'Isn't it ridiculous,' asks a caption beside Steph Richards's photo on the charity's handouts, 'that I've got to my 40s before any medical professionals even mentioned endometriosis?'
At this point, I should point out that Steph isn't actually in her 40s: she's 71. And if no one discussed endometriosis with her when she was younger, the most likely explanation is that she's a trans woman and doesn't have a womb.
Then why are you going along with this utter nonsense and calling him 'she' and 'her'?
Because we're talking about medical conditions that can be life-changing, sometimes with fatal consequences, I think it's important to use clear language. Steph Richards is not biologically female. However, I'm going to use her preferred pronouns and refer to her as she, since I fervently believe everyone has a right to live any way they choose - provided that it's not at the expense of other vulnerable groups.
If we continue this fiction out of politeness, we deserve all we get. We'll just get more fiction. We can argue, as Tim does, that we don't require a head of a charity to be the thing that the charity campaigns for, but that's rather missing the point.
Why would this man be hired? Because he's a great fundraiser? Maybe. But if not, then he's a token, a sticker that says 'Look, we support trans rights!'. And anyone with any self respect wouldn't want to be in that position, surely?
2 comments:
'Must admit I have no idea of the competence of this ‘person’.
But it’s peculiar delusions would make me very dubious about appointing it to do anything.'
This is the comment I made on Tims' blog. I might as well add that I use 'it' as Stephs' pronoun because I really dislike having to go to the bother of trying to figure out when people are lying to me.
"But it’s peculiar delusions would make me very dubious about appointing it to do anything."
If you're interviewing someone like this and you don't see huge flashing signs saying 'Warning! Trouble!' why is the company employing YOU?
Post a Comment