Susie Green has left Gender GP!

How can you be the lead consultant on an ITV drama about trans kids, be part of the publicity of that series including detailing just how much it reflects your own life and personal experience (and that's why I was the lead consultant) and THEN when questions over the ethics of child transition and the roll of adults start arising turn around and say 'its invasion of privacy and harassment to talk about my personal life and that of my child'?

Susie Green has no concept of the idea of once data is in the public sphere it is unerasable and she certainly has no concept of public accountability and the principle of whether it's in the public interest to know.

Mermaids was under scrutiny for it's influence over the NHS in the light of a report into poor practice and a documented concern over safeguarding and undue influence of children. On what planet did she think that she could escape public scrutiny and accountability on a personal level given how much it was a driving force for the drama and the entire charity?

The LaLa Land of fantasy Susie Green lives in where people are supposed to instantly forget inconvenient truths has no limits.

Every time she tries to impose it on others just exposes her Stasi-Like mentality and ambition.

It has to be pointed out that anyone who has a pattern of behaviour like this, is a concern if in charge or in a position of influence over any child. And it certainly does raise questions about her own personal relationships. It is NOT inappropriate to be concerned about that in the context of a known exposed scandal. Indeed it is one of the key things we SHOULD be drawing attention to and talking about being of the ramifications of it.

I do have to wonder if there is growing tension between mother and child over this. Child wanted Mummy to undo something. Child has learnt that Mummy fixes everything. And Mummy attempted to do so because that's what they do in their attempts to suspend reality.

However you can not escape the brick wall of reality. No matter how much totalitarians try to deny it, they ALWAYS collide with reality eventually became it can never be avoided forever. There is always a cost to suppressing reality and the only question is about how much collateral damage you sustain along the way.

This is a law of nature.

Well, they always said you can’t con an honest person so I guess it would probably work quite well…

Just catching up on this thread.
Love that there’s other Hustle fans here! The Hustle gang would never be involved in anything that hurt children. They’d be running a con on Susie.

Ahh, when Susie left Mermaids, I remember some people reported on SM that there was a purge of old tweets relating to her son. I wonder, cynically, if this was the reason the tweets were deleted?

Rob in doesn’t even have a deadname!

Does this mean that I would be misgendering RMW if I used female pronouns? RMW doesn't have a GRC.

Agreed.

If legal sex is the measure of accuracy when it comes to press reporting, that's a huge precedent.

This could lead to some interesting debate amongst journalists on how to strike a balance when reporting on issues where the biological sex of the subject is important. For example, perhaps they may start saying things like "X is a transwoman who is legally recognised as male but prefers to be described using she/her pronouns". Then avoid any pronouns after that point. The BBC did a great job of avoiding all pronouns entirely when reporting on the Isla Bryson case (also one "he" did go in until a later edit removed it - all captured in screenshots on a MN thread). The difference is that it can now be clearly stated when someone is (legally recognised as) male, which is something they didn't do with Isla Bryson. It's not the same as clearing up the difference between sex and gender identity but it makes the news story a lot clearer to understand.

'government guidance made clear that an individual must hold a Gender Recognition Certificate if they wish for their affirmed gender to be legally recognised'

This does sound significant.

17. The publication said that government guidance made clear that an individual must hold a Gender Recognition Certificate if they wish for their affirmed gender to be legally recognised. As Jackie Green did not hold such a certificate at the time of her surgery, the publication did not accept that it was inaccurate or pejorative for the newspaper to use male pronouns to refer to her at this time – she was still, according to the publication, ‘legally’ male at this time.

😯That's quite a shift in policy isn't it? Will we be seeing more people with special identities referred to by accurate sex pronouns in the press from now on?

What Susie means, Penguin, is that Susie has the right to do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, including control the speech of others.

So Jackie was protected as regards gender identity from the time she came out as trans aged 4. But it was OK for her mother to use male pronouns when referring to him/her at 6.
Make it make sense!

That's a thorough and clear judgement from IPSO. I'm quite surprised. I wonder if their internal policies have shifted.

'The complainant said that her daughter had been absent from the public eye for many years; even if she had previously engaged with the press in the past, that did not give the publication the automatic right to continue to disclose details of Jackie’s private life years after she had withdrawn from the public eye. The complainant also said that she herself had not referenced her daughter publicly in many years, due to her daughter’s request.'

'The Committee also took into account that, since the information had originally been disclosed by the complainant and her daughter, Jackie Green had chosen to step back from public life.'

20. The terms of Clause 2 make clear that, when considering an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy, account should be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information, and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain. The information disclosed by the article – the fact that Jackie Green had undergone gender affirmation surgery at the age of sixteen, and her mother’s comments about the surgery – had been disclosed previously in talks, broadcast interviews, and interviews with print newspapers, some of which remained online.'

It's a salutary lesson. A young person gave some kind of consent to having their life used to further a parent's career; but subsequently asked to not be used. The trouble is, it's all too late.

I've just read the IPSO decision in full. Very interesting, and very helpful to have on record.

Wow. Nice to see IPSO has grown some balls

(*sits on hands to avoid making wisecracks about boys who encounter Susie Green).

"The use of male pronouns, therefore, were not tied to Jackie Green as she was now, but in reference to a television interview which the complainant had given about her gender affirmation surgery, and a Ted Talk during which she had spoken in depth about Jackie’s life."

Publicly available information then.

I wonder if Susie will be handed a lesson about the power of the Streisand effect?

I'm quite surprised that IPSO stood its ground. Good progress. Even someone with a Be Kind mentality may look with a little more scrutiny now.

Drawing people's attention to the complaint rejection is certainly a brave move on Susie's part. Or she's so lost in her own arrogance that she hasn't spotted that the tanker is slowly turning and she herself is now letting in more sunlight. D'oh.

Great.

Susie complained they rejected her complaint

16423-23 Green v The Sunday Times

Decision: No breach - after investigation

https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=16423-23

'Harassment'? Or facing serious questions from the University that he didn't want to answer? The pattern does seem to be that asking safeguarding questions is framed as harassment all too often.

I was worried that one would get swept under the table and forgotten only for him to return with no questions asked. So good to hear.

As for Susie Green. I think a few possibilities here. Being used to being her own boss and wanting to go back to the charity sector doesn't make sense - she'd have another boss.

Stonewall and Susie Green aren't a match. She'd attract too much of the wrong attention. But she might want the job all the same and think she has what it takes. She has an ego.

The money angle strikes me as more realistic. Susie Green is big on promises. She had leverage at Mermaids and probably sold herself on the back of Mermaids success. But has forgotten that she left under a cloud so her name is now toxic and she just doesn't have the pulling power under her own name. Those favourable contacts, suddenly gone quiet? Failing to bring in money and perhaps attracting unfavorable reputation to the company at the exact same time competitors are starting up?! Or was she working on commission, thinking she could bring in more and she's had a reality check? Or simply there's been a decline in GenderGPs income meaning they have to let people go?

Or has she got a better offer. There's always been this feeling she will get a job in the US.

Deeply moving. And hysterically funny 🤔

Tho actually - 'on the money'. The good they could have striven for, but no. Trans-bollox-ideology.

Lost.

She's certainly fond of the word 'lifesaving'.

Crassly irresponsible is the best of what it is.

I ask that the harassment of the LSE Department of Gender Studies comes to an end, and that my colleagues be left to continue their vital teaching and research in peace.

Harassment = querying written down, public domain, sexual fantasises in your own name about kids.

Vital teaching and research? Do me a favour.

Shall we tell them? 😁

He doesn't seem to have informed LSE: https://www.lse.ac.uk/gender/people-profiles/faculty/jacob-breslow