Susie Green

The 2017 Annual report makes clear the expansion of scope from supporting children/young people & families to a much wider role including lobbying, education etc etc

Is that a good idea? Or does it represent certain conflicts of interest which could be potentially problematic?

There are aspects to the way Mermaids are promoting themselves and their approach which are dangerously close to be accused of being cultish.

Combined with the comparison with section 28, it makes it difficult to apply scrutiny, accountability and transparency without being accused of being transphobic.

Given the Posie Parker situation, I also question about whether if there were genuine concerns whether it would be possible and indeed whether anyone would be willing to whistle blow if something DID happen. I think its rather undermined their ability to safeguard effectively as an organisation.

I have to say the whole culture around the charity, is one I don't think is particularly open. I think it is good practice for a charity to open to criticism and to questions about what they do and the information they are giving out. A real intolerance of that, is something I am deeply suspicious of.

Would I trust them? No. For these reasons over and above their central issue of what they are campaigning about.

& interview from The Independent April 2015 www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ive-been-called-an-abusive-and-dangerous-parent-when-all-i-did-was-listen-to-my-transgender-child-10165241.html

Here's Susie Green's TED Talk.

The 2017 Annual report makes clear the expansion of scope from supporting children/young people & families to a much wider role including lobbying, education etc etc

Its scope reads:
THE OBJECTS OF THE CIO ARE TO RELIEVE THE MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STRESS OF ALL PERSONS AGED 19 YEARS AND UNDER WHO ARE IN ANY MANNER AFFECTED BY GENDER IDENTITY ISSUES, AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND TO ADVANCE PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE SAME.

That doesn't really say much at all does it?

oops apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends75/0001160575_AC_20170331_E_C.PDF

Mermaids became a CIO (Charitable Incorporated Organisation) in 2015/16 and so is registered with The Charity Commission. The scope, activities and policies are therefore publically available eg [[http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends75/0001160575_AC_20170331_E_C.PDF] Mermaids2017] The Safeguarding policy is available on Mermaids website/

I don't know of any rules that are specific to lobbying, though there could be. It would probably fall under general safeguarding.

Creationism is a banned subject in free schools and academies, and the wording of the clauses of the ban I do find interesting. It is very specifically worded, and couldn't be applied to trans issues but at the same time there are some interesting points within that same wording:

^"Clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the funding agreement... explicitly require that pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching 'creationism' as scientific fact.
"'Creationism', for the purposes of clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the funding agreement and clause 23E above, is any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution. The parties acknowledge that creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream churches and religious traditions, including the major providers of state funded schools such as the [Anglican] [Catholic] Churches, as well as the scientific community. It does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory.^

"The parties recognise that the teaching of creationism is not part of prevailing practice in the English education system, but acknowledge that it is however important that all schools are clear about what is expected in terms of the curriculum which they need to provide. The parties further recognise that the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.

"The secretary of state acknowledges that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement, and clauses 23E and 23G above do not prevent discussion of beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things, such as creationism, in Religious Education, as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory."

The first thing I notice is the part about 'a broad and balanced curriculum'.

The second is 'It does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory.'

The third is that 'is any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution.'

Story about creationism ban here

Combined with this 'born in the wrong body' stuff which requires this notion of a spirit or soul and a denial of biology, I find some parallels here which make alarm bells go off in my head.

@RedToothBrush
Are there consequences for charities working with children but using verifiably manipulative and perhaps misleading information as persuasive tools? Not talking about Mermaids specifically - just a general question about charities and working with children? Do you know?

Mothers doing the best for their own children is one thing. And not all mothers do. And even when they do, they can still be misguided.

But where I really have a problem its when a mother decides that because she has done one thing that its the best thing and every other mother should do exactly the same. Its incredibly arrogant and incredibly narrow minded and self righteous. You see it all the time on debates like breast feeding.

The fake suicide stats are there to create and help support that monolithic approach to this. The suicide stats have so many issues - none of which are acknowledged by, well pretty much anyone - that I'm not going to go into them here.

You can not help others to make informed decisions if the information you are giving out is flawed, and isn't properly nuanced. You have to always apply the 'exceptions to the rule' can and do always exist too.

Anything else is irresponsible lobbying especially when you have an unhealthy emotional investment you can't separate from your own needs. This leads to you projecting them onto others. Which is in its very own right, a social contagion.

You need neutral language, neutral approaches, good quality information and multiple possible outcomes in order to be able make free choices.

This is where Mermaids are lobby group rather than a support group, because they fail on these scores.

I think she's fighting so hard for no debate because if she's ever forced to admit to herself that she got her son castrated because he wanted to be pretty and play with dolls then she'll just start screaming and never be able to stop, primal howl of grief and pain style.

Letting that be done to your child? How else can she live with herself other than by never allowing the idea that a different, better choice could have been made to exist?

I've had a look at TED talks but can't get anything when I look up Susie Green or Mermaids. She hasn't appeared under 'Transgender' either. Does anyone have the link please? I would like to look at it.

Sorry - forgot to provide the link!

This vlog by a young trans women is interesting.
She disagrees with Posie on many fronts but acknowledges the factual accuracy of the comments regarding castration and Posie's right to free speech.
It is good to see a young person making points like this. I think it is worth a watch.

Its probably a good time to promote how to donate. There will be a big upswell of support for Mermaids currently in many quarters....

It does seem an odd tweet - they get money from the govt. CIN and must get money for 'education outreach' projects to the police etc, and then there are the commercial tie-ups etc...........

Short of money for something...

I've seen more than one tweet about this and I'm wondering too. My understanding is that they are very well funded, so I'm not sure where all that money has gone?

& what of the emotional implications for a child waiting 10 years for this operation which will 'make her into a girl'?

but if it did LangCleg, a 6 year old child 'knew' that there was indeed an operation that would 'make her into a girl' .... and her Mum has told her she has to wait until she is grown up

Exactly! What is that, if not grooming?

Pmsl at

Person 1 - Money for what?
Person 2 - legal fees, lollipops, castrations, who knows?

twitter.com/confirmedturf/status/973988230830817280

Short of money for something...............

but if it did LangCleg, a 6 year old child 'knew' that there was indeed an operation that would 'make her into a girl' .... and her Mum has told her she has to wait until she is grown up.
There's so much in that statement to be concerned about.

• it also rather contradicts the emphatic statements that all that is available to children are 'safe and reversible' hormone blockers.

from the TedTalk, "At six years old she kept asking me 'when can I have the operation to make me a girl?' and it was really hard for me as a parent to watch the devastation when I told her she'd have to wait until she was a grown-up"

I honestly think this is all her own fever dream. None of it ever happened how she said it happened. It's all embroidery.

My youngest used to rush about declaring he was one of the female gladiators in that bloody awful TV show. But I'm not filming TED talks about it.

from the TedTalk, "At six years old she kept asking me 'when can I have the operation to make me a girl?' and it was really hard for me as a parent to watch the devastation when I told her she'd have to wait until she was a grown-up"

Umm. I appreciate the kindness on this thread. I'm aware, though, that very many women navigate complex and difficult family situations without feeling that it's appropriate to resolve them by having their underage child castrated and then going on a nationwide crusade to persuade other people's children that castration is the answer to their problems.