woman loses residency of son she was raising as daughter

That was interesting, almond, I agree. It's like a script.

And back on Mermaids - since this kid says he is a boy, and since Mermaids are supporting the mother who says he is a trans girl, and since misgendering is a horrible, terrible crime which literally kills people, are Mermaids going to launch a campaign against themselves for their terrible bigoted transphobia?

'However what struck me forcibly, both then and indeed at this final hearing, was that M spoke of J only in the somewhat opaque and convoluted argot of social work and psychology. She offered an impressive, intense and highly articulate evaluation of the problems faced by children with gender dysphoria but she conveyed no sense of J's personality, temperament or enthusiasms, notwithstanding frequently being encouraged to do so. Repeatedly she struck me as a professional witness giving evidence about somebody else's child.'

This is the impression I get in most cases where people discuss gender identity. I think it's a wider ideology this family have ended up massively caught up in, and it is really sad.

It does sound like a weird case of Munchausen by proxy, doesn't it?

The judge did seem to buy into the "boys toys" trap, but seemed broadly sensible, and at least didn't go the whole hog of being a crusty old fart who couldn't understand gender noncomformity. And it's very possible the kid is kicking against what he's been forced into, and is deliberately (if unconciously) choosing "boy's toys" - or rather, toys he has seen other boys prefer, since there's no such thing as an actual "boy's toy" - as an assertion of this, rather than the possession of a penis meaning he will naturally have an affinity for toy tractors, or whatever. (And the mother seemed to equally buy into the "girl's toys" thing, too.

Mermaids is a disgrace. They may have started out as well-meaning at some point, but at this point their weird insistence that any gender non-conformity (or in this case assertion of a parent of gender non-conformity) means the child must be trans, is like some form of cult.

I think the judge made the right decision.

The statements made about the mother match what I've seen of trans activism on here. She hasn't become that way from living in a vacuum; her behaviour has been influenced by what's going on more generally.

The judge's assessment of the child after moving in with the father and his partner are based mostly on things that have nothing to do with gender at all, which is how it should be.

But why, Elendon? What do you think the judge should have done?

Yes I did read the judgement. It was a lazy decision.

Sorry, Hells, when I said 'to be clearer' I was referring to my own previous post. Yours was beautifully clear

And, to be even clearer, there's no suggestion that the child SHOULD like 'boy' things. He was clearly moving from one context (life with his mother) where he was pressurised into pink unicorns, into another (school) where the pressure was towards nerf guns. Ideally, we would want our children to be able to play with unicorns, nerf guns, spongebob et al without anyone speculating on their gender identity or telling them there is something wrong with them. The person who gets the best write-up, the father, is the person who - according to the judge - is most relaxed about letting the child choose his own activities and his own gender identity.

Having read the judgment, I think the judge did the right thing to protect the child. Para 74 of the judgment seems to be the crux of the decision to place the child with the father:

"My experience in the Family Division leaves me with little doubt that some children, as young as 4, 5, 6 years of age may identify strongly with their opposite gender. Such children can experience rejection and abuse arising from ignorance both on a personal and institutional level. Though none of the parties referred me to it, I have read the House of Commons Select Committee report 'Transgender Equality', dated 14th January 2016, which investigates the challenges in securing sensitive NHS care and accessing affirming educational environments for transgender adults and children. It is important that such children are listened to and their views afforded respect but, to my mind, they are ill served by premature labelling. What they require, as F has so capably demonstrated, is the opportunity to develop their identity in which ever way it evolves. J was not only deprived of that space and opportunity by his mother, he was pressed into a gender identification that had far more to do with his mother's needs and little, if anything, to do with his own. "

From the outset it appears the various authorities appear to have been sucked into the 'but he's a girl' story of the mother, without there being any actual evidence. "There was no independent or supportive evidence that J identified as a girl at all, indeed there was a body of material that suggested the contrary."

Also, the mother's behaviour as recorded in the judgment appears to be both concerning and highly inappropriate.

Yes, the judge wasn't saying that spongebob = boy.

It was the mother insisting the child would only do 'girly' things and saying that meant he is a girl. So the judge pointed out that, when not under the influence of the mother and with his peer group, the boy actually gravitated to 'boy' things.

