The National Lottery Fund will fund Mermaids - review published

Looking at the report - Mermaids have got the money bec they say they do not push medical transition. We need to watch them like a hawk and if they push or promote medical transition in any way, report it to the Lotto.

Really sad thread which gives an indication of the health problems which are faced by detransitioners .twitter.com/NotableDesister/status/1097877951172014081

And also I doubt that longer term users of cross hormones will escape some of these.

And then add on the very honest statements by Leanne Mills of the physical complications she had :www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6493959/Transsexual-warn-reality-transexual.html

Transitioning should be last resort and not after all other mental health strategies have been exhausted. We need this to be promoted rather than simple affirmation

Presumably also why they published Mermaids full response as an appendix.

As Gilligan says though, it is fairly obvious they haven't looked at it particular deeply or they will have found evidence that some of the claims are false.

Also felt it was a bit concerning the way they were seperating Susie Green from Mermaids, as far as I am aware they are pretty much one and the same?

The reason why National Lottery Community Fund are willing to overlook Mermaids being economical with the truth is that if it all goes to shit, NLCF go "oh noes! we was lied to! definitely not our fault!"

Report's first line NOTE: This report has been prepared by The National Lottery Community Fund’s Director for Scotland to assist the England Committee.

Scotland again. This is not an impartial report.

And as you said MilitantFawcett. There's real UN stuff out there being ignored.

Had the report authors asked for the actual training materials

They have stated that they will require this in future:

Any organisation publicly presenting data has a responsibility to ensure the legitimacy of
such information. This is particularly important when assuming a specialist and
professional role and in discussing matters which may practice, behaviour and
understanding especially when working with children.
Organisations run/operated by people with lived experience have an important part to
play in educating professionals. However, there is also a responsibility to be clear when
they are expressing opinion, describing an experience or stating fact. Mermaids should
be mindful of this when undertaking their review of training and engage with relevant
professional organisations who may hold such data.

Mermaids undertakes to provide scripts to the Fund on this point so that the Fund can
continue to be confident the best available statistic are being used.

And let's not forget that Mermaids are still rolling out that fucking awful 'are you Barbie or GI Joe' gender spectrum thing. To the frigging police no less.

I think the unfortunate thing here Rockyflintstone is that this must have occurred after this report was written. I think the report relied on that one recording which was released of the Mermaids training. In the report, factual errors in training are put down to one 'rogue' trainer. Had the report authors asked for the actual training materials, it would have been clearer that all this information does is to reinforce gender stereotypes, not help those who feel they don't fit in with them.

the review was boosted by lies, by a myriad of emails claiming that about 40 "Mermaids clinics" would open all over the UK, when Mermaids provides no such services?

This on the Gilligan twitter thread. THAT IS WHAT THE GRANT IS FOR YOU MUPPET. YOU UTTER TWONK.

oh my god the transplaining is wild.

There are an awful lot of 'Mermaids denies this allegation'

And "Mermaids states that". Definitely looks like arse covering

FFS. But yes it will come out n the wash. Poor kids in the meantime.

"The Yogyakarta Principles of 2006 are a universal guide to human rights which affirm binding international legal standards with which all States must comply"

Not only is this a lie, but the Yogyakarta Principles are just a bunch of things made up by some people who agree with each other and given a faux UN sounding name in order to falsely claim some kind of official status, and succeeding in pulling the wool over people's eyes. It wasn't a UN organised conference. Its just made up posturing and propaganda.

We could have the MN Women's Principles 2019 and, although they would be waaaaay more rational, they would have no more or no less standing then the YPs.

And if they are pulling the 'all states must comply with UN Conventions' thing, then they need to be complying with UN convention that are actually convened and ratified by the UN such as CEDAW and others which commit states to upholding women's sex-based human rights, ending violence and discrimination against women and girls, and ending gender stereotypes, amongst other things. The UN rejected the YPs.

Argh.

Are they still mentioning Helen Webberley on their website? Have just had a look but can't see anything.

Mermaids claim to be a user centred organisation, however their advocacy and engagement in controversial debate risks overshadowing the valued front facing direct support platform they provide for children, young people and their families.

I've skimmed through the report and, as others suggest, it is not entirely one sided - I think that quote above is quite important. There are an awful lot of 'Mermaids denies this allegation' which will be important for the future. It highlights how the CEO view on affirmative treatment does contrast with the Tavistock's advice. They tell Marmaids to use transgender suicide statistics 'responsibly' and to acknowledge that this is an under researched area.

