Endometriosis charity appoints trans woman as the new head of the organisation.

What Steph Richards said re numbers.
*"I look at woman, but also look at the issue of trans men and non-binary people. There’s something like 5,000 trans men who have endometriosis who probably feel absolutely rather left out. There’s also non-binary people'.
Ms Barnett cut in 'but the vast majority are women', before Ms Richards then insisted 'yes of course the vast majority are women, does that mean we should leave behind trans men Emma?"
"I’m happy to use the word woman, I realise the vast majority of endometriosis affects women. You’ll also know there’s 29 cases of endometriosis found in men.'*

Thanks for that OldFrill.

So how would you feel if you were called a TERF VS? I don't have to have been on the receiving end of an abusive term before I'm prepared to condemn its use.

Why would a transman feel ‘left out’? If someone has a condition they have it. In this case it is a condition of the female body. The treatment will be the same whether the sufferer claims to be a man or a woman. If they have had surgery examination will, I assume, be more difficult, but again, if there are 5000 transmen and millions of women with endo, why would it be ‘leaving them (the transmen) behind’ to concentrate on the fact that it is a disease of the female body? Transmen have female bodies, for goodness sake. They can adjust bits to pander to notions of so-called ‘gender’, but their sex is female, whether they like it or not.

It is so funny that all these comments are being made about men taking over, when what is actually being criticised is one person, who identifies as a woman, and who is supporting the idea that identifying as a man is something to be recognised and provided for.
But the naysayers (and sorry if you don't like that term) who think Steph is still a man, are criticising her for supporting the needs of people they think are still women.
Obviously though not the right sort of women.

It is absolutely nothing to do with women's rights. It isn't just to do with transwomen. It is to do with giving people the right to identify as they wish and providing services equally for everyone.

It is, as I keep saying, a storm in a teacup. I don’t see the funny side, but nor do I think it’s about endometriosis. What experience in the field of gynaecology or being a CEO does Steph bring to the party?

But the naysayers (and sorry if you don't like that term) who think Steph is still a man
Think?
Has Steph found a magic wand which changes chromosomes?

Doodledog

Why would a transman feel ‘left out’? If someone has a condition they have it. In this case it is a condition of the female body. The treatment will be the same whether the sufferer claims to be a man or a woman. If they have had surgery examination will, I assume, be more difficult, but again, if there are 5000 transmen and millions of women with endo, why would it be ‘leaving them (the transmen) behind’ to concentrate on the fact that it is a disease of the female body? Transmen have female bodies, for goodness sake. They can adjust bits to pander to notions of so-called ‘gender’, but their sex is female, whether they like it or not.

The point is nothing to do with the treatment or their bodies. It is simply to do with their right to identify as they wish, to be addressed as they ask, and for services to recognise and provide for them.
You could draw a parallel between this and women wanting to be addressed as Ms, not as Miss or Mrs. When they first asked it was regarded as extreme and unnecessary, now it's widely used and accepted.

^not the right sort of woman^ there's only one sort of woman, an adult female who regardless of how she may identify and/or what medical procedures and hormone therapy she undertakes, will always be a woman.

Trans men are still women.

Literature for an endo charity that refers to those who have need of its services being referred too as people, is not acknowledging their right to be identified as they wish.

An excellent suggestion was made earlier on this thread by Rosie which would be inclusive without being offensive or giving the impression that yet again, there's a desire to eradicate the word woman.

It is to do with giving people the right to identify as they wish and providing services equally for everyone

But it's not about that at all, is it!
It's about girls and women, females, who suffer from a distressing condition. That does, of course, include those who wish to identify as boys or men and a very tiny number of men who have endometriosis (are there any in the UK?).

The whole focus of this charity has been misdirected and misappropriated by this very foolish appointment.

