Susie Green and Keira Bell on Newsnight

Journos have known that something smells rotten at GIDS for ages and ages and the ruling is a great opportunity to print anything else they’ve been working on.

EM didn't challenge SG on: 1% detransition, Dutch research

I agree about this. I am massively sceptical about the 1% detransition - how can we possibly know, given that most of the children seen by the Tavistock have had the treatment in the last 5-10 years? We're probably going to have to wait another 5 years until we see a huge swathe of detransitioners - which I feel is inevitable.

I'd also like to have seen a challenge to the Dutch research, though possibly Maitlis didn't have that info at her fingertips.

I really wish Maitlis had pushed Green on the reality of what transition involves - namely double mastectomy, cross-sex hormones that have long-term health effects, including possible loss of fertility, plus loss of sexual function, plus the creation of non-functioning genitalia.

Nonetheless Green came across badly. She didn't even have the decency or political nous to say how sympathetic she felt to Keira's situation. Whatthisfuckery is absolutely right about what Green might be expected to say versus what she actually said. The sooner Mermaids goes the way of Kids Company, the better.

Pre Susie, Mermaids was an entirely sane org aisation, that mostly advocated supportive watchful waiting. Under her remit it has become quite dangerous. The board should be challenging her robustly on her misuse of suicidality, and how support for children gets repeatedly buried under her own need to be right.

But she’s only been employed by Mermaids since 2016.

So she must consider raising a ‘trans’ child to be part of her lifework.

I notice Susie Green kept saying 'young people' as though it softens what's been going on here.

Say what they are Susie, they're children. They're not just small adults, they're not young adults, they're children who have been put on lifelong treatment, deemed by the high court to be experimental, and they weren't old enough to understand the full consequences. 'Professionals' have been experimenting on children.

This case outcome has been submerged by the vaccine news. I am really pleased about the vaccine, but sorry that there probably won't be much more attention paid to this on MSM.

So, we might expect the CEO of a support charity to say:

‘it’s deeply regrettable that this treatment has caused so much harm to some young people. We need to ensure going forward that lessons are learnt and that robust safeguards are put in place to ensure the best outcome for every young person.’

What we got from the CEO of Mermaids:

‘It’s only less than 1% of people who feel they were too young and inexperienced to consent to life changing treatment, and that’s hardly any, so why should we take extra care to ensure it’s the right treatment for everyone?’

One might expect the CEO of a support charity to say:

‘I would encourage any young person who is struggling with this news to reach out for support, either from our helpline where we will have trained counsellors on hand, or your parents, school or GP. Please be assured that we are working very hard to make sure that the very best treatment is available to help you.’

What we got from the CEO of Mermaids:

‘Now you’re all going to have to go through the torture of puberty. It’s no wonder you’re all going to want to kill yourselves.’

This is the main reason I think social transitioning is fundamentally harmful. Changing names and pronouns and affirmation are not neutral.

Here's the Elizabeth Van Horn interview from last November -

How could someone send a card to Kiera/Mrs A and the team?

It would have been good to pull her up on both those points as well as the suicide thing which she did

Yes that would have been good but honestly I dont think she needed to in the end. She managed to get her to a point where she was visibly raging and lying and had no idea what she was even saying..

She dug herself a big enough hole she didn't need any more "help" to discredit herself. It took what? 2 questions to get there...

Forgotaboutthis I don't know if sg's child has publicly looked back at the transition but she is supportive of susie and gives the impression of being a happy trans woman whenever I've seen anything about her.
She did refer to her being born male as something that needed to be adjusted, or a defect, which wld give some clues to how she thinks about it.
I'm sure that for some people medical transition really helps & is the right decision. But the issue of whether a child can decide that is separate (as we know from the ruling).
I have a vague recollection that convos about this on mumsnet get zapped though.

The problem with SG is she relies on her own experience and anecdotal evidence which reinforces it.

If, and it is a very big if, the pathway she took for her child was correct for that particular individual it does not make it the best pathway for other gender questioning children.

Neither we nor her own child will ever know whether things would have been different if another approach had been taken. By the time her child reached the age of maturity irreversible life-changing interventions had already happened.

Under SG, Mermaids raison d’etre is to justify what SG did to her own child. If other actions, counselling, waiting to see if they changed their mind, or acceptance prove to be more successful it would demonstrate what SG did was wrong.

I'm going to watch it again on you tube but two things are bugging me.

EM didn't challenge SG on:
1% detransition
Dutch research

It would have been good to pull her up on both those points as well as the suicide thing which she did.

It was basically the same old same old and we all know it's bollocks but this is MSM and prime time for avid news followers and both the above were left to stand.

I was pleased to see SG say "anecdotal evidence" which counts for SFA and I hope that not only are the Mermaids staff absolutely swamped and desperately scrambling around to manage and retain funding but are also questioning their involvement and considering a change of job.

MimmyMum and SG will never learn but there are others who work there who might just might still have a moral compass that forces them to question their involvement.

Oh and are their offices really above a betting shop?

Also, it is the BBC. She probably has to tread carefully.

I thought maybe she was kinda trying to lull SG into a false sense of security. Remove the idea that she would be challenged in any way.

I think it worked quite well. It exposed alot.

I thought Maitlis had a very strange angle in the interview. She seemed very focused on charging Bell with being the catalyst for the sudden refusal of PBs on children who might "need" them, rather than an individual who has exposed the 'experimental' nature of a set of drugs used on children without significant investigation.

And then her intervention in the Green interview seemed a bit lily-livered.

If this is Newsnight's idea of balance, it's pretty poor.

Does SG's child ever talk publicly about their transition?

The Thai government was so horrified by what happened that they very quickly changed the law to raise the age of consent for this type of surgery to 18. Thailand has very liberal views on genital and breast surgery on biological males.

RedToothBrush My first thought on reading it was that a case could be made that it met them all. I guess Keira's barrister is more measured and restrained than me though

I don't care whether Susie Green secretly regrets anything.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for her. Indeed i go further than that in saying i hope her not just in contempt but also regard her as actively endangering children and their best interests because of how her own vested interests at a personal level are more important to her than medical ethics and safeguarding.

She personally has to bare a significant level of blame for the fall out of all this.

We have a situation where vulnerable children were lied to and told they could change sex. Rather than properly managing expectations and informing children accurately and within what is age appropriate.

I regard that as criminal level failing given her position of influence as a charity trustee and ceo.

I do hope it all comes out in the wash and the Mermaids scandal is exposed for what it is: a group which interests are about the parents beliefs first not the children, the protection of Susie Green herself and a trojan horse for the erosion of safeguarding and medical ethics.

It cannot come soon enough.

Suicidality... 🤔

I’m hoping this is more much needed sunlight on Mermaid’s appalling behaviour.