article/fc4f9304-0d09-476d-9311-e9d1f4a2ca83?shareToken

Archive version of the Times article. https://archive.ph/DyGkx

In response to the fresh criticism of her position, Endometriosis South Coast insisted that it was “scientifically inaccurate” to suggest endometriosis was a condition that only affected women. A spokesperson for the charity said: “It affects people of all genders, including trans men, non-binary, and intersex individuals."

And yet what will every single person with Endo have in common? They will be biological women. However they identify is irrelevant, it is a sex based condition. No one who is not an adult human female will ever have this. The demand to pretend otherwise is ridiculous and it's annoying, and it in the end does men with trans identities no favours.

If men were affected by endometriosis in anywhere near the numbers that women are, then there wouldn't need to be any charitable organisations to support the diagnosis and treatment of the condition. I'd imagine men also wouldn't get told they were exaggerating symptoms or that pain was normal.

Endometriosis is nearly always a condition experienced by people born with a uterus - mostly cis women but also trans men, intersex, non-binary.

A bit of internet searching suggests that endometriosis can, in very rare cases, occur in cis men, possibly due to elevated levels of oestrogen.

Anyone affected by this debilitating condition deserves proper diagnosis, treatment and care, which is what we should be focusing on, imho.

No.

This is an overwhelmingly female condition.

See breast cancer.

See childbirth.

See using women's toilets.

See domestic abuse.

See sexual harassment.

See menopause.

See every single penalty we pay for having a female body in a toxic patriarchy.

Yes naaalt (not all abdomens are like that) and some menz blahblahblah. Tiny percentage etc etc.

Healthcare misogyny is so, so deeply entrenched, we are not even allowed our own leaflets anymore.

We are being written out of our own healthcare.

And some men are cos playing in a frankly fugly dress* and using our spaces, our funding and women die and no one gives a shit.

*Ps welcome to the life of a woman "Steph" where now you are judged by how you look not by what you say. Actually I'm judging that too.

There is no such thing as a “cis man”. There aren’t two sexes of men any more than there are two sexes of women.

No man has an endometrium, which is the inner lining of the uterus, so mo man can have endometriosis.

A man might have a condition that mimics endometriosis for some reason, but it’s not endometriosis.

Transmen are not men, they are women. Nonbinary is an identity, not a real thing and people with DSDs are either male or female. The male ones won’t get endometriosis.

That’s the thing. Very rare cases. So rare there’s less than 20 documented cases in men worldwide, and they are usually comorbid with obesity, liver disease or taking oestrogen for prostrate cancer.

Compare this to the 10% of all adult women with endometriosis. Some are skinny, some fat, some in rude health, some have comorbidities with other chronic conditions. This is an overwhelmingly female health condition.

All this fuss over a tiny local charity that, as far as I can see, has no paid staff, and is run by women who just happen to think differently to you….

The fuss is over this man with no relevant qualifications and a track record of abuse towards women being appointed to a position representing the organisation to Parliament.

That's a red flag in itself. You can finish your PhD and have it spat out by the examiners and be told to go back to the beginning. Unusual, but it does happen.

I'm full-on FFS about this. I have nothing useful to say as it makes me so cross.

I think your ire is focused on women who make choices you don’t approve of.

I wonder, do you also think male doctors should not work in or study or teach obstetrics, gynaecology or health conditions that mainly affect women? Do you think males should be excluded from voting in parliament on related issues?

Have you read the thread?

I don’t think that people who believe, against all evidence and reason, that men can become women, should be appointed in any official capacity to speak about women’s health.

I’ve been happy to be treated by male obstetricians, gynaecologists and other health care professionals, all sex realists, as of course they should be.

There is no place for fantasists in medicine.

Indeed. Steph's lengthy campaigning against women's rights, Steph's determination to remove language relating to women - especially about women's health - clearly demonstrates that they're a transactivist and as such, unfit to represent a charity focussing on women's health.
The link upthread to the Woman's Hour interview with Emma Barnet lays out the issues perfectly.

But it's good to see this thread bumped so as many people as possible note the core trans activist tactic of colonising women's organisations.

I'm fine with most of your list. I question whether men should have a vote about abortion or women about prostate screening, for examples.

I'm unhappy with any doctor holding a view that there are more than two sexes and that it is possible to change sex, because it's scientifically illiterate in a science based profession.

Steph isn't a woman. I have no objections to males in the medical profession treating me, I object to men not knowing what makes a woman. It leads me to think that they have a sketchy knowledge of biology.

Given the poor surgical outcomes of patients of male surgeons vs those operated on by female surgeons, I question whether the operating room is the right place for male surgeons at all 😀

Your points continue to miss the issue at hand.

You are now just attempting to characterise the arguments about representation as hate and sexism.

”I think your ire is focused on women who make choices you don’t approve of.”

No. Female people making decisions within charities they have founded are open to having their decisions evaluated.

”I wonder, do you also think male doctors should not work in or study or teach obstetrics, gynaecology or health conditions that mainly affect women? Do you think males should be excluded from voting in parliament on related issues?”

None of these are comparative and you have tried to reduce the issue to misandry and sexism and this is not the issue with this appointment.

”Endometriosis is nearly always a condition experienced by people born with a uterus - mostly cis women but also trans men, intersex, non-binary.”

Is more concisely and less open to confusion to be written :

Endometriosis is nearly always a condition experienced by people born with a uterus - mostly cis women but also trans men, intersex, non-binary female people.

And Richards is neither female, a person with endometriosis or a medical specialist in the field.

”Anyone affected by this debilitating condition deserves proper diagnosis, treatment and care, which is what we should be focusing on, imho.”

Yes. And what exact expertise or personal experience does Richards contribute that a female person with endometriosis or a medical specialist couldn’t contribute?

And if he doesn’t have a special contribution or perspective to offer, why has he taken the role a female person or medical specialist should have ? How exactly does his appointment provide “proper diagnosis, treatment and care”?

What people dislike is men cos-paying being a woman and flaunting their sexual proclivities ( because that is what AGP is) in front of them; whilst simultaneously expecting them to pretend they believe he is female. Women and girls have, generally, a lot of experience of creepy men and can spot them a mile off.
Men who fetishise aspects of perceived 'femininity' or who have obsessions with female bodily function.

I can well imagine this is what draws a few male doctors to female medical specialisms, but at least they are not actually pretending to be women as well....to add further insult.

Which 'women who make choices 'we' dont approve of' are you talking about?

Steph is no woman. So who do you mean?