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.

I know very little about him, i can agree with taking issue of him getting a position as an individual, but i have no issue with a man having the position anymore than i have an issue with a woman having a position in prostate cancer uk, who coincidently have a female CEO and a female chair.

Might be an idea to read the thread through again.

CEO and Chair roles are business oriented roles. They may have representational duties or they may not.

This man has been appointed in a parliamentary engagement role which is purely and only about influencing the outcomes of parliament for endometriosis. This repeated distraction tactic of mentioning Prostate Cancer UK as some kind of comparative situation is just that. A weak and false distraction.

The equivalent would be if Prostate Cancer appointed a woman as an influential ambassador who attended parliamentary committees or a UN committee on prostate cancer.

Whether prostrate cancer UK should appoint women into business roles or not is a different discussion.

TLDR / Prostrate Cancer UK staffing is irrelevant to Richards’ appointment. It is not a clever gotcha despite the influencers who started using it thinking that it is.

What was that statistic about female surgeons who've been assaulted during an actual operation? The fact that it's ever happened at all is bad enough, but the fact you can make a significant statistic out of it?

People saying, so would you stop men doing this, that or the other conveniently ignore quite a few of the reasons why many women would say yes. Shame them for it, in fact.

Just because it might be considered sexist to stop men doing certain things, doesn't mean that a significant number of other men won't exploit and abuse women whilst doing them.

Expecting women to pretend a man is female, being one of them

If the woman heading up a prostate charity pretended she was a man, I'd have an equal issue.

I'm not much in favour of men being appointed to a role that a women should be appointed to. When a man who is a con merchant who's claiming to be a women, who's a proven women hater, who's appointed to speak for a charity that claims to be researching a condition that only affects women, that's when I have a problem.

Seriously. Even if it were relevant, look at their bios and compare them to this charlatan. They are serious people with real qualifications and experience.

BTW none of the people at Prostate Cancer UK claim to be of the opposite sex to the one into which they were born.

He's inserting himself into something that belongs to women in order to add to his experience of being a women. He's using the charity as a prop in his fantasy, it's gained him access to parliament, where he can perform his gross pantomime to great applause. Which he will use as a platform to promote and lobby for a deeply misogynistic cause. What's not to object to, and those that defend him are props in his fantasy too.

💯

This poster knows Richards is a man otherwise they wouldn't be asking whether we think other men should work in womens healthcare

Yep. Some posters do choose ‘gotchas’ that show just how little they think these men are in anyway female.

the argument here seems to be that a trans woman is really a man, so it’s relevant to explore whether this can be extrapolated to other men in roles that relate to health issues that many impact women.

The argument feels very confused with lots of contradictions.

the argument here seems to be that a trans woman is really a man

Correct. And not remotely confusing or contradictory to any rational person.

What are you confused about?

Humans can't change sex so a man who identifies as a woman is still a man

What is your confusion?

The person concerned is male and can have no idea of what experiencing a parody period is like never mind the agony of endometriosis.

They have been appointed to a PR liason role with Parliament which many, many women feel is an inappropriate appointment because it means talking about the actual experience of endometriosis.

It does not compare with appointing a CEO to a charity with extensive experience of managing charities in the same sector, nor with a professional medic treating women for female-only conditions.

Why is that difficult to understand?

Couldn't agree more.

A trans woman is really a man pretending to be a woman.

This is relevant to this discussion because:

1. Basic biological reality denial
2. Insisting on taking roles intended for actual women, whether for dignity, safety and privacy reasons or just because only a woman will have personal insight into what she's talking about.
3. Speaking for and over actual women while allowing their contempt and misogyny to show.

If male medical staff aren't doing those things, they're not relevant to this discussion.

I know you know this perfectly well really. But in the interests of clarity.

I have no idea how "parody" got in there 🤣

Well why don't you give an example some of the things that confuse you, maybe we can help unconfuse you.

.......but of course he's a man, it's the one single defining feature of his being trans.

Are "parody periods" the ones afflicting those poor souls on transgender reddit? 🤔

Of course he's a man, why would you believe anything else?

Exactly. I'm sure men with prostate cancer would be offended if a trans-identifying woman who claimed to be a man was chosen as their representative in parliament. The insult comes from both that farce and the fact that Steph Richards is so incredibly unqualified, not only in terms of personal experience but also professional. He brings nothing to the role and simultaneously insults the women affected by it with his woman-face LARPing and misogynistic stances.

My preference would always be for a woman in such a role, but if there was a well qualified, professional man who didn't take away attention from women and the disease with a bizarre and sexualised lifestyle choice I wouldn't be complaining as I have.

No but that's almost the point (or two, actually)

1. Tiny chip, chip, chip is the way we lose our foothold in the world, the right to just exist in a female body, in female places. Small things matter.

1. If it's run by women, then all well and good, but while there's a bloke in a frock in a position of power then it's not a simple disagreement on a point of view.