Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Another Mermaid statement: about Good Morning Britain and Caroline Farrow

262 replies

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 24/03/2019 21:03

Apparently Farrow will be on GMB tomorrow.

There are some interesting bits in this statement:

Jackie is, of course, deeply upset by the reference to her as being mutilated, castrated and sterilised.

Jackie is also distressed at the assertion that this was something that was somehow done ‘to her’. The only people deliberately doing anything 'to her' are the online trolls using the most abusive language about her. She would like the online abuse to stop.

At 16, she undertook extensive psychological assessment from independent experts before she was cleared for, and undertook, gender reassignment surgery. Her competency and full knowledge of all the implications was clear.

At 25 she still considers that surgery, for her, was lifesaving, and is distressed at the implication that she was not capable and mature enough to make this decision.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
LizzieSiddal · 24/03/2019 22:41

“Our CEO Susie Green is used to online criticism. Susie is however disappointed that the tweeter, a mother, can casually accuse other mothers of 'child abuse' of their children”

I don’t think Caroline accused Suzy “casually”. She stated it after a lot of consideration of the facts.

Also the statements says Carro deleted the Tweets. Caro has stated many times that all her Tweets are deleted, automatically after two weeks.

Very interesting that the statement has changed since publishing, I hope Caro is able to reference this in the interview. Mermaids were trying to lie and spin on an extremely important fact.

boatyardblues · 24/03/2019 22:39

In it Susie Green describes the horror /embarassment /shame (?) she felt when her young son went into shops, headed for the sections with girls clothes and obviously enjoyed the clothes there. Susie Green describes being concerned about what people 'must' be thinking.

We once had to return to Mothercare to hand in some sparkly pink shoes that toddler DS1 had snuck into his pushchair when we weren’t looking. a) I’m glad we weren’t done for shoplifting and b) our response was not to think he was a girl in a boy’s body. Magpie maybe, but really just a boy who likes sparkly stuff...

pombear · 24/03/2019 22:37

Removing female labia, clitoris, etc. Mutilation. No dispute.

Removing testicles, flaying penile skin, inverting penile flesh into a peritoneal cavity at the age of (exactly to the day) 16 - yay, you're a woman, happy birthday. How dare anyone label it anything else. (PS, I identify as a reasonable person so do I get to say it's acceptable to use the word castration for the medical procedure that is...castration?
Why is that word so 'loaded' for trans rights activists, surely it just is what it is. Remove testicles = castration. Why aren't we meant to say what it is?)

Jessica yes, that's exactly what the statement was trying to do in terms of dehumanising. Just not very well, given that it was so obvious.

boatyardblues · 24/03/2019 22:34

“She’d go into my wardrobe, put on dresses and she even put my bra on at 18 months.

This doesn’t ring true to me. At 13, it took me a fair bit of practice to get a bra on. Unless it was the draping over the child’s head or using it as a teddy bear sling or something you’d normally see in dress up or imaginary play, this sounds totally implausible.

R0wantrees · 24/03/2019 22:29

Its worth watching the documentary about Jackie Green wanting to win beauty pageants. It was filmed when Jackie was 18 (I think)

In it Susie Green describes the horror /embarassment /shame (?) she felt when her young son went into shops, headed for the sections with girls clothes and obviously enjoyed the clothes there. Susie Green describes being concerned about what people 'must' be thinking.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkWv9cbda4c

EweSurname · 24/03/2019 22:29

If that happened as Susie Green says, that's a shit nursery.

I work in early years and we are always telling parents that children are free to wear/play with what they want and if anything, reassuring them.

I cannot imagine in what world childcare professionals would tell a parent that there was something different about a child because of what they played with/wore, if only because so many of them dress up/play with toys usually associated with the other sex! It's precisely the regressive shit we try to counter.

littlbrowndog · 24/03/2019 22:28

It’s kinda a bit like my 12 year old kid said let me smoke fags or I will self harm

Or my 12 year old kid said am getting a tattoo or I will self harm

Or my 12 year old kid said let me drive a car or I will self harm

What would a parent do

JessicaWakefieldSVH · 24/03/2019 22:26

but the use of ‘child abuse’ ‘mutilation’ and ‘castration’ cannot, in any reasonable persons view, be considered to be acceptable.

