Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Is anyone else boycotting Tesco's for giving £80,000 to Mermaids?

999 replies

loveyouradvice · 05/07/2020 17:20

Just that really... I was shocked, especially given all the news coverage there has been about the issues recently. I would have expected them to give it to an uncontroversial charity at the very least - and ideally one that most of their customers would like to support

OP posts:
GreytExpectations · 06/07/2020 10:43

Has MNHQ announced somewhere that we are now to ignore the definition of 'woman' = adult human female in some cases or face a deletion/ban?

MNHQ don't decide that, obviously Hmm you can use whatever phrases you want but youc ant then complain when people with a different opinion use what phrases they want. This is the Internet ffs

TornadoOfSouls · 06/07/2020 10:44

Greyt, okay I could have been more polite. Apologies. But as Ninkanink commented, it’s not that I don’t understand. It’s that you’re literally saying ‘it’s not about specific comments.’ Which I can only take to mean there aren’t comments that support your assertions. So while I believe I understand your position, it doesn’t make sense.

Hoggleludo · 06/07/2020 10:45

Why is mermaids so bad?

Could someone please explain to me?

PotholeParadise · 06/07/2020 10:45

@GreytExpectations

*Yes it's just one person's story but there have been others in the press The stats are possibly hard to find due to the secrecy around the issue. But anyone who has looked at the "genderbread" teaching materials or seen the assessment criteria either has concerns about the application of regressive sex stereotypes and using inadequately trialed treatments on children or is operating under the delusion that it's possible to be born in the wrong body*

So no actual proof of children being forced to transition then, it's all heresay? Sounds more like parents allowing children to make decisions they are clearly not mature enough to understand the long term effects and the children growing up to regret them. Weird how nobody blames the parents in this kind of situation.

Hang on. So you actually agree with concerns on this thread and that the Tavistock is rudderless and providing medical treatment without consideration of children's best interests?

If I read you right, you're saying that whether children had medical treatment or not was completely up to the parents and that it should be completely up to the parents?

Unless they're getting medical treatment for their child out of a vending machine, that shouldn't be the case.

Gender identity clinics are like any other kind of medical clinic- they are supposed to be staffed by professionals who will only provide treatment if it is in their patient's interest.

Children's rights matter.

If I read an article publicising disorders causing low blood pressure in children, and become convinced my child has the issue, no NHS doctor will prescribe medication on my say so. And it goes on like that for every condition.

Similarly, if my child is diagnosed with a condition such as cancer, and I wish to deny treatment due to my own beliefs, social services and the courts will become involved because my child has a right to appropriate medical treatment and to life.

Let's consider tattoos. If my child wants a tattoo at 11 and I believe my child is mature enough to make that decision, my child still can't get one legally because tattooists can't provide that service to under-eighteens. Do medical professionals have fewer responsibilities than tattooists?

These laws and regulations are there to protect children from foolish, neglectful and abusive and simply misinformed parents, and "parents allowing children to make decisions they are clearly not mature enough to understand the long term effects of" falls under that umbrella.

It is not supposed to happen. If this situation, as you yourself worded it, is happening on any kind of scale, this is an institutional failure to protect children by those whose role is to do exactly that.

Ninkanink · 06/07/2020 10:45

@LemonadeAndDaisyChains

I can see what the poster meant about edging into homophobia and racism. I've seen it. I can't think of one example of the top of my head for homophobia (actually, yes I can, gay couples adopting children) and racism the Amy Cooper case. Prolific posters absolutely tying themselves in knots to blame the man in some way to absolve the white woman of blame, he must have been doing something wrong, he must have provoked her to do that (what, asked for it?!) It's utterly sickening when you see it.
Again, one or two individual cases of homophobic or racist comments or opinions does not set the overall position of a huge number of women.

There are scores and scores of threads and comments and well structured arguments for the protection of same sex attracted people, young, vulnerable people in particular, and absolutely supporting their best interests. If you haven’t seen any of those you need to do a lot more in depth reading on FWR and some serious, in depth thinking. And if you have seen them you’re just being wilfully obtuse and absolutely disingenuous.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 06/07/2020 10:46

That’s an interesting position to take. So no children’s charity should be questioned, all activities should be supported, anyone with an issue or concern should be shut down?

