[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I wonder how people who are okay with this feel about the Secretaries of Education and Health having no relevant background.

I feel like I keep repeating myself lol but again for me it's about competence in the role, and based on the actual description of what the role will involve I can't see how Lily's sex will automatically make her incompetent. Here's the link again which as far as I'm aware is what the role involves...

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1445544799

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Quoting from the article:

Congratulating the teenager on her election, Teresa Murray, Medway councillor and vice-chairwoman of the executive committee of Rochester and Strood CLP, acknowledged that “Lily will have to work very hard to convince other people that her very presence there is not going to undermine them”.

The Labour councillor said that “lived experience as a woman” should be considered an advantage — but not a prerequisite — for the role of women’s officer. She added: “Someone who is an accountant would probably make a better treasurer initially, but that doesn’t mean we should only give the role to an accountant.”

Does that strike you as someone chosen because they are the best person for the role? Or does it more imply a complete mismatch that may work if the wind blows in the correct direction. That quote comes from one of those responsible for the decision.

That statement seems to me to be more about Lily needing to defy the preconceptions and assumptions that some will have based on her age and sex, rather than it being about her competance.

Originally Posted by Livia

No I don't need to look any deeper, Jamie. I'm speaking as a woman who has been in the workplace for a few years now, unlike this boy who has only just done his bloody A levels! Like TS said, even if he wasn't male, even if he was a female, at 19 years old he just doesn't have the life skills or the experience needed for a job like this.

Do we really know enough about her qualifications/knowledge/training/competence to be able to say that for certain without even considering the possibility she might do a good job? Do we know if lily has actually done anything in the role that shows her to be incompetent? Do we know if the women she's dealt with have been happy with her? It all seems to be assumptions to me based on things that fall outside of what the actual role description is and it seems odd to me that those things should be ignored is all.

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Exactly. I find it abit insulting actually. I do wonder what men would think also if it were a female to male 19 year old transgendered person who got a job strictly to do with mens issues how they would feel about it? It makes no sense at all except for if they are trying to prove how "progressive" they are by doing it........whilst being regressive towards women at the same time

Which issues? Which parts of the job role are we talking about here?