Sky News changes its coverage following lobbying by Mermaids

Very professionally worded.

The over friendly tone was because it was an anecdote from one of their clientele. I have zero doubt that every single dot and comma on the website, is scrutinised up

Stories aren't statistics and 'most' is meaningless in this context. This kind of assertion is going to cut no ice in a judicial review. It is heartening to see Mermaids bounced into damage limitation mode.

The BBC report was worded cagily around the legal action why not name what's happening rather than leave the public thinking that Keira is suing for money?

The BBC and Sky are meant to be reporting news, not writing advertising features for a lobby group!

What evidence do they have that "most gender reassignment stories are positive"? And what is the source of their evidence? I suggest they have no evidence at all.

What has the BBC become, to put an unverified claim into a news story as if it was a fact? A claim made by a very controversial lobby group with every interest in keeping inconvenient facts out of the news.

The interview with the Green woman so obviously irretrievably invested in transing children without too much scrutiny is doing the rounds now.
Let's hope some journo worth their salt works out that her despicable actions might be worth a counterbalance.

But journalism should offer both sides of a story for balance

By all means print a separate positive story. But I see no reason to shoehorn a happy ever after story plus mermaids' propaganda into Keira's story. Her story is her story and worthy of respect in its own right. She doesn't deserve to be undermined this way.

If the story was about new owners if a new build house with lots of faults you wouldn't expect to have a bit about happy new owners in their perfect house along with a reassurance that most new build houses are perfect and their owners very happy would you?

Mermaids are terrifying and talk twaddle. But journalism should offer both sides of a story for balance so I don’t see an issue with including both perspectives from a journalistic POV.

There have been NO (as in zero, zilch, nada, none) reliable long-term studies that follow transgender kids over time in order to determine how many of them “change their minds.”

Very professionally worded.

Lets just remind ourselves of this
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mermaids-uk-charity-ban-as-boy-forced-to-live-as-girl-dvx3j99cn

They've got 'stories' charlie.

I'm unsure who was the genius who decided that talking about 'stories' rather than stats or studies wouldn't immediately alert anyone who read it to their lack of cred, but there you go.

That's very strange, Datun because there are reliable longterm studies that followed children diagnosed with GD that showed a very high rate of desistance under international best practice ie the Watchful Waiting approach.

What they haven't got is any longterm studies providing any evidence of the Affirmation approach leading to better outcomes than Watchful Waiting.

'Most gender reassignment stories are positive'.

Says mermaids.

Whilst simultaneously, on their website, under the Section for Professionals, marked 'FACTS - about transgender kids'

There have been NO (as in zero, zilch, nada, none) reliable long-term studies that follow transgender kids over time in order to determine how many of them “change their minds.”

So if they don't know how many change their minds, they don't know how many are happy, do they?

"It's all good. We have no idea how good it is."

Under the Times article, there is a very persistent poster repeating that only 1% of transitioners are unhappy.

Does the persistent poster have a reputable source for that statistic?

That is the low end of the estimate of how many transsexuals experienced transition regret post surgery.

The caveat which must be added to any mention of this number is this:

This estimate only applies to post-op transsexuals who first underwent years of intense counselling that aimed to explore the underlying reasons for their gender dysphoria (GD) and to to treat any co-morbid mental health issues with the aim of reconciling these transsexuals with their own bodies. This was done explicitly to avoid putting them on a path of medically and/or surgically altering their bodies.

However, as we know, transition regret even amongst transsexuals who underwent thorough psychiatric evaluation and subsequent counselling seeking to resolve their dysphoria is underestimated because most of these patients are lost to follow-up and their number is therefore not accurately reflected because we can only count those available to be counted.

We cannot simply assume that all or even the majority of those lost to follow-up are experiencing transition regret either, as many patients may simply find that they are now happy enough post-surgery to maintain their hormone levels under the supervision of their regular doctors.

So that 1% is who told their GD specialists, and that's the number we're working with for this specific demographic.

However, Keira Bell and her peers, did not benefit from either thorough psychiatric assessment or exploration of the possible causes for their GD or therapy seeking to achieve a mind-body integration in these patients in order to avoid any medical transition.

They were, as Keira says, affirmed and never challenged in their thinking. They were given hormones and surgeries without any attempt made to dissuade them from this path.

In light of those fact, the known extremely low prevalence of transsexualism and the high rate of documented desistance among children, I would expect transition regret to be shockingly high in this group, quite possibly higher than 50%.