I don’t believe any charity should be elevated beyond all scrutiny. And whatever your thoughts about transitioning children, any children’s organisation that dismisses safeguarding principles should be robustly questioned and held to account for failure to implement them.

Other children’s charities have been rightly challenged and subsequently folded for serious allegations, eg Kids Company.

This. Thank you.

ItsLateHumpty · 06/07/2020 10:48

@CoteDAzur

ItsLate - That didn't help much, as it shows one person's opinion.

Has MNHQ announced somewhere that we are now to ignore the definition of 'woman' = adult human female in some cases or face a deletion/ban?

Cote I’ve only been around since 2017 and I’m pretty sure it’s not part of the pinned post in FWR but I thought it fairly common to avoid MiT and cis etc.

I realise I only screenshot 3 posts of a 589 post thread, but other FWR regulars didn’t question the distinction for that particular discussion.
I’m sure you can see for yourself, and maybe ask a wider audience?

Ninkanink · 06/07/2020 10:51

C** is a hugely offensive term (and will be deleted by MNHQ when reported).

I am not a subset of something a man has decided he is. I am a woman.

A tangent, but I always state my position on that term when I see it mentioned.

HandsOffMyRights · 06/07/2020 10:53

@Hoggleludo

Why is mermaids so bad?

Could someone please explain to me?

You know what, I'd like to know why they are so 'good'?

Lots of excellent posts explaining why placing children on a medical pathway is harmful, yet none explaining why pushing children and families towards surgery/drugs/sterilisation is 'good' as you put it.

I don't think we need to 'defend' why cosmetic amputation, stunted growth etc. in kids is 'bad' yet here we are. Time now to explain why it's 'good'.

Women are constantly required to defend the obvious, but let"s flip that round.

Supporters of placing children onto irreversible medical/surgical pathways, please tell us why you back Mermaids and co.

OrlandoInTheWilderness · 06/07/2020 10:53

I didn't know this. I won't be shopping there in the future.
The basic idea of mermaids is good, of course trans children and their families need help and support. But they don't need pushing down any path at such young ages.

ItsLateHumpty · 06/07/2020 10:53

@Ninkanink

C** is a hugely offensive term (and will be deleted by MNHQ when reported).

I am not a subset of something a man has decided he is. I am a woman.

A tangent, but I always state my position on that term when I see it mentioned.

Well, that’s useful thanks 🙄

Maybe read my post / discussion with Cote

tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz · 06/07/2020 10:54

Mermaids CEO took her 16 year old son to Thailand for his birthday for irreversible surgery. Surgery which at the time and for very obvious bloody reasons was and still is, illegal here and is now there. Sounds like a magnificent parenting move Confused

And Tesco will chuck her a wad of cash so she can do this to other parents and so many posters think the charity that she runs is not harmful?

But apparently it's all on those parents and not Mermaids, if their child has made the wrong choice. FFS.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 06/07/2020 10:55

I REALLY cannot see why there is such anger? it seems to be a charity dedicated to helping children. but then again i would absolutely support a persons trans choice. it seems I am in the minority on this site

Perhaps you should research both sides of the argument about transitioning children, as you're new to it?

Ninkanink · 06/07/2020 10:56

And here, for reference, is my position on the overall topic being discussed (again, about of a tangent since the thread is about Mermaids, but given that we’re apparently talking about -phobia instead it’s definitely relevant:

There is hatred and vitriol overwhelmingly from one side of this ‘debate’ here (hint: it’s not actually a debate). Please don’t try to claim that there is any kind of equivalence, because there isn’t. If you can’t see that you need to do a lot more reading.

If any of you who are new to this discussion want to know what current trans ideology looks like, perhaps read up on what behaviours apparently fall under this umbrella.

There is a reason why women are having to push back so forcefully on this.

Women did not cause this. Women are not to blame for this.

