Change of CEO at mermaids…

What other perfectly fine words are on autoban do we know?

I've been deleted for using the word "cult".

I made a post the other day that mentioned chemical c…
Swiftly deleted. 🤷‍♀️
What other perfectly fine words are on autoban do we know?

Nah. There is no way you can keep up the constant stream of virtue signalling.

It is obsessive. I wonder if she has ever taken a moment to reflect and consider whether she is as right as she thinks she is.

Me too- although I love musicals AND Sci-fi! I find it so hard to label myself! Maybe I'm pan-fictional?

I really hope they pick an active transactivist. It would be brilliant. Which is why, I suspect, they never will.

Ahem!?! I will be much better at that than minnymum 😂

I wonder if she will apply for the CEO job.

Can't think of anyone better for the job ... of consigning it to oblivion.

Marge and her friends seem to be avoiding this thread. I wonder why. I had a look at Mimmymums twitter and again, aside from pointing out quite a funny fail by the Times picture editor, does not mention Mermaids. The little mermaid thingy has gone from her profile, curious in that it is only a change of staff. Unless she thinks Susie is/was Mermaids.

I wonder if she will apply for the CEO job. Her twitter is really active. Lots of retweeting of Joss Prior and of Gendered Intelligence etc. (Oddly the focus is on their court case not the Mermaids one.) My overriding impression, based partly on her posts on wider political topics, is that she really does think she is cool and down with the kids. Virtue signalling all the way.

Is anyone knowledgeable about when the Mermaids v. LGBA decision will be announced? Is there a time limit to these things where by a decision has to be reached by a certain date?

Thank @ResisterRex , how very irritating. It's not as if c is an offensive word.

So no threads on MN about chemical-c of paedophiles or vetinary c of bullocks then I guess 😂

I've been called odd because I hate opera and musicals and love sci fi.

Sexism is everywhere. It's also subjective

nilsmousehammer - "this says everything about the parent's own psychological issues and nothing about the child and how they may grow up.

We will never know how people like Jackie and Jazz may have grown up if left to find their own way unsteered by adults with agenda and issues of their own."

Almost every day I think of a prelapsarian time before medics started wielding their scalpels and concocting chemical "cures". None of this would be possible without medical narcissism and unscrupulous snake-oil salesmen.

Some parents can be blamed for jumping on the bandwagon but there are others who were terrified into compliance by the most evil of lies, "Do you want a living son or a dead daughter?"

The thing is, no one can define GNC, because how far do you take it?

Not all lesbians grew up with short hair, dms, shaved heads, doing spot welding. Some do. Some do it in response and intentional rebellion against the stereotypes being pushed on them that they don't related to. Others are fine with the dolls, the long hair, the feminine clothes and activities, and just like what they like. Yet the act of fancying other female people is in itself GNC.

The only real answer is that gender is a lot of constructed bullshit that cannot be pinned down, and female and male people come with a wonderful range of personalities, interests and preferences, which shift over time and in response to age, experience, culture, friendships etc. And it's bloody stupid for parents to panic and try to read something determinate into a child focusing on a toy that makes the parent feel uncomfortable. When really, this says everything about the parent's own psychological issues and nothing about the child and how they may grow up.

We will never know how people like Jackie and Jazz may have grown up if left to find their own way unsteered by adults with agenda and issues of their own.

cough literature reviews be careful this doens't include 'grey literature' ie references to things with NO actual methodology but just assertions.

Thanks for the links Daughter.
Very interesting to read the DM one again, as you say, in the current light.

This 2010 Scientific American article is mostly talking about the Bailey/Zucker research but I did find this little snippet to be interesting in the context of little data being available re: girls.

blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/is-your-child-a-prehomosexual-forecasting-adult-sexual-orientation/

it’s only 25 GNC girls but it’s 25 GNC girls who were so GNC they stood out even in a sea of tomboys OR they were 25 GNC girls who had parents/teachers/HCPs who were sufficiently troubled by their GNC behaviour to trot them off to the gender identity clinic (dated 2008 so way before most parents would’ve been aware that paediatric gender clinics were a thing).

Maybe it’s unfair of me but I imagine at least some of those 25 girls had an influential adult in their lives with some homophobic issues to work through (perhaps some in a genuinely anxious/fear for the future way rather than a bigoted way)

I listened to this 2020 podcast interview with SG yesterday. In it she says that when Jackie was tiny she read a book on parenting boys that had a few paragraphs about GNC behaviours (inc toy choice!) indicating future homosexuality. I’m trying to find the book referred to…

open.spotify.com/episode/4b5OvrPpDPgDfkFmq3QHIa?si=besdUvuMQ5O2dQTS9sEPjw

Whilst getting the timeline figured out to look for likely boy-raising manuals (potentially looking for something that came out in the early/mid nineties) I came across this 2016 Mail article on Jackie & Susie Green and the controversial influence of Mermaids on UK politics and NHS policy.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3973036/amp/Jackie-Green-heart-controversy-children-young-nine-given-drugs-change-sex.html

It’s bonkers how long people have been trying to sound the alarm. Pretty much everything we’ve seen play out in the last 6 years is warned off (Stephanie DA is quoted).

I know this article has been posted before but it’s well worth revisiting re: how the greater prevalence of GNC behaviours observed in girls than is observed in boys has resulted in so many girls finding themselves under the enormously expanded ‘trans umbrella’ and may be the simplest explanation of both the sudden rise and the sex ratio flip in referrals to paediatric gender clinics:

www.realityslaststand.com/p/the-transgender-umbrella-casts-its

I think there is also a correlation with younger brothers being more likely to be gay than older male siblings?

