Another Mermaid statement: about Good Morning Britain and Caroline Farrow

the use of plain English is essential

Agreed. Those of us on the spectrum appreciate clear and unambiguous language. Using twee and misleading terms like "bottom surgery" and "top surgery" can be confusing and misunderstood.

Children must be supported through puberty to mature and accept their bodies, an age limit of 25 should be set for sex reassignment surgery, and only then after lengthy counselling

The operation should also be re-named/ correctly titled.
Sex is not 'reassigned' or 'changed' by surgery..
The medical profession should support the basis of extensive counselling which would be to ensure that any potential surgical candidates are absolutely clear about the nature of the operations and the consequences.
It cannot be informed consent otherwise.
When I had a total hysterectomy (gynaecological cancer) this was an important aspect ofthe surgical team's work with me despite there being an urgent medical need for the operation.

It seems at times that many medics & professionals working in this field are following different ethical principles/ standards / best practice etc than those well-established throughout the rest of health care.

YY.

Given the number of kids on the autistic spectrum caught up in this, the use of plain English is essential.
Castration, sterilisation, mastectomy all straightforward understandable words.

Nightwitch
I agree, this whole issue needs to be closely examined, and all the possible outcomes for these children to be considered. A charity which purports to exist for the support of 'gender diverse' children should be at the forefront of asking the difficult questions and considering exactly what sort of future these children will face. Instead of that, they want to shut down any sort of discussion.

Children, and their parents, should be going into this with all the available information about what is and what is not possible, and what is known about the likely outcomes of any medical interventions. And wouldn't the best outcome of all be the child coming to terms with their body and not feeling they need any medication at all? Yet this wholly desirable outcome is seen as 'conversion therapy', so is not even allowed to be considered.

I ask because I feel 'gender afferming care' ot gnc children. Asking the whole of society to affirm and treat sometimes very young children as if they were actually the opposite sex to which they were born. Praising them, putting them on a pedestal, shielding them from any doubts or critique.
is asking the whole of society to be complicit in grooming children into going onto puberty blockers and on to full reassignment surgery.
If we are to agree to that, I think we need to know exactly what we are grooming children for.

I was wondering whether today would bring another homily on how everyone else needs to be sensible and nice.

Not a dickie bird and already I'm missing the daily lesson of
St. Paul to the Corinthians Mrs Green's factotum

I know I'm probably not suppose to say this. It's awful but I've been pondering this a lot so I'm going to.

Jazz Jennings recently went though grs surgery. It was described as a brand new experimental technique. There were complications as we know and more procedures to be done.

What kind of grs surgery was available ten years ago. On a person who had been on puberty blockers since age 12 and would not have had much penile tissue to work with?

Why are the two extremes of the 'gender spectrum " represented by two dolls with no genetallia at all?

happydappy2 Mermaids has got to be shut down. Children must be supported through puberty to mature and accept their bodies, an age limit of 25 should be set for sex reassignment surgery, and only then after lengthy counselling

This.

*Is it simple English to get to the point so the maximum number of people understand or is it deliberately loading language?

To suggest that all the alternatives are not as loaded is bizarre to me.

It's by far the most neutral term because its universally understood. Which is precisely why anyone trying to hide from the reality of it, wants to hide behind euphemisms or suggesting that a common usage term is somehow being deliberately loaded.*

This can be applied to all language used by trans idiologists.

My boys play with Lego (and soft toys) like my daughter played with soft toys (and Lego). Lots of mummies and daddies and babies and shops and fire swords and battles and zombies...

Not being outraged could just as easily be a result of lack of mental maturation.

I agree. It's like Jazz Jennings.

Most people go through a massive psychological shift when they are about 30 and the necessary beliefs they'd lived by, especially about their own parents and childhood, are re-framed - and the fury kicks in. I wonder if messing up the endocrine system continues to scupper those natural process too, or whether JG is going to flip out in 3-7 years time?

Did Jackie Green really need to be told about those tweets? The only reason JG was told about them is because SG went looking for them and took them to West Yorkshire Police to try out for this compelled speech test case. SG then had to tell JG what she was going to do. That was cruel to drag JG into it.

Surely whether its child abuse is subjective isnt it?

Im just looking at my boys playing with the cat, they hold her and cuddle her like a baby because that's what they've seen their mother and father doing. You have to wonder what kind of environment Jackie Green was born into where seeing a toddler doing something so entirely normal with their cuddly toys, for a boy or girl, was seen as so unusual, exceptional and alien that it was taken as a sign that she was "wrong". So weird and messed up.

Even if we all were to give Susie green the benefit of the doubt and accept her word that things have turned out well for Jackie. She still took a huge gamble.

Well, unless she can prove to me that Jackie has lost no cognitive ability, and her IQ hasn't dropped by eight points, I don't see how anyone can judge how well it turned out.

I've said it before, the transmen, particularly, I have seen all have a childlike innocence to them.

Not being outraged could just as easily be a result of lack of mental maturation.

Personally I think castration is the correct term when referring to humans. For animals we can say neuter. Both mean to remove sex organs and to render someone or something incapable of reproducing.

What PP said, it was a pretty big risk SG took with her child's future and fertility.

Well nobody can accuse us of being an echo chamber tonight !

Amoregentlemanlikemanner

"She used a brutal term that comes loaded with connotations of lack of consent because she thinks it is a brutal act and one that a 15 year old can't consent to."

The law in UK also agrees that a 15 year old cannot consent to this, which is why it is illegal until a person achieves the age of 18 years here.

By the way, check the dictionary definition, wherein you will see there are no connotations.

This is why we use the term "mutilation" instead of "cutting". We use a brutal term because we expose a brutal act. We don't pretend it's neutral.

Excellent point.

I have wondered if at any point the Plain English Campaign will challenge any of the language used by / insisted on by some TRAs.

Their focus is accessibility of course rather than 'inclusivity'

Even if we all were to give Susie green the benefit of the doubt and accept her word that things have turned out well for Jackie. She still took a huge gamble.
There's no way that this should set a precedent for how to respond to gender disphoria.

What would be the most commonly used term for surgical removal of your bollocks that most people would understand without further need for explanation?

Is it simple English to get to the point so the maximum number of people understand or is it deliberately loading language?

To suggest that all the alternatives are not as loaded is bizarre to me.

It's by far the most neutral term because its universally understood. Which is precisely why anyone trying to hide from the reality of it, wants to hide behind euphemisms or suggesting that a common usage term is somehow being deliberately loaded.

And when Susie Green, on record, has a litany of the reasons, you realise why it's absolutely necessary to highlight.

Susie greens reasons are, clothes, dolls, hair, beauty pageants.