Glorianny
So if it is sexist for an all women panel to choose a man to deal with period poverty would it be sexist for an all male panel to appoint a woman to head a campaign to highlight prostate cancer?
Or is it only sexist when women aren't chosen?
Not at all, and nobody has said or hinted at any such thing.
It is sexist, however, to assume that the reason a woman raises doubts about what is a clearly inappropriate appointment (confirmed by events) is because of hysteria, being unhinged, unsisterly and so on, as opposed to acknowledging that there are doubts to be raised. To appoint a female specialist in prostate issues (would that be endocrinology? I’m not sure) would be no different from appointing a male obstetrician - ie unremarkable. There are obvious differences between your examples, but there is no reason why someone of either sex shouldn’t highlight a medical condition if they are medically qualified.
Campaigning for dignity is a very different matter, though. No medical knowledge is required, but an inkling of the indignities suffered by some women and girls, sometimes from the age of around 10 until middle age would be a useful place to start, and it’s a fair assumption that women would have a better idea of those then men. Any sort of sensitivity to women’s issues, and a desire to support women in employment would indicate that unless a man is unusually in tune with women’s issues (and I would suggest that someone with cause to believe that of himself would be unlikely even to apply for such a role) he is probably not going to have as much idea as a woman.
Anyway, this is less about his sex than his capacity to do the job, which is what people have been saying all along, even though we are only an unhinged and unsisterly mob with chips on our shoulders.
.