Callistemon21

^It is to do with giving people the right to identify as they wish and providing services equally for everyone^

But it's not about that at all, is it!
It's about girls and women, females, who suffer from a distressing condition. That does, of course, include those who wish to identify as boys or men and a very tiny number of men who have endometriosis (are there any in the UK?).

The whole focus of this charity has been misdirected and misappropriated by this very foolish appointment.

Why has it been misappropriated and misdirected? Is the charity now not supporting people?
Why is the appointment foolish? Do you have evidence that Steph cannot do the job?

This is simply a storm in a teacup stirred up by those who want to regulate other people. Quite why I have no idea.
It's certainly not to support women, unless they are women who fit into certain set categories.

You could draw a parallel between this and women wanting to be addressed as Ms, not as Miss or Mrs. When they first asked it was regarded as extreme and unnecessary, now it's widely used and accepted.

No. You could draw a parallel.
because that’s a parallel between personal preference and supporting a lie.
I don’t support lies. You obviously feel you can.

Glorianny
This is simply a storm in a teacup stirred up by those who want to regulate other people.
Absolutely.

He, and apparently you, want to regulate those who don’t accept the lies told about being able to change sex, and what words people should be obliged to use to support the lie.
Incidentally,
Endometriosis is derived from the word “endometrium,” which is the tissue that lines the uterus.
Exactly how many males have a uterus?

Mollygo

Glorianny
This is simply a storm in a teacup stirred up by those who want to regulate other people.
Absolutely.

He, and apparently you, want to regulate those who don’t accept the lies told about being able to change sex, and what words people should be obliged to use to support the lie.
Incidentally,
Endometriosis is derived from the word “endometrium,” which is the tissue that lines the uterus.
Exactly how many males have a uterus?

As l understand it one theory is that males can have the tissue without having a uterus. This quote from nih.gov explains it. There are papers available online for more in-depth research. Much remains unknown about the causes of endometriosis in women, much more so in men.

"The induction theory of endometriosis hypothesizes that embryonic cell rests may persist in males and be induced into endometrial tissue. Divergence between male and female urogenital systems occurs from a common primordium, allowing for homologous structures to exist between the two genders [16]." Copy & paste the text to find the paper

There is a certain condition that means men could be more susceptible (can't remember the name). Also it is thought hormone therapy for prostate issues can be a cause if the man has the tissue in situ.

Thanks OldFrill. Your first sentence sums up what I know in exactly the words I would use.
As l understand it one theory is. . . .
The desire to link this to males being called women (AHF) and citing % of males who have endometriosis is fascinating.

Why has it been misappropriated and misdirected? Is the charity now not supporting people?
I would say that the charity has been misappropriated by the trans cause, probably well before this 'appointment'. Of course, charities can support whatever they like. If they want to raise money for the 29 men suffering from endometriosis, there is no reason why they shouldn't do that, but it is, IMO, a good idea to make that clear, in the name of the charity and in its mission statement, before people donate funds.

Why is the appointment foolish? Do you have evidence that Steph cannot do the job? Do you have evidence of Steph's ability, or Steph's experience in either gynaecology or as a CEO? I asked this upthread, but was ignored. TBH, as this is a small, local charity (turnover c£8300 last year), none of it matters, other than because it has engendered yet another narrative of how male people are more capable than women to lead female-centric charities, run the WI and so on. As a PR stunt, it has been very successful.

This is simply a storm in a teacup stirred up by those who want to regulate other people. Quite why I have no idea.
Agreed, but I am pretty sure I know why. It has been stirred up to make the case that TWAW, that nothing should be for women to have for ourselves, and to control speech to the degree that people are forced to say that men can be women.

It's certainly not to support women, unless they are women who fit into certain set categories.
Well yes. Women are very much at the bottom of the pile the it comes to the trans agenda.