That doesn't mean that boys should do 'boy' things, or that liking spongebob means you must be a boy. But it does mean that the mothers' insistence that the child must be transgender because he only likes stereotypically 'girl' things, is looking very dodgy.

But that doesn't work does it, unless we agree that liking spongebob = really a boy?

Or is the issue that the mother had refused to allow him to watch these programmes - evidence of forcing the identity onto him?

I should add that I agree with you that gender based toys and TV is nonsense. But it was the mother who was the fierce proponent of that (e.g. her son wore nail varnish and dresses and so wanted to be a girl) and the judge was simply pointing out that the child was not fixated on 'girls toys'.

Elendon, did you read the full judgement? the judge said very clearly that she understood and accepted that some children, even from a young age, strongly identify with the opposite sex. But in this case, the evidence suggested this agenda was being pushed by the mother onto the child. The discussion of stereotypical toys was presented to show that, when living with a father who allegedly was happy to let the child choose his own identity, the child chose to start playing with stereotypically 'male' toys. Not because you have to play with those toys to be a boy, but because when exposed to male peers the child chose to fit with their norms. So it's not that boy toys made him a boy, but that without the mother present, her 'evidence' that he wanted to be a girl started to look rather thin.

My daughters, biologically female, loved the Power Rangers and Sponge Bob, as did their brother. We all loved the tv series Heroes as well.

Gender based toys and TV series is an absolute nonsense. Biological sex is science. Or thinking the world is flat is an absolute nonsense, thinking earth revolves around the sun is science.

The quote has been taken from the full judgement where it states( J boy F dad):

I have noted from reports that J has become interested in Power Rangers, SpongeBob, Superheroes and is constantly finding new interests. F, significantly to my mind, does not always share J's enthusiasms, though he goes along with them. It is striking that most of J's interests are male oriented. I am entirely satisfied, both on the basis of the reports and F's evidence at this hearing, that he has brought no pressure on J to pursue masculine interests. J's interests and energy are entirely self motivated

This reads differentlying to me that the newspaper quote. Lots of other details in the full judgement make me think the judge was right

I saw this too. I think the judge did the right thing.

The judge ruled on biology, the boy was a boy, but deemed he should have gender toys.

elendon the full judgment is very interesting. To me the judge said it more to illustrate there is no evidence for the mothers assertion that the boy was transgender.
It's very scary and I feel very sad for the boy. And definitely agree mermaids need to be taking a long hard look at themselves. It seems almost cultish how the mother pushed that life on her son.

I think the judge was unfortunate, but I does look like the boy was prevented from choosing his own toys. I suspect he was trying to say that what the boy played with previously wasn't his actual preferences.

The problem here is up to what point he's being pressured by dad to act like a boy. I wonder.

I think the judge done what is best for the poor child.

To me to force your child to be something they are not is a type of abuse and it can leave deep emotional scars. Hopefully his Dad will help him to heal

I hope the mother seeks professional help, she clearly needs it to do that to her own child

I agree Thirtyrock
My middle DD hates dresses, hates hair/make up but adores all sports, climbing trees, helping DH fix the car and loves baking. Does that make her Trans gender? No she is just a child that does what she enjoys

This is very different from living as a "non-gendered" child.
It reminds me of Munchausen by proxy for some reason. Only easier than pretending illnesses.

So basically, Judge has said that boys will be boys and girls will be girls.

Such a cop out. These people get paid a six figure salary. It's lazy thinking.

I think the judge made the right call.

Imagine the emotional harm to the child being forced to be something he wasn't it's not right. Surely that is a type of abuse?

The mother will hopefully look at accessing some mental health services for herself, she must need them

Also feel it's a disturbing and damaging trend of today. I was a total tomboy and aged about 6/7 would often pretend to be a boy , could do a really good tree wee etc and if asked then I'd have probably said I wanted to be a boy but it was totally a phase and just part of acting things out as a kid. The idea that in today's society this could be argued as a sign of being transgender is pretty alarming .

Well mermaids can sing but their song either leads to disaster or no one listens to them.