The Guardian on Mermaids

Susie Green seems to think she's more of an expert in this area of medicine than either the NHS or Dr Hilary Cass. Despite having no medical qualifications whatsoever.

I agree OldCrone and I almost feel sorry for her as she can’t go back now. Her and her child have gone down a path of no return.

Can someone just call mermaids on the following ...

The cannot be simultaneously be

criticising global developments, nhs advice, lobbying for their own views to take precedence.

While also admitting no medical expertise on the topic.

That's a staggeringly unethical and immoral position. They should not be given the time of day by anyone.

Absolutely agree. Just read it as a piece where the criticisms were a fairly small part of the article and Susie Green got to waffle on and on about how unfair it all was, what horrible abuse MM was facing because of the nasty (truth seeking) feminists and how the they just want to help the poor kids.

Unlike his other Grauniad pieces, Haroon Siddique hasn't tweeted about this one: twitter.com/Haroon_Siddique

If that article is the only thing someone reads about Mermaids they will get the impression that the organisation is completely downtrodden and fighting bravely against a series of terrible injustices.

'mantrum'

Ugh, it’s basically one long defensive quote from Mermaids/Green, I wouldn’t be surprised if Mermaids requested that The Guardian write the article.

Another one here, in the article Green comes across as a simple caring mum, battling the world, doing the best for her child and other peoples children against the forces of newly created gay supporting charities, the ill informed public and unfair investigation by hostile news media. She bypasses the lies Mermaids policies and Mermaid staff have pumped out to anxious parents and children, and makes claims that the treatments Mermaids pushes have the full approval of the NHS. I almost expected to see F McConnells name as the byline since it very much read like one of their half truths and smeared fudge articles.

I think most people unaware of the issues and reading this article would think that Mermaids had been unfairly targeted.

Puff piece for Mermaids, imo.

It is a really shoddy piece of journalism. The journalist seems to have decided to allow Green to dictate the content. There are so many tough questions that could be asked - why, for example, at the case against LGBA, did it emerge that the Mermaids witness hadn't even read the Cass Review? We would expect everyone involved in Mermaids to be aware of every single detail of such a review and for the CEO to have come up with a plan for integrating its key recommendations into practice.

Contrast this piece with the very thorough article the NYT published the other day. The differences are stark.

I suspect when this is all over, this article will be used in journalism school as an example of what happens when a newspaper is ideologically captured.

Yes why wouldn’t the CEO of a charity for trans children say “it’s important to keep up with the latest research and make sure we continue to give children the best evidence-based care.” She actively wants to shun and criticise making any changes in the interests of safety and caution.

The author of that fluff piece is the legal affairs reporter and sits on the board of the Guardian / Observer.

since an interim report by Cass was published in the summer, the NHS has determined only to prescribe them [blockers] in a formal research setting, which Green says is “inappropriate”.

It’s quite something for the CEO of - what she herself describes as - the biggest charity that supported trans children to announce said children do not deserve the best possible standard of care. Which is what she’s just done. As for finding it frustrating the NHS now provide information that conflicts with what Mermaids tell people?! Such staggering arrogance - & it lends yet more weight to the tales from the Tavistock of undue influence from Mermaids. Why haven’t Mermaids changed their website? They have a responsibility to the community they serve; & any “confusion” is of their making.

As for trying to insist that blockers are safe for z because they were fine for y… it is frankly alarming. It’s not at all a direct comparison & I’m not sure whether it’s worse if she really believes it is or she’s just willing to lie. Then, of course, we’ve known for several years that they’ve had devastating effects on the patient population who took them for precocious puberty. There are people who took Lupron as adults who have been harmed by it, too. Again, can Green really be ignorant of this; and which is worse - that she would fail to keep herself properly informed (yet still loudly pronounce on matters); or that she would simply lie about things?

Even a piece designed to be positive - & utterly lacking in anything one might confuse for a spirit of enquiry - is full of red flags. For lots of people, on this topic, that just means waving their wee red books & carrying on On The Right Side Of History (etc). Hopefully some will catch themselves on this time though.

Susie green.

My phone is playing up again as usual

Its a pretty bad article.

