Suzie Green issues statement and accuses daily mail of anti -trans witch hunt.

Susie is being held to account at the moment - Telegraph last week and now the Mail.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0E2Ekh1RdSCTguFsKvo8B3QXmSmkEcjJ9EWZNbQtck15f2Go39re32nrRHzE9DKzFl&id=1584620955

Good. Not before time.

What did anyone think would happen if you stopped a key part of everyone's development? We all need to go through puberty. Everyone knows this.

It's obvious that there's no way to design and carry out an ethical test on what happens if you block puberty.

The only reason this happened is ideology, and the fact that children's best interests are never at the forefront of policy and practice. There's no best practice here. No one ever looks for and tries to understand bad practice, which is what this is - to put it mildly.

The ideology allowed those who do care about children to be silenced.

She didn't hoodwink us all-only a bunch of health and medical professionals who forgot to ask-"Who the fuck are you? What credentials do you have?"

Sure. I'm talking more about society at large.

She didn't hoodwink us all-only a bunch of health and medical professionals who forgot to ask-"Who the fuck are you? What credentials do you have?"

Which brings us back the question I asked before - why are intelligent trained professionals so gullible and easy hoodwinked? hundreds of them. NHS, police, teaching, why have they all fallen for this stuff and are so enthusiastic about it? I mean, I can see that hive mind and not wanting to commit professional suicide once this ideology took root, but WHY did it? it's like the Satanic abuse scandal of the 1990s all over again.

She didn't hoodwink us all-only a bunch of health and medical professionals who forgot to ask-"Who the fuck are you? What credentials do you have?"

I think because it's an area where there is literally no science, no knowledge, no expertise, no genuine best practice people feel out of their depth and defer to people like Green who claim that they doknow

Yes exactly

She's managed to make everyone overlook her own lack of expertise.

She's got nothing. No medical knowledge, no child psychology, no safeguarding.

Her professional background is in IT.

The fact that she's hoodwinked us all is a colossal scandal.

Can't wait for this article

OldCrone I think that is very much the line the Tavi does take. I did an FOI ages ago (2+ years ago maybe?) and in their response they stressed that while they were sending me the documents I requested, really the documents (to do with PBs/CSHs) were nothing to do with them because they were just an assessment/referral centre.

According to Susie Green (from the link in the OP): "the Tavistock is a provider of therapeutic support, and do not provide medical interventions."

Is this the line GIDS are going to take now? That the endocrinologists who prescribed puberty blockers are responsible for any negative outcomes, not the GIDS staff who recommended them?

She took her under age child to Thailand for life changing surgery (don’t delete me, this is fact) so I’m not interested in anything she has to say.

To be honest a wide range of people read the mail - claiming that all readers are right wing nutters is just crap. I am a moderate lefty that used to spurn it but I know so many who read it that I gave that up. It’s no worse than the guardian on bias (just obviously biased differently) and on this particular issue it’s much better.

This is such an important point from @MissLucyEyelesbarrow

I think because it's an area where there is literally no science, no knowledge, no expertise, no genuine best practice people feel out of their depth and defer to people like Green who claim that they do know

Ps, obviously the Daily Mail is a hate-mongering rag that demonises immigrants and refugees and obscenely misogynistic. That doesn’t stop it being right about Susie Greene. She’s done so much damage.

Those same old egregious, dangerous lies about suicide. How is she allowed to get away with that time and time again?

Trans identifying teenagers are at the same risk as other teenagers with the many shared comorbidities. The Tavistock itself said there weren’t trans teens killing themselves.

Telling children if they don’t get what they ask for they will end up killing themselves is spectacularly irresponsible and dangerous. Telling parents, and you bet the poor bastards will “comply”! Who wouldn’t, when threatened with the loss of a child by those supposedly in the know?

I think people like this are very persuasive , almost mesmeric in person. Camila of Kids Company was such a one, I remember reading that a perfectly intelligent journalist believed that her when she said she had an unusual health condition which made her ‘ sometimes swell up’ , nothing to do with food intake, a bit like an intermittent dropsy.

This is also how JS and the didgeridoo man hid in plain sight. Of course it helps if the cause you are espousing is fashionable, and people want to believe whatever you are peddling. So people wanted to believe that if they gave CB enough money she would solve the problem of disadvantaged children, and that Mermaids could magic away serious mental health problems and distress by dubious medical treatments.

Oh x post. I must learn to type quicker.

As much as I dislike the Mail for its right leaning rhetoric I do have to give them credit for the Stephen Lawrence murders story.

.

oh dear...rabid readership....then backs it up with a Wikipedia link. Who knows who has complied or edited that " article". Wikipedia is generally worthless as evidence.

@TraumatisedGooner that's something you and I can agree on, they're a bit like some of the trans rights activists. But not so many death and rape threats.

Ahh, judges instead of a dead cat.

When The Daily Mail decides to target someone they really don't give a damn about evidence or ethics. It's just about enraging their rabid readership and intimidating their opponents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_People_(headline)

perhaps it’s being saved for the mail on Sunday

If you work in the NHS, it makes perfect sense. We are all supposed to pay homage to "patients' (or, in this case, parents') lived experience". On paper, listening to patients is a good thing but the problem is that it is difficult - services are dealing with thousands of individuals with competing priorities and preferences. It would take a lot of resource and effort to sample all their views and develop a consensus.

So, in practice, it is more convenient to find a few articulate patients/parents - typically middle-class - and treat them as the spokespeople for all the patients that use your service. The service then gets shaped around their wants/needs, with no attention paid to competing views, or to the needs of people who may find it harder to express themselves across an authority gradient, e.g. less educated, socially deprived, English not first language etc.