How should we refer to parents who take their children abroad to have their genitalia removed?

[GrabbyGabby]

Dear MNHQ

I just got a deletion for referring to the well evidenced fact that Susie Green, now ex CEO of Mermaids took her child to Thailand on their 16th birthday and had their male genitalia removed. I used the correct medical terminology (castration) for this procedure and used sex based pronouns (he).

Can you please explain why my post was deleted? The use of euphasims such as "top surgery" and "gender realignment surgery" are not accurate and hide the brutal truth.

Can you please let me know which elements of my post caused the deletion.

Ah but remember, FGM is wrong because it’s religious and only non-white parents do it to unwilling children. It’s ok to do it to white children who decide they want it because…..MN perhaps you can fill in the blanks here seeing as we are censored for talking about one but encouraged to protest strongly about the other?!

Awaits deletion

Synonym.

it's not religious, its cultural, but your main point, that its to do with race is correct
an easier comparison is between breast ironing (wrong, abusive, backward, ignorant, done by black people) and breast binding ( self determination, gender free, progressive, modern, done by white girls)

also, girls may 'consent' to FGM

If you can't say castration, then I guess genital amputation would cover it.

Apologies you are absolutely right, my wording was off.

I can’t believe it’s recognised that girls can’t consent to FGM however willing they may seem, but if it’s trans surgery this is somehow different and absolutely fine.

Just a reminder, everyone - MNHQ has in the past employed a TRA (the intern, Emma Healey, who doxed posters from the FWR boards) who said that there were others at MNHQ who felt the same as she did.

I suspect that MNHQ is like many workplaces at the moment - some vocal woke supporters of trans rights, some very quietly gender critical people trying not to put their heads above the parapet, and a number who are completely oblivious to the debate and it’s potential consequences.

This would explain the inconsistent deletions and censorship as well as the response LangCleg received when she pointed out the parallels between this and an abusive relationship.

The child just wanted to play with Barbies.

Imagine the story if they'd let the boy play with the dolls and accepted him as he was...

When it comes to protecting the rights and safety of children the use of clear and accurate language must take precedence over all other considerations.

I will use language that describes the sex of her child and what she did to him clearly and accurately.

A monstrous, homophobic, narcissistic, gas-lighting, evil child abuser.

Do remember that it's never solely about the substance - it's always also about the overall tone of the post.

It would be just as accurate to refer to medical management of a TOP as 'poisoning the cells that comprise the future baby'

It would go down like a cup of cold sick. Even though it's entirely medically accurate.

Conversations about what should happen in the medical management of minors who seek reassignment are important. But choice of language is doing so.

You would be highly disingenuous if you did not know the "but I'm only stating the science" is a slogan, not a neutral statement.

It is very much on use by anti-trans campaigner, and I think it's right to remove that stalking horse.

The same debate can be had without adopting the slogan of the bigots

It’s our tone again ladies.

Abusers

If a male child identifies as female can someone operating on their genitals then be prosecuted for FGM? If not then the law is saying trans women are not women - or at least that there is no such thing a a trans child.

But this whole thread will be deleted soon.

Jesus. You people keep unintentionally outting yourselves don't you?

So can we call pedophiles, pedophiles if the child is a participant? Is it ok to give drugs and alcohol to children if they drink it enthusiastically?

@PinkyU you seem to just be reciting the end goals of grooming. Do you think children deserve any protection at all from malign adult influence?

That comment has made me feel sick.

Children can be “enthusiastic and active participants” in the removal of their genitalia?

Your beliefs are dangerous and disturbing. Have a word with yourself and for fuck’s sake, stay away from kids.

@FuckeryOmbudsman a child was taken abroad on their 16th birthday by their mother and had their genitals removed, and you are querying the tone of my post?

My tone is what worries you most about this scenario? Because somehow my fury at what this woman has done might somehow be misconstrued as bigotry?

My tone is full on rage. I want to see the likes of Susie Green and Sibh Gallagher suffer for what they have done. They have profited personally by brutalising children. I will take being called a bigot all day every day if speaking up means they dont get to harm another child.

So, you can fuck off with your tone policing. I will focus on using my rage to help protect children.

Alison you are so like my reallife mate Ali, it's unreal.

I am making Heart eyes at you.

My opinion or your opinion on the subject isn't even relevant. It was illegal here and it's illegal there now. You should be able to call abuse of a minor, abuse. Though castration isn't really accurate as it's far worse than a basic castration.

MGM? If castration is not accurate enough, perhaps Male Genital Mutilation would suffice?

Fucking pissed off about this. No child can consent/approve/enthusiastically participate in making themselves infertile and butchering themselves.

Child abuse apologists are revolting.