But at this point we don't know. All we do know is that transition regret among properly counselled transsexuals, who had to wait years for treatment is probably higher than the 1% usually stated. I would put it anywhere between 1 and 20% based on a meta study done in 2010 which found about 80% of patients were reporting subjective improvements after treatment. This ignores the fact that some of the patients who initially reported improvements may have got worse at a later date, which we know has happened. But the reverse also happened - much later improvement among the 20% not reporting any at follow-up.

It stands to reason then if up to 20% of a very carefully vetted group of patients do not report improvements and may come to regret transitioning, that a much higher percentage of a barely vetted group of patients may do so.

I suspect that Helen Belcher and Jane Fae of Trans Media Watch are behind it rather than Susie or Helen.

Mermaids have all the corporate and government backing, but they maintain their position through fear and silencing.

^this.

Let's have it all out. On the table. Every last bit of it. All of it scrutinised from A to Z.

If mermaids are asserting something, let's have it. Let's see the studies, let's talk to the people, let's talk to the people who disagree and ask why.

The more mermaids try to influence, the more they expose themselves to challenge.

And that's all anyone has ever asked for.

Seems fair and balanced so viewers can make up their own minds.

I suppose if the judicial review will be hearing evidence from both sides of the divide , it makes sense for the media to report with balance too. It makes a refreshing change from sensationalist headlines followed by the detail that doesn't always match.

Let them overplay their hand and you keep having the back of this brave young woman putting herself out there to expose their lies.

Have the conversation. Let her bravery inspire you to discuss this with people. Mermaids have all the corporate and government backing, but they maintain their position through fear and silencing.

If Kiera has the guts to stand up to these people after everything they put her through, you've definitely got what it takes to talk to your friends, colleagues and the people in the newsagents and the bus queue about what this 'movement' is doing to youngsters with near impunity.

This is a #BeMoreMagdalen moment, women. Step up, speak up. Be brave.

Despicable. Why are they so protected?

But I still struggle to understand why they have had such preferential treatment?

This....in spades.

Let's be honest. Both Susie and Helen are middle aged women. Like I and many others on this board are middle aged women. Reasonably bright, averagely successful, and so-so attractive.

Most of us though are pretty invisible to society. Both in terms of strangers noticing us in the street, but also in terms of men/policymakers listening to our views. You dont hear the BBC putting themselves out to increase their middle aged woman audience. Damn it. You dont even hear M&S, Ocado or John Lewis listening to us, and they bloody ought to.

But Susie and Helen are feted. Why? What makes them special?

My guess is that they form the same purpose as Ruth Hunt and probably Jan Gooding. I suspect they are there and supported because they are articulating someone else's agenda. It sounds a bit mean but honestly it does not make much sense otherwise. And I further suspect that ROGD children and teenagers are not the primary aim, simply useful collateral. The question is, who is pushing all this 'queer' stuff, and why?

BovaryX
Trans groups laid the foundations for preferential treatment very early and targeted the media. The excellent journalist James Kirkup wrote about it when he covered the Denton's report - an international law firm who produced a report that summarised how this movement gained such influence in the face of democracy. It's well worth a read here:

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/

If I were GIDS I don’t think I would be too thrilled at Mermaids shoving themselves into this. GIDS want to downplay the numbers going on PBS whereas Mermaids thrive by making a really big deal about how many children this is “life saving” treatment for.

Most gender reassignment stories are positive.

FFS how are they getting away with this?!

Journalism 101: Fact check and cite sources.

Cowards. Bowing to a vocal minority. Proof that only if you shout loudest do you get heard.

The shame of this is that when the claim is challenged, the shouts of transphobia will be louder than anything else.

I am so disappointed in Sky News.

Also how many young people like Keira do there have to be before the trans lobby starts to consider their welfare as well? How much collateral damage is acceptable to them?

That is an excellent question. One of the things that Keira's case highlights is that she is simply cut adrift after being put on the medical pathway. There is no therapy at any point, no attempt to explore any other treatment for her depression . This is radical, unprecedented medical intervention. The long term impacts are unknown. How can a 16 year old consent?

I think I may be overly optimistic, but I think Mermaids know they are slowly losing control of the narrative and are trying to prove they’ve still got influence.

What does the reddit detransitioning forum run to? 10,000 people?

What did the Tavistock's own (limited) study show? That those who had been medically treated for gender dysphoria self harmed more afterwards, not less?

Furthermore, if mermaids are implying this, then the physical changes that puberty blockers result in, need to be urgently addressed.

Does a child's IQ plummet by eight points as is being suggested? If so, these children may well be suspended in a permanent child like state. Which might account for why they are 'happy'.

Mermaids are trying to stem the tide of challenge.

It will only result in further challenge to make them account for their position. This is not going to stop.