Actually most reasonable people, including those that have made laws around these treatments, do consider it to be abusive. Removing the healthy genitals of a child is considered by most reasonable people to be mutilation. There really is no other word for it when it involves children.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 24/03/2019 22:25

Also from that article:

Recalling how she felt at the time, Ms Green says: “I thought she was gay or very sensitive.

“Her dad didn’t like it and wanted to make her be a boy and tell her off when she played with girls stuff.

Sad
OP posts:
OldCrone · 24/03/2019 22:23

That Yorkshire Post article.

She was born 18 years ago with all the physical characteristics of a boy and her parents named her Jack, but from being a toddler she acted like a girl. She always wanted to wear girls’ clothes and play with girls’ toys.

How does a boy toddler 'act like a girl'? What are 'girls' toys'? Is it the 19th century?

From then on her life became more and more difficult until eventually her parents made the decision to pay for Jackie, as she was known by that time, to have £28,000 of treatment and complete gender reassignment surgery.

Because of course, the solution to a boy playing with 'girls' toys' is to change his body into a facsimile of a female body.

Some might query whether Susie, who was always a very open-minded mother, did enough to discourage Jack from playing with girls’ toys and wearing feminine clothes – both signs displayed from the age of three. Did she really try to intervene enough?

And of course, for the Susies of this world, who seem to be stuck in a parallel universe where it's still the 19th century, if your little boy plays with 'girls' toys' and wants to wear feminine clothes, you should try really hard to discourage them from doing so.

But you could see from about the age of three it wasn’t just the toys she played with it was as much as the way she played with them. “She didn’t really have many dolls, but what cuddly toys she had she would nurture and treat like babies, not at all like a boy.

We can't have little boys growing up to be nurturing and kind, can we? And of course, little boys play with toys in a completely different way to little girls, there's no overlap whatsoever.

And she just said to me: ‘Mummy, God made a mistake, I have a girl’s brain in a boy’s body.’

Toddlers say this sort of thing all the time, don't they?

I can't read any more of that, but from skimming it it goes stereotypes, behaving like a girl, acting feminine, playing with 'girls' toys' (again), stereotypes...

JessicaWakefieldSVH · 24/03/2019 22:23

The dehumanisation of you Caroline, referring to you as ‘the tweeter’ is completely out of order.

Since we know you’re watching us Susie, the majority of people agree with Caroline, including, I’m repeating this again and again, those whose job it is to safeguard children and decide at what age they can have these types of treatments, hence it is illegal here and now in the country you took your child to.

R0wantrees · 24/03/2019 22:21

2105 Interview with Susie Green for Day Nurseries

(extract)
“I first realised Jackie was different when she was 18 months old,” says her mum Susie Green.

"Although she was my first child, I had lots of nephews and nieces and Jackie just didn’t seem to behave like them.

“She’d go into my wardrobe, put on dresses and she even put my bra on at 18 months.

“The nursery staff were telling me Jackie was different when she went there at two and a half years old.”

Cross-dressing in the dressing up box

At nursery Jackie never played with the boys, always took a female role in the games played and would treat the soft toys like babies or pretend to have tea with them.

“She couldn’t wait to get into the dressing up box. She’d come out as Snow White with a jumper on her head and the arms trailing down to make it look like she had long hair.” (continues)

www.daynurseries.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1571947/Transgender-children-How-nurseries-can-support-those-with-gender-identity-issues

pombear · 24/03/2019 22:19

From the age of THREE, your mum is noticing the way you play with so-called 'girls toys'.

Your mum splits from your dad (we don't know why, but the narrative from TED talks from Susie and other interviews implies the tension from Jack/Jackie's presentation was a contributing factor)

At the age of six your mum either
a) tells you there's an operation you can have to 'change your sex' but you'll have to wait till you're an adult
b) you somehow know about this operation, but your mum tells you you'll have to wait till you're an adult.

Your mum ( likely at substantial cost) flies you out multiple times to the US to see a 'specialist' from the age of 12.

Your dad contributes to, and your mum remortgages her house to fund, surgery for you.

Your mum has gone on national TV with you to talk about your operations and living as a woman.

Your mum's current job and her reputation is now fundamentally linked to the medication and surgery you had throughout your childhood and puberty.