The dilemma for the Lottery Fund (in my opinion) is that where do parents and families go as an alternative? If they stopped this grant, they would be criticised for leaving families without support (remembering that this is for coffee mornings etc).

I don't feel as disheartened as some posters having looked at the actual report.

Mermaids have enough money for the moment to buy whatever research they'd like to have.

The BLF want Mermaids to partner with those who are able to undertake proper research. But of course we need to see this happen and for the research to be completely unbiased.

Also this from BLF's original grant assessment is the most worrying thing. They basically did not see any risks in funding an organisation offering education and counselling in an area of significant medical controversy, with a quoted 45% incidence of suicide attempts and 'good' outcomes that involve lifelong medicalisation.... with no medical advisory board, no serious risk assessment, no serious assessment of safeguarding ...

itsallgoingtobefine

You'd hope so, but it all seems to be so much hoping....

The original proposal and the BLF's assessment of it said the research will "focus on quantifying issues faced by young people and their parents and how best to make a difference". So market research surveys for Mermaids then.....

There is nothing in there that suggests that Mermaid's has the intention or the capacity to undertake serious research which explore the reasons why their longer term outcomes may differ from other services such as the Tavistock.

So the BLF is just whistling by saying oh look there is "research" in the proposal, so the research will sort it out.

Reading the replies under Gilligan's tweet is interesting. Nothing but sneering or abuse, no engagement whatsoever. Any temptation to go into overreach mode and they just cannot help themselves.

If only this kind of thing could be put in front of a public willing to pay attention. We did see signs of this with McKinnon over the past few days but that seems to have died down without breaking through properly.

"There appears to be a significant difference in the longer-term outcomes for children who use the services offered by Mermaids as opposed to those of the GIDS service and some of the figures suggested in the research. Mermaids say that the vast majority of young people they see will continue with their gender reassignment process whilst the GIDS outcomes appear to be the opposite. "

Er - and that isn't alarming? They're funding an organisation which seems to pride itself that these kids do not desist when Mermaids gets involved with them?

And let's not forget that Mermaids are still rolling out that fucking awful 'are you Barbie or GI Joe' gender spectrum thing. To the frigging police no less.

but its not at all clear that the skillset needed to deliver burble-burble-jelly-babies training is the same as the skillset needed to work on serious academic research partnerships

Hopefully that will get picked up on by the university partners or the lottery

Reading Gilligans twitter thread there, all the people who oppose him really have to say is 'stop trans bashing'. There is no actual take down of the claims he makes about Webberly or Green, people are so desperate not to be seen as 'transphobic' that they appear to lose all ability to critically analyse anything.

Andrew G is right. It’s there for all to see.

The review suggests that BLF will keep Mermaids under tighter scrutiny than they would otherwise have done (and we should keep them under scrutiny!)e.g. on training "Mermaids undertakes to provide scripts to the Fund on this point so that the Fund can continue to be confident the best available statistic are being used."

One of the key points in the review which ought to raise alarm bells but they seem relaxed about is "There appears to be a significant difference in the longer-term outcomes for children who use the services offered by Mermaids as opposed to those of the GIDS service and some of the figures suggested in the research. Mermaids say that the vast majority of young people they see will continue with their gender reassignment process whilst the GIDS outcomes appear to be the opposite. "

They say "it is without question a complex area and there is still a great deal to learn. In this respect transparency is really important and where data is available this should be shared more widely. Nevertheless, all organisations delivering support to vulnerable children and young
people have a duty of care to do this in a safe and protective way whilst respecting individual rights, needs and aspirations. It is vital this is done in a highly responsible manner and is not in any way misleading or prematurely advocating a particular outcome. Mermaids should work with an academic partner/evaluator to explore the reasons why their longer term outcomes may differ from other services such as the
Tavistock. The findings of this should form part of the Big Lottery Fund grant management activity."

The trouble is, the proposal is for 3 people over 5 years, with the same 3 people setting up local parents and teens groups, running Mermaids training sessions and setting up research partnerships with universities (see attached from the Mermaids proposal).....but its not at all clear that the skillset needed to deliver burble-burble-jelly-babies training is the same as the skillset needed to work on serious academic research partnerships!