mermaids and children in care

But again, as the largest, most respected charity which is the go-to organisation on suicide, don't the Samaritans have a duty to speak out on this?

Are they aware of these unethical tactics Mermaids use? Do they know how Mermaids a) lie about the suicide figures and b) promote the idea that the choice is between affirmation or suicide for kids who declare they are trans?

Mermaids totally ignores the Samaritans Guidelines on the Responsible Reporting of Suicide

Many of the TRAs do - it serves their purpose both for people to believe the statistics, and for young people to believe them too.

Mermaids totally ignores the Samaritans Guidelines on the Responsible Reporting of Suicide

www.samaritans.org/media-centre/media-guidelines-reporting-suicide

Because the TRA have the power of saying "trans kids will kill themselves if you don't affirm" .

something why on earth aren't tavistock doing something about this then? surely they are the people with both knowledge and some power?

The Tavistock advice is sensible and balanced.

Mermaids, despite being plastered over every helpline, NHS advice site etc, do not see eye to eye with The Tavistock. Susie Greens TED talk refers to her daughter being "annihilated" when she attended. Which is presumably why she then only consulted with medical professionals who agreed with her from then on.

I keep reading on threads like this that we will look back on this as a scandal of the same proportions as the current child abuse scandals.
Loads of people are seeing this haopen
Please please can this be the time when these people are listened to before even more young people are supported to fuck their lives up

You know what though, at least it is possible that with children in care, their histories might be known to some of the adults working with them. They may hopefully receive treatment for their trauma. Despicable though it is to groom the most vulnerable children, I am almost more concerned about children who are not already on the radar for any services. Children who are sexually abused often don't tell anyone. Their behaviour changes instead. If that change in behaviour involves rejection of being a girl, for instance, then the sign of abuse will be missed when the assumption is made that being in the wrong body is the cause of the problem.

That Tavistock advice seems sensible?

As far as I'm aware, the NSPCC have drunk the Kool-Aid taught to them by pressure groups like Mermaids.

Which is why the girl guides threads are so revealing. The NSPCC are being challenged.

This is the advice given to professionals working with young people given by the Tavistock clinic:

"Help to keep options open and maintain safe uncertainty.
Young people’s identities are developing throughout adolescence and into adulthood, and some people decide that they would like to express their gender identity in lots of different ways, which may change over time. Keeping options open is important to allow a young person to feel able to change paths if they want to."

gids.nhs.uk/working-therapeutically

"If a young person tells you they are trans and want to transition it's safe to say they are pretty sure about it"

Well, Mermaids, I have a DC who proves otherwise.

Responsible adults should absolutely not be blindly ‘affirming chosen gender’ of children - especially those more likely to have suffered sexual abuse - without unpicking where it is coming from.

YES. This. We are talking about children who have been removed from their families in horrific circumstances. Many will have suffered emotional and sexual abuse. Of course they will have disturbed thoughts around their gender identity and will want to e.g. delay puberty or fight against signs of sexual maturity. We KNOW this. It does not mean that they are trans.

Makes me want to cry- the authorities are supposed to protect these children, offer them a safe haven. The phrase 'fucked up' does not even begin to describe the lives that some of these children will lead if they are told that they are the opposite sex and are given hormones and told to change their name.

And this:
Transexual: person who elects to change their physical sex through genital reconstruction surgery (GRS)- and/or chest reconstruction surgery.

Oh really? Change physical sex? So that is now possible? How interesting, because it wasn't when I went to sleep last night. Science must have come on leaps and bounds overnight.

Oh my god. This is so so dangerous. "If a young person tells you they are trans and want to transition it's safe to say they are pretty sure about it". What the fuck?

I don't have time to google, but does anyone have a link to the research done that at least 80% of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it? What have these people taken to make them believe this ridiculous shit? This is 100% genuine child abuse advocated in this stupid stupid guide. The woman behind Mermaids has single handedly destroyed so many young lives and families. Unbelievable.

Also, with the pronoun table, why do you need 10 additional pronouns that are not he and she? Are we all expected to learn Spivak, whatever that is?

What is happening to the world?

What is the view of the NSPCC on this guidance?

