woman loses residency of son she was raising as daughter

Julie Bindle has written for the mail

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3865632/I-m-grateful-grew-children-don-t-fit-stereotypes-assumed-transgender-Feminist-activist-Julie-Bindel-danger-playing-gender-politics-young-lives.html

The thing that strikes me about the whole thing is that the trans part is simply a small aspect of the entire situation. The mother was obstructing contact, there were a number of safeguarding issues raised, apart from the transition itself, and her refusal to work with the court to facilitate contact with the father.

For me, reading the judgment itself, the trans issue was a small part of the whole picture, and certainly not the main driver for the change in residency.

I just checked the link, it was a 2013 article - must be coincidence someone on DH's Facebook dragged it up again this week, I guess.

All the evidence, especially from the judge who actually heard both parents in the court, shows that the father will support his child.

This is one of the (many) things that concern me in the wider reaction from the trans community - the assertion that the father doesn't recognise the child's right to explore gender and that J is being forced to live as a boy against his wishes. It's manifestly unfair - the court judgement makes clear the father is willing to support J in any way he can.
The shouts of "transphobic" to anyone who doesn't bow down to the view that J is a girl is extraordinary.

Blimey Annie, that article is properly scary.

DH signed the legal review petition last night. Still only at 500ish aparently, yet the Mermaids one was in the thousands. He didn't feel able to share it in social media either.

Did anyone catch the Richard O'Brien fuss? DH caught it on Facebook, RO'B basically said he agreed with Germaine Greer and was being slated for it. I think the link went to the Pink News website. It didn't mention this case so perhaps the timing was coincidental though.

That FB post from Mermaids didn’t actually say very much. No recognition that any child needs a lot more time and freedom to explore their identity than being labelled as trans when in pre-school.

It’s good that the judge has questioned the current orthodoxy, and emphasised the need for professionals to not fall into that trap.

It is very rare for a young child to believe that their gender is different from their sex; and of course they need support, especially in trying to understand why they believe that to be the case. This judgement is a useful reminder to the professionals that they need to balance acceptance and exploration. Child psychology, as a field, is probably one of the most challenging fields to work in. Young children can have a very wide vocabulary, but don’t necessarily have the nuances to even explain things to themselves, let alone other people. (Which also goes for many adults as well.)

If this young boy is trans, he will transition later. All the evidence, especially from the judge who actually heard both parents in the court, shows that the father will support his child.

Mermaids is a disgrace. If either of my kids' schools gets them in I will be kicking up the most almighty stink.

That's a really interesting article, Annie.

Have just read on the Transgender Trend website of the conference that Mermaids have just held, and of them kicking off anyone that might challenge them from the attendance list.

www.transgendertrend.com/transgender-diagnosis-and-treatment-of-kids-is-not-up-for-debate/

When I look at the eventbrite page for the event, I see it's been paid for by Lloyds Banking Group. Who presumably also have swallowed hook line and sinker the idea that these chartalans are experts of some sort.

www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/new-perspectives-on-healthcare-provision-for-transgender-youth-tickets-27439406002?utm_campaign=reminder_attendees_48hour_email&utm_medium=email&utm_source=eb_email&utm_term=eventname

Yes I can see that but they are not experts are they? My understand is that they are essentially a peer support group?

Also with the reported element of Parental Alienation, there is a risk of professionals colluding with an alienating parent if they are the only parent involved in any "assessment".

Mermaids positioning themselves as some kind of expert

But they are expert by most peoples definition. They seem to be the go to charity in the UK for trans issues, it's a very niche area outside the MN bubble so I guess there's not that much choice, plus of course they had been "helping" the family for 2/3 yearsbso can claim an intimate knowledge of both the overall issues and this specific case.

Pretty scary really - another symptom of this post truth era we live in I suppose...

The Transparency Project are very good at cutting through the hysteria and presenting the clear facts.

Mermaids positioning themselves as some kind of expert is worrying. Surely they are a (misguided) support service, not an expert witness with the qualifications and credentials that requires?

That's a really interesting link - thanks :)

How anybody can support the petition to return the child to his mother is a mystery to me.

• People tend to assume a child is always best off with the mother

• People want to prove they are not transohobic

This legal blog clearly explains both judgements in this case. How anybody can support the petition to return the child to his mother is a mystery to me.

It's interesting isn't it? It has made me wonder more about medical/health support charities. Presumably they must have a %age of users who don't have/don't know someone who has the condition, but is using the site to fuel their own version of reality. I wonder if sites have a responsibility to such users/ try and screen them out?

It's just awful isn't it, to call him a transgirl is misgendering him, what transactivists call literal violence! What gives them the right or the expertise to say that this child is a girl? This whole story is making me so angry towards Mermaids. They might think they are doing the right thing but leaving a child to decide for themselves, what the father is doing, is the best thing, surely?!

That statement absolutely plays into the fear. So irresponsible. I cannot understand how anyone who has read the publicised judgement can think that the judge has done the wrong thing.
The child clearly identified himself as a boy when at school, away from anyone who could be pressuring him. To continue to refer to the child as "she" is bizarre, offensive and shows collusion with the abuse.

Thank you for your kind words

With regards to the statement that mermaids have made, I can't understand why this would bring fear to parents of trans children.

I have had social services called on me numerous times due to allowing my child to live as they wish.

My ex and my mother take great embarrassment at the situation and began a campaign against me.

Each time I was able to demonstrate that I had got my child gender counselling, family counselling and individual counselling and that I made sure there was a nominated person at school my child could talk to without my involvement if a private chat was needed without me, and when they spoke my child told them that they knew that if they wanted to return to the name given at birth etc that I was fully supportive of that too.

I have no worries at all about them removing my child from me, despite the fact that my ex would, if he knew where we were now, have me in court and use this judgement against me.

Those who have worries about their child being removed for this issue alone really do need to look at why they feel afraid.

Mermaid's "statement" from Facebook:

The trustees' full names are available on the Charity Commission web site. As they are for all registered charities. It's hardly confidential information.

Yet

Of course ! It would have been in the previous judgement.

So a judge orders them to stay away from the kid. And three years later they still believe that they know him better than all the professionals working with him recently. Well OK then. Maybe they should consider adding "we are omniscient" to their About Us page.

Although I think they should start adding surnames as a first priority. Hardly the most transparent way to provide information about who's who when you proffer your trustees' first names only.

may be that the judgement made clear why Mermaids are not supposed to contact the child. If that part of the judgement is confidential, we will never know. It serves their purposes to portray themselves as victims of injustice

In this case I think the well practiced leap to claim victim status may be ill judged. The information that they were court ordered to have no contact with a child in now in the public arena. Without the actual ruling being available, the rather obvious conclusion very many people will arrive at is that the judge perceived their continued presence in the kid's life to be somewhat negative for the child at best, and downright damaging at worst.

The entire reason for your charity's existence is focused on vulnerable children and its work requires contact with vulnerable children. Yet a judge feels the need to put a legal barrier between your entire organisation and a vulnerable kid.

That doesn't look good.

If I identified as a man I would have assumed you were wrong