Ah, Bosky has already said some of this, but I had my own version typed out...

I note some of the previous debate may only be a debate due to differing interpretations of the term "strongly correlated".

Given that homosexuality is so rare, even with a strong correlation between GNC behaviour in childhood and being homosexual, the chance that a child who is GNC is homosexual is slim. Homosexuality is rare!

Whereas the chance that a homosexual child may be GNC will be MUCH higher.

Now, that correlation isn't immediately important, if no action is proposed based on the observation of GNC behaviour.

If there is a new diagnosis of "trans" for GNC that causes action, then given the correlation a small minority of straight children and a much larger proportion of gay children, possibly a majority of them, are liable to be caught up in it.

Is the (possible) correlation between childhood gender-nonconformity and adult homosexuality being stated the wrong way around?

I wondered about that too. Also whether there would be different stats for males and females. And finally, age distribution- I'd guess many older gender conforming gay people in the past would not have been out at all, so things might have appeared differently.

Is the (possible) correlation between childhood gender-nonconformity and adult homosexuality being stated the wrong way around?
ie.

NOT - "If a child is GNC then he/she is likely to grow up to be gay/lesbian"

BUT RATHER - "Gay men and lesbians are likely to have been GNC as children"

The equations are quite different.

The percentage of the population who grow up to be gay or lesbian is quite small.

If many girls can be described as "tom boys" then most of them will grow up straight - because so few girls grow up to be lesbians.

However, that is not inconsistent with (if true) many lesbians having been tomboys.

I didn't say either authors were biased or that their paper was biased. I said there appeared to be many people disagreeing with their stance which (in my mind) indicates conflicting (ie weak) evidence and I stand by that assumption.

What you said was:
having read the paper and a bit about the 2 authors I'm not sure about that being such great evidence

The implication (as I read it) was that you were suggesting that the paper was flawed because of something you'd read about the authors. If that's not the case, what did you mean about reading 'a bit about the 2 authors' and why is it relevant?

But I notice that you managed to download the paper, read all 10 pages of text, analyse it, google the authors, and post your own comment in the space of less than 10 minutes. That's impressive. Or had you already read the paper and were already familiar with the authors? Because your earlier comment implied that you weren't aware of the controversies surrounding either of them.

I stand by my previous comment that Childhood sex-typed behaviour is not connected to sexual orientation in any meaningful way - an argument that many of the researchers mentioned in the paper also agreed with (especially re: girls and women where it appears little research has been done on this matter).

The paper does mention the lack of research about women, but I haven't read it in great enough detail to comment about whether their conclusions about male behaviour and sexuality are consistent with those of the papers in their review.

Thank you for taking my question, musing and discussing it.

We don’t know either way if GNC children may grow up to be gay, just as we don’t know if more stereotypically conforming children will do so. I don’t particularly see a good reason for the link or that it’s helpful. In fact it could be unhelpful as talking about a link between GNC and LGB makes a link in people’s minds.

The concept of GNC children being statistically likely to grow up to be gay (especially boys) is usually referred to as ‘pregay’ or ‘protohomosexual’ in research papers. There is a lot of it about besides Bailey and Zucker.

Of course, much of the discipline of ‘sexology’ is, in hindsight, really fucking circumspect so simply linking to papers online is a bit like playing academic Russian roulette, we’re quite likely to find a paedo apologist/queer theorist lurking in the chamber.
Add in the fact that statistically confirming parents homophobic fears about their GNC child growing up to be same sex attracted is (was?) unlikely to contribute to better outcomes for those children and it’s a bit of a quagmire.
I like to think that nowadays it would be more ‘Don’t worry about any unusual GNC behaviour, your child is statistically likely to grow up homosexual!’ and that being a relief and a comfort to parents, rather than the ‘Oh shit, your child will be a homosexual if you don’t pray hard/beat them/take their toys away’ it might’ve been historically (but I realise that outside of my Atheist, feminist, artsy social circle it can still be very hard for GNC maybe-gay-one-day kids, especially those growing up in orthodox/conservative religions).

GNC children who grow up to be gay do not necessarily retain their gender nonconformity in adulthood btw.
Lots of very macho gay men were once swishy, sparkly little boys!

Feels weird to generalise this because we’ve seen such massive shifts in terms of childhood conformity to sex stereotypes over the last 40 years (and children growing up with feminist mums have been somewhat sheltered from pressure to gender conform at home, whilst still being steeped in media/advertising pressure and peer pressure at school) still…

Girls generally have a wider spectrum of societally acceptable gendered behaviour available to them in childhood than boys do but girls tend to get those GNC behaviours squashed out of them hard and with little warning at puberty (one of many reasons why puberty can be particularly hard on ASD girls who don’t cope well the sudden ‘rule change‘) whereas GNC boys have a more consistent level of societal disapproval all the way from preschool to young adulthood (especially from hetero adult males, eg Dad, which is sometimes enforced by adult females eg Mum, even if the original disapproval didn’t come from mum and from male peers at school).

（following this post up with a few links but dare not click away to find them in case this gets accidentally deleted 🤣）

Saying someone is not male or straight because they don't play with "heterosexual male typical" toys is nonsense. An behavioural outlier is just an outlier.

That's a totally different thing from a statement about a correlation, which could be simply true or false, and not inherently nonsensical.