It might be a sobering thing for them to be reminded that if they go along with this shit, many many children will be done untold damage and within a generation, the scandal that will erupt will obliterate any children's charity which did not stand up for gender non-conforming children at the time they most needed them to.

"If you transition, what if it’s a mistake? This is a scary myth that many trans people face day to day. If a young person tells you they are trans and want to transition it’s safe to say that they are pretty sure about it. This myth actually tells a young person ‘being trans is a mistake’ which is a very distressing thing to hear.

Does anyone ever respond to a child who says they think they might be transgender, or the assertion that they are transgender, by asking them "what if it is a mistake"?
Don't most people ask a lot more questions before they work their way to the possibility that the child might change their mind and that it is OK to say so if they do?
The manipulative framing of everything Mermaids puts out just screams of grooming.

In a previous volunteer role I supported several girls who were identifying as trans boys, who had been/were being sexually abused, and described transitioning to male as a way out of it. Graphic descriptions of damage they could do to their bodies to make them less attractive to their abusers. This was in a confidential/anonymous role, these girls weren’t disclosing this to people who had actual safeguarding duties towards them. Responsible adults should absolutely not be blindly ‘affirming chosen gender’ of children - especially those more likely to have suffered sexual abuse - without unpicking where it is coming from.

I like the way they chucked in 'your child will probably kill themselves' nice and early on. That whole thing gave me the rage - how do they have the influence they do? If I issued a booklet to a school they would probably ignore it - how did Mermaids / GIRES et Al become these infallible experts who must be obeyed?

My experience of foster carers, is that they would be slow to jump on this band wagon. They don't have the same issues we have as birth parents, so are a bit more sceptical. I'm speaking as a foster parent and birth parent. It's actually easier to accept foster children for who they are, because you don't have the same personal baggage.

Fost r carers are alsoused to supporting a child emotionally, through all sorts of identity confusion. Yes, children in care are more vulnertable to trans cult, but the foster parents ar less so!

sorry this bit So for most children in care the answer is that both have it, though that is not an option should say ' So for most children in care the answer is that both the parents and the local authority have it, though that is not an option on the flowchart they've produced'.

sorry this bit So for most children in care the answer is that both have it, though that is not an option should say ' So for most children in care the answer is that both the parents and the local authority have it, though that is not an option on the flowchart they've produced'.

Where has that come from and is it actually being used by anyone with responsibility for children? If it has been written for children in care then it seems to have been written by someone with zero knowledge of the law on the issue.

For example, just looking at the change of name section on page 28, they ask whether the parents or the local authority have parental responsibility for the child but it should be clear to anyone with even the most basic knowledge that a care order gives PR to the local authority without removing it from the parents. So for most children in care the answer is that both have it, though that is not an option. That's essential because the consent of everyone with PR is needed to change a child's name. A judge would absolutely wipe the floor with a local authority who followed that advice and sent off a deed poll to change the child's name without checking with the birth parents. The law is quite clear that in that situation the parents should be consulted and if there's not agreement they'd have to apply to court. E.g. this case www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed160394 was about naming a child in care in the first place rather than changing names (though there are other cases making it very clear that even in formal changing of names by foster carers is not permitted). The court was quite clear that if the local authority disagree with the mother they should take the matter to court. This was a case where the mother clearly had a long history of problems, the child was going to be adopted and she wanted to call her Cyanide. Even in that pretty clear cut looking case it was essential that there was judicial approval.

That's only one small part of it but if they are so wrong on that presumably the rest can't be trusted either.

Mermaids - the most recent in a long line of entities that sees looked after kids as commodities for exploitation.

This is exactly what the Deptford organisation was talking about in the other thread. Ideologues getting in the way of people who understand the reality of power relations in this country and are trying to offer practical help to the vulnerable and marginalised.

Does any institution in this country have any understanding of safeguarding left? Any ability to reflect on the power relationships that structure society and cause inequality?

An extreme pressure group allowed access to the most vulnerable children in the country. For fucks fucking fucking fucking fucking sake. So sick and tired of it all.

The more I read about Mermaids the more horrified I become. They are pushing a very dangerous level of crazy on a very vulnerable bunch. Has anyone got any ideas on how they could be stopped? Because they frighten me.