First up suspension green personally knows of at least 1 complication of puberty blockers. I realise it was a laugh for her but she still knows.

Second, it may affect bone and brains? Wasn't it recently revealed about how they have linked it to intracranial hypertension. And the children is ot Sweden? Where it was revealed a 15 year old had the bones of an old lady including a degrading spine?

Third, it doesn't look good that someone with a background in IT can't find in a search something thousands if other people with no IT background found instantly. You could find this stuff out on the toilet ffs.

As for asking the nspcc shes gotta be trolling with that comment. Rubberman? 🙄

Do reporters not investigate anymore? The harm of binders is all over the Internet.

Its clear as day no ones actually looked into anything. If they are so convinced mermaids are clean then why wouldn't they investigate properly. Their lack of research only emphasises how dodgy they know mermaids is.

I think the journalist here/the guardian have still not really taken on board that there’s a massive issue with the medical ethics of affirmation-only, side effects and complications, reversibility, following up outcomes etc, and things like links to paedophilia, and think all these things are just mean lies by meanie old GCs who are hateful bigots. If Cass, Sweden, detransitioners etc start raising valid points about doubts and issues, they too are meanie old GC bigots. Green is the voice of Mermaids a charity for oppressed trans kids, so she is the good guy and knows everything about trans kids and what’s best for them.

if you refuse to take a step back and ask questions about the entire movement and how it’s justified and who it benefits, and bring a scientific assessment to bear on things like not keeping track of outcomes, then you’re stuck in that mindset - especially if you’re surrounded by people who’ll roast you alive if you dare to have a doubt or ask an awkward question. That’s not journalism, but you can see how a culture of “anything trans. = fabulous, no questions “ results in this kind of article.

FFS. This is so sloppy. It is essentially a fluff piece.

In summary. Mermaids are in the shit because of a, b, c, d and e.

Susie Green says "its not faaaaiiiiirrrrrr"

This is "two sides" publishing.

This is not journalism. No critical thinking. No investigation. No opinion given. No challenge of what Green has said.

Shit like this is why I cancelled my subscription.

Yes, and it's a shame that the article didn't mention that Mermaids' witnesses at the Charity Commission/LGB Alliance hearing hadn't read the single most important report in their sector and denied any medical expertise, despite the organisation handing out binders and recommending puberty blockers. Still, baby steps I suppose...

That really jumped out at me too, @OldCrone!
The arrogance.

Love how the LGBA is referred to as a gay rights organisation, rather than the name calling they usually get. This is superb.

“debate pitting trans rights supporters against gender-critical feminists“

same old same old misrepresentation and slurs. Start out by heavily implying those two things are mutually exclusive and being gender critical - critical of gender stereotypes- means being opposed to “trans rights “. I criticise gender stereotypes but I want trans people to have the same rights and protections as other protected groups and for them to exist in a reasonable balance. And a number of trans people themselves are also gender critical and opposed to gender ideology, especially regarding children.

if a bunch of extremist Christian’s started demanding the right to take over mosques and the right to force other people to call them Sir, and I objected, that wouldn’t mean I was opposed to “Christian rights” or protections for religious people. It is such an insidious, ongoing lie.

Useful quote tweet on the "influence" non-question and non-answer

twitter.com/japanesepolar/status/1593344658498887684?s=46&t=rNPWwu6Ok9N-66A4KxRrZg

Do journalists who are asking hard questions, "work with" their subjects? I think not. It's a puff piece:

twitter.com/mermaids_gender/status/1593271088146010113?s=46&t=rNPWwu6Ok9N-66A4KxRrZg

Interview with our CEO is now live in the guardian. Thank you @Haroon_Siddique for working with us on this 🌟Read it here:

Amusingly, a few replies slipped through the net:

twitter.com/kuriousoranj1/status/1593273809519386629?s=46&t=rNPWwu6Ok9N-66A4KxRrZg

twitter.com/banubiba/status/1593282778082287617?s=46&t=rNPWwu6Ok9N-66A4KxRrZg

Surely a person would only use duct tape on themselves if they've been convinced that men don't have breasts/ that breasts mean you are a woman, rather than your gender being your unique identity regardless of what body you have?

They do. There's a thread on it.