Why has it been misappropriated and misdirected? Is the charity now not supporting people?
I would say that the charity has been misappropriated by the trans cause, probably well before this 'appointment'. Of course, charities can support whatever they like. If they want to raise money for the 29 men suffering from endometriosis, there is no reason why they shouldn't do that, but it is, IMO, a good idea to make that clear, in the name of the charity and in its mission statement, before people donate funds
But it isn't just to do with trans people either. I've just googled it and it is something natal men have been diagnosed with. It may be something few women know about but even fewer men are likely to know. In fact the charity, the illness and the people who may suffer from it have all been highlighted by this appointment.

Why is the appointment foolish? Do you have evidence that Steph cannot do the job? Do you have evidence of Steph's ability, or Steph's experience in either gynaecology or as a CEO?
I asked this upthread, but was ignored. TBH, as this is a small, local charity (turnover c£8300 last year), none of it matters, other than because it has engendered yet another narrative of how male people are more capable than women to lead female-centric charities, run the WI and so on. As a PR stunt, it has been very successful.
So it has raised the profile of the charity and Steph has a record having established Transluscent a charity of information about trans people translucent.org.uk/. Not a foolish appointment then.
This is simply a storm in a teacup stirred up by those who want to regulate other people. Quite why I have no idea
Agreed, but I am pretty sure I know why. It has been stirred up to make the case that TWAW, that nothing should be for women to have for ourselves, and to control speech to the degree that people are forced to say that men can be women
The usual diatribe about transwomen. There are transmen and non-binary people. Quite where they fit in to this "men are taking over everything philosopy" I have yet to discover. In fact they don't.
It's certainly not to support women, unless they are women who fit into certain set categories.
Well yes. Women are very much at the bottom of the pile the it comes to the trans agenda
Not only the trans agenda. If they support transpeople women are denigrated as misogynistic by some who say they aren't TERFs but have a similar agenda.. Those designated women but want to be men or are non-binary, well they are just ignored. Only those who agree are respected. Those who don't comply with the concept that men are taking over, simply don't count.

The usual diatribe about transwomen. No need to be rude.

There are transmen and non-binary people. Quite where they fit in to this "men are taking over everything philosopy" I have yet to discover. In fact they don't.
Well that depends on your perspective. Transmen are 'identifying' into maleness - the head of the patriarchy, and as such are clearly not choosing to fight for women. Non-binary people seem to be rejecting gender by accepting that it exists. How can one be 'non-binary' unless there is a binary to reject? Again, by opting out, non-binary people are actively rejecting what is female, (and male, obviously, but we are addressing how this impacts on women) so again, are not, by definition, supporting women.
Not only the trans agenda. If they support transpeople women are denigrated as misogynistic by some who say they aren't TERFs but have a similar agenda.. Those designated women but want to be men or are non-binary, well they are just ignored. Only those who agree are respected. Those who don't comply with the concept that men are taking over, simply don't count.
How do you know who other people respect? Or who is ignored? That is a ludicrous generalisation, with another ill-concealed dig ('some who say they aren't TERFs', is reminiscent of 'Brutus is an honourable man').

Speaking for myself, I respect those who are honest and say what they mean. Pretending that TWAW, and a refusal to recognise that this means that femaleness has been reduced to an option that anyone can take, and the things that make us women are irrelevancies, is neither honest nor meaningful.

A transperson of any persuasion who says 'I am trans and therefore a man/woman who would like to 'live as' a woman/man is honest and straightforward (insofar as that aspect of them is concerned, at least). Someone saying 'I am a woman, despite the fact that I have a penis, male gametes and a male physique, and anyone who refuses to join in my fantasy is phobic' is not.

I am not sure how many times I have pointed out that the last thing gender critical people do is ignore transmen. I think this may be the billionth time I have pointed this out.

Yes, Galaxy, but of course we are ignored. Does this make us 'the wrong kind of women'?

Galaxy

I am not sure how many times I have pointed out that the last thing gender critical people do is ignore transmen. I think this may be the billionth time I have pointed this out.