It’s not about those decent men who aren’t predatory, rapists, killers; It never is.

Tens of thousands of women and girls in this country are harmed in some way by men every year. Millions and millions throughout the world. Those men should not be allowed into women’s spaces, regardless of how they identify, what they feel like, what they want, how they look or choose to dress, or what title they have thought of to describe themselves, or misappropriated.

As there is absolutely no way of sorting the good from the indifferent from the very bad indeed, all men must be excluded.

Even if there was a way to sort and define and establish that all the relevant men were good, decent, kind men, they still should not be allowed to enter women’s spaces, because a male presence, however benign, is very directly harmful to a certain number of women. A male presence, however benign, is not comfortable for women and girls in their very private, vulnerable spaces. Decent men all know this. Which is why they do not want to be in women’s spaces.

It makes no difference what the individual thinks or feels or wishes to be true. It does not make it true. It does not negate biological fact, nor material reality.

It does not matter how they dress, what they look like, whether they have taken hormones, had surgery (very few do, in fact) or whatever else the case may be.

Sex matters. Biology matters.

Women do NOT have to have suffered sexual abuse, predatory behaviour, violence, rape or in fact any harm at all, in order to be entitled to protection from potentially suffering those things. It is enough to say no, I am not okay with this. I do not consent. My daughters do not consent. My sisters, my mother, my friends, women I don’t know and will never meet, do not consent. NO.

Women do not want men in their spaces.

The vast majority of men do not want to be in women’s spaces.

That does not take away from the rights of transgender individuals. They have every right to live peacefully without fear from harm. But they cannot gain that end by appropriating spaces that are sex-segregated in order to protect women’s dignity, privacy and safety.

I must stress that even if you no longer have a penis, you are biologically still a man.

That truth might be painful, but we all have to deal with many painful truths.

You are entitled to a safe space; you have a right to peaceful existence without harm or fear of harm.

But you are not entitled to my safe space, nor that of my daughters, nor that of any other woman.

PotholeParadise · 06/07/2020 10:57

Back when I had no concerns about Mermaids, I thought it was medical staff's responsibility to put their child patient's interests first, and I still think that.

Can anyone explain to me today why I should look at people who regret transitioning as children and just dismiss it as 'pity your parents were so awful' instead of campaigning for better safeguards?

I don't do that with anything else of a similar magnitude even if it can be traced back to terrible parents. Not child marriage, not FGM, not cosmetic surgery, not tattoos, not denial of medical treatment, not any kind of abuse or neglect.

Dances · 06/07/2020 10:57

So why does Mermaids have an escape page so that kids looking at their website can click and escape to another page if their parents come near? Is it still the fault of parents?

ItsLateHumpty · 06/07/2020 10:59

And a call service where a child gives their number and will be called back by a withheld number by an anonymous person.

Ffs.

Ninkanink · 06/07/2020 10:59

@ItsLateHumpty I wasn’t intending it to be specifically useful to you, although I’m sorry it wasn’t as I generally do like to be helpful in matters of discussion. I stated very clearly that it was a tangential comment but that I always make that statement when I see that term mentioned.

So I really don’t know what your problem is. Confused

Anyway I’m off to enjoy the first sunny day we’ve had in a while!

ItsLateHumpty · 06/07/2020 11:02

@Ninkanink maybe read my posts, understand the convo, before you jump in with both feet with what looks like a post to say I agree with the use of cis as a pronoun.

Enjoy the sunshine.

SerenityNowwwww · 06/07/2020 11:02

@pinkglove75318

I had never heard of mermaids before this thread, just had a relatively quick google search.

I REALLY cannot see why there is such anger? it seems to be a charity dedicated to helping children. but then again i would absolutely support a persons trans choice. it seems I am in the minority on this site

Don’t just read their own fluff. Research 101 - look at both sides.
Ereshkigalangcleg · 06/07/2020 11:04

Calling a trans woman on a thread a "Gloating manipulative male" is apparently not calling them a man, I said male! Try again!"