Stockholm Syndrome comes to mine - I know it's contested as a theory, but it really hits home here. Actions and attitudes similar to those suffering from Stockholm syndrome have also been found in victims of sexual abuse, human trafficking, discrimination, terror, and political and religious oppression

I too really hope Jackie is happy, at ease with themselves, and living a great life.

It would also be very difficult for Jackie to speak out, given the factors above.

Which, if this was a one-off, individual case, I'm sure most would feel empathy and recognise the difficulties.

But this is linked to a CEO and an organisation on a mission to affirm a pathway that is not necessarily the right one for most children.

Carowiththegoodhair · 24/03/2019 22:17

This is all very interesting. Grin

nicecheese · 24/03/2019 22:15

The reasons that the use of the words 'castration' and 'mutilation' of a child are unpalatable is because those actions are unacceptable.

zanahoria · 24/03/2019 22:13

" It’s why here in this country it is illegal"

thus those independent experts are unregulated experts.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 24/03/2019 22:13

Why is Susie so surprised that most people are horrified by her parenting decisions

Because at the time she was certain she was doing the right thing. Now she cannot afford to consider whether she was correct in her certainty.

OP posts:
RepealTheGRA · 24/03/2019 22:12

Dw PencilsinSpace you have a better grasp of safeguarding than some people who actually work in fucking safeguarding Angry

R0wantrees · 24/03/2019 22:10

When deciding whether abuse has happened or not, surely it's the actions of the responsible adults that should be examined.

Yes, whilst also recognising, respecting and supporting the deeply held feelings of the child/vulnerable adult.

OldCrone · 24/03/2019 22:07

We welcome respectful and intelligent discussion about many topics involving transgender people, but the use of ‘child abuse’ ‘mutilation’ and ‘castration’ cannot, in any reasonable persons view, be considered to be acceptable.

This is an interesting paragraph from the statement, and I agree that child abuse, mutilation and castration are wholly unacceptable. Since you think that too, Susie, why did you inflict such things on your child?

StephsCaddy · 24/03/2019 22:07

Why is Susie so surprised that most people are horrified by her parenting decisions?

JessicaWakefieldSVH · 24/03/2019 22:04

When deciding whether abuse has happened or not, surely it's the actions of the responsible adults that should be examined.

Yes, absolutely. I can think of a very high profile child abuser who this comment would also be relevant to. It’s an important point when safeguarding children.

Let’s not ever forget, while Susie is busy trying to deflect, she put this information in the public domain and made an entire career out of the illegal actions she took with regards to her child.

JessicaWakefieldSVH · 24/03/2019 22:02

Your linguistic-device of trying to frame this person as 'the tweeter' is awkwardly obvious and a bit crass

Good point.

This woman is seriously disturbed on so many levels.

PencilsInSpace · 24/03/2019 22:02

Oh dear. It's all going a bit tits up for Susie isn't it?

As a general point - I'm not an expert on child safeguarding or dealing with abused children so please correct me if I'm wrong -

The statement is all about Jackie's distress, Jackie's feelings of being deeply upset. I don't for a moment dismiss those feelings, but I don't believe they have much bearing on whether abuse has happened or not. I believe it's quite common for children (and adults) to rationalise their abuse because to face the fact that someone they love has abused them is just too painful.

When deciding whether abuse has happened or not, surely it's the actions of the responsible adults that should be examined.

pombear · 24/03/2019 21:58

As an aside, the statement seems to be trying to take a 'don't name them' approach to the person they're setting up as the agressor.

Until recently, the tweeter had maintained the issue was about...

Tweets such as those sent by the tweeter...

Susie:
a) This isn't a NZ situation, 'the tweeter' is a woman called Caroline Farrow, who used uncomfortable but factual language about your actions. And then posited an uncomfortable opinion about decisions and actions that you took on behalf of your then minor-aged child that would have been illegal if you'd actioned them in the UK. Your linguistic-device of trying to frame this person as 'the tweeter' is awkwardly obvious and a bit crass.

b) You've already named 'the tweeter' by showing us those tweets yet again in your statement. You do know the Streisand effect, don't you? Has noone in your inner circle mentioned it to you, given recent events?

Swipe left for the next trending thread