Could you explain to me exactly how transmen fit into this "men are taking things from women" then, please.
Because as I understand it the gender critical think they are women, just not women whose views deserve consideration. Which basically means some women are equal and some aren't.

What on earth do you mean. Lots of women hold completely different views to me this doesnt mean they dont deserve consideration. I am an atheist I think Christian women deserve consideration, I just dont believe what they do.

I am pro a womans right to choose but guess what I think women who dont believe in abortion are entitled to express their views and be treated with consideration.

Doodledog

*The usual diatribe about transwomen.* No need to be rude.

There are transmen and non-binary people. Quite where they fit in to this "men are taking over everything philosopy" I have yet to discover. In fact they don't.
Well that depends on your perspective. Transmen are 'identifying' into maleness - the head of the patriarchy, and as such are clearly not choosing to fight for women. Non-binary people seem to be rejecting gender by accepting that it exists. How can one be 'non-binary' unless there is a binary to reject? Again, by opting out, non-binary people are actively rejecting what is female, (and male, obviously, but we are addressing how this impacts on women) so again, are not, by definition, supporting women.
Not only the trans agenda. If they support transpeople women are denigrated as misogynistic by some who say they aren't TERFs but have a similar agenda.. Those designated women but want to be men or are non-binary, well they are just ignored. Only those who agree are respected. Those who don't comply with the concept that men are taking over, simply don't count.
How do you know who other people respect? Or who is ignored? That is a ludicrous generalisation, with another ill-concealed dig ('some who say they aren't TERFs', is reminiscent of 'Brutus is an honourable man').

Speaking for myself, I respect those who are honest and say what they mean. Pretending that TWAW, and a refusal to recognise that this means that femaleness has been reduced to an option that anyone can take, and the things that make us women are irrelevancies, is neither honest nor meaningful.

A transperson of any persuasion who says 'I am trans and therefore a man/woman who would like to 'live as' a woman/man is honest and straightforward (insofar as that aspect of them is concerned, at least). Someone saying 'I am a woman, despite the fact that I have a penis, male gametes and a male physique, and anyone who refuses to join in my fantasy is phobic' is not.

Well first of all not all men are complicit or part of the patriarchy. There are even feminist men. This drawing of lines and insisting on absolutes isn't compatible with real life.
Even if transmen are identifying with the patriarchy I would consider that is their right and that is nothing to do with gender. Many natal women identify with the patriarchy (Margaret Thatcher for example).
As transmen and non-binary people exist the concept that transwomen only become trans in order to take over women's roles and functions is flawed. It is something which affects both sexes.
As for transmen being ignored, every time a post insists that the issue is solely to do with transwomen, transmen and non-binary people are ignored . This is a people issue.

I have no idea what the things that make us women are. I share some things with some women. I share some things with some natal women. I share some things with some transwomen.
As for what's in someone's pants. I have often been accused of obsessing about this. I really don't. I don't know what's in most people's and I don't want to know.
Few people examine what's inside most judge from external appearances and designate people man, or woman, or unknown, from that.

I still don't understand why the charity cannot say that it exists for

Women
Transmen
Those who are non-binary

???

Are any of those titles taboo?

The usual diatribe about transwomen

The usual diatribe about anyone who doesn’t accept the current TW use of lying to cheat in sport, etc, etc.

In the past living as a woman didn’t involve the actions and demands perpetrated by those TW we now hear so much about.
They did not attack females, cheat in sport, make untruthful claims about being able to change sex, demand that words like mother, or breast-feeding were changed, claim to have period pains etc.

It’s interesting to wonder, do these violent or cheating TW who claim to be women think that the way women are treated by them, is the way women should be treated?
Do they believe that women who tell the truth -that sex is immutable, should be deplatformed, removed from office, threatened or actually physically harmed?
Is being under attack by males how they picture their lives as the women they purport to be?
Or do they think-as current actions seem to indicate- that as male women, they will be able to protect themselves from the actions of the TW and fans currently attacking females?