Lemonade

This seems to conflict with this statement of yours upthread:

You're right, in they can't be biologically women. That's true, that's just basic science/biology

Melioration · 06/07/2020 11:05

Most people see the word charity and assume that it is an organisation that does good.

In reality it is a designation that gives tax advantages and means there is a board and some safeguards to prevent people collecting money and running off with it.

Mermaids is homophobic. It provides education and support to parents who think their child is the opposite sex to their body and prepares the way for use of cross sex hormones at 16. The reality is that most of these children would grow up to be same sex attracted and that girls are massively over represented.

The properly reviewed evidence for this approach is sparse, there is a huge lack of follow up and most of this approach is built on the personal experience of the ceo seeking unproven treatment abroad. NHS facilitates are overwhelmed and staff are leaving as the reality of what is happening hits them.

Too many people with the best of intentions are getting sucked in. Everyone wants to be kind and look after children who are suffering but this is the wrong way.

Children deserve better.

CoteDAzur · 06/07/2020 11:05

"you can use whatever phrases you want but youc ant then complain when people with a different opinion use what phrases they want"

Greyt - I don't complain when people use the words they want.

However, if they use those words incorrectly (i.e. not in accordance with dictionary definitions), I tell them that they are wrong.

BiBabbles · 06/07/2020 11:06

I haven't heard of this donation before today, but this won't really affect what little shopping I do. I'm not sure modern boycotts are much use, not without a lot of other methods being involved to the point that the boycott seem to have little impact. Most historically impactful boycotts involved creating an alternative or doing without which we can't really do with most things bought at a supermarket, and hopping from one company to another just moves the shite around. People can spend their money as they see fit obviously and there are certainly more ethical ways to buy groceries for those who can access it, but realistically, I don't see the benefit of boycotts as a main tool against most corporations without some of the actions previous posters have mentioned like letter writing.

Of all the reasons to refuse to shop with them, this and the two other donations made to mark Pride doesn't really ping for me as either a positive or negative - as previously mentioned, this is tiny for them. I strongly disagree with the main medicalist ideological messages in their programmes for school and employers and lobbying by Mermaids, we know (GIRES has presented a an analysis of studies to Parliament and has more on their website) that the majority of people of with gender dysphoria do not medically transition and encouraging that as the typical route doesn't really help anyone and I give medicalist groups a wide berth, and their idea of individualizing gender frustrates me, but I'm also aware from working with local groups - some that have had ties to Mermaids - that local support often doesn't have the same ideals as the wider organizations so it's quite possible that some find great support where they otherwise couldn't get any and that the national organization has a fuckton of ideological and practical issues that need to be dealt with sharpish.

All charities should be scrutinized and if we want to handwave when parents who go to these groups for support get and act on fucked up advice as something a parent can choose to take or not, then why have the groups in the first place? Even if we want to say it' a rogue element, the charity then needs to put in place structures to prevent that type of action happening again. I've certainly gotten terrible advice from a charity my local council used for young carers, but I was lucky enough to be in a position where I wasn't reliant on them for trying to figure out what was best me and my child. Other parents might not have been in the same position to gain access to support for their kids. Individualizing the negatives of Mermaids as all down to bad parenting is to make them pretty meaningless and negates their environmental impact which kinda means the positives some gets shouldn't matter much either. Either they have an impact or they don't - I think they do, and that while some of the local groups can have merits, they have structural issues that are harmful. We can recognize both, even support alternatives for support groups and school/professional guidance until/unless they sort themselves out. Dysphoric kids - however they identify - deserve better than what is going on now where they're ideologically pushed around.

GreytExpectations · 06/07/2020 11:08

@TornadoOfSouls

Greyt, okay I could have been more polite. Apologies. But as Ninkanink commented, it’s not that I don’t understand. It’s that you’re literally saying ‘it’s not about specific comments.’ Which I can only take to mean there aren’t comments that support your assertions. So while I believe I understand your position, it doesn’t make sense.
In the same way that racism doesn't have to be blatant, neither does transphobia. Do you really think the only way something can be transphobic is if an actual, literal slur was used? Same thing as racism, just because it isnt blatant doesn't mean it doesn't exist.