Mermaids story in the Sunday Times today

[EmpressOfTheSpartacusOceans]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mermaids-uk-charity-ban-as-boy-forced-to-live-as-girl-dvx3j99cn?shareToken

A taxpayer-funded transgender charity has been banned by the High Court from any contact with a family after the mother, who was being advised by the group, forced her seven-year-old son to live as a girl.

The latest accounts for Mermaids UK, published last week, reveal it has been granted £35,000 by the Department for Education (DfE) and a total of £138,000 by the national lottery’s Awards for All fund and the BBC’s Children in Need appeal.

It can also be revealed that until last week Mermaids was advertising “same day” cross-sex hormone treatment for children. NHS guidelines do not allow the treatment, which causes irreversible bodily changes and can compromise fertility, for anyone under 16.

In a court case, reported last year, Mr Justice Hayden removed the seven-year-old child, known as “J”, from his mother after finding she had caused him “significant emotional harm” and “pressed [him] into a gender identification that had far more to do with his mother’s needs and little, if anything, to do with his own”.

Social services had declined to act against the woman, saying she had “appropriately taken on board support from . . . Mermaids”. However, the judge accused social workers of “summarily disregarding” many concerns expressed by police and healthcare professionals about J because they “did not wish to appear to be challenging an emerging orthodoxy in such a high-profile issue”.

J was home-schooled and was dressed in girls’ clothes, the judgment found. After being removed from his mother, sent to live with his father and sent to school, he had “assert[ed] his own masculine gender” and lived life as a boy.

At the time, Mermaids attacked the “horrific decision”, insisted J wanted to be a girl and said there was “no evidence at all to support this judge’s views”.

Yet in separate Facebook posts it has now emerged that the charity admitted it had been “ordered to have nothing to do with this child following their removal”.

Until last Friday the youth section of the Mermaids website featured a message from Dr Birgit Möller, a Hamburg-based doctor, offering fast-track trans-sex hormone treatment for children. “If the families are interested we would set up a long evaluation appointment at our clinic (3-4 hours) and afterwards an appointment with the endocrinologist [hormone specialist],” Möller wrote. “In case of an indication for hormone treatment he would prescribe it the same day.”

The message was removed after The Sunday Times asked Mermaids about it.

Stephanie Davies-Arai, founder of Transgender Trend, a website for parents questioning the diagnosis and treatment of children as transgender, said: “I am concerned that Mermaids is indoctrinating children, scaring parents into thinking that [gender] transition is the only way and intimidating professionals.”

The DfE said it did not fund Mermaids directly but as one of 13 “partner” groups in an anti-bullying alliance.

Mermaids claimed last night that it was not the subject of the court order and that it was the family that had been ordered to have no contact with it.

And for balance, Mermaids' response:

Mermaids was recently approached by a journalist looking to run an article on the charity, which was clear from the questions posed, was to be a ‘smear campaign’, looking for another sensational headline about transgender children.

The ‘news’ article which was published today (8/10/17) in the Sunday Times, references Mermaids financial accounts, a story from over a year ago, and one of numerous documents on the Mermaids website.

The ‘news’ story headline references a court case from over a year ago, where a young trans girl was tragically removed from her mother and was covered extensively in the national media at the time. Several months prior to the judgement, Mermaids was informed by the mother that the judge had ordered that her child was no longer allowed to access support from Mermaids. While we have followed this request, Mermaids has never received any legal notification or court order supporting this statement and no ‘ban’ has ever been issued.

The Facebook post referenced in the article, dates back to October 2016, and was posted by Mermaids immediately following the court judgement. This post has been in the public domain for over a year and has already been viewed by over 49,000 people. We continue to stand by the comments made in the post, and maintain that the outcome was tragic for all concerned. There has been no further progress on the case since that time, so we question the relevance in reporting on it as an ‘emerging’ piece of information.

Mermaids primary source of income is through grants and funding bids. While it is true that Mermaids receives funding from the Department of Education and the Children in Need, the charity receives no direct funding from the UK taxpayer.

The Department of Education funding allows us to deliver essential training in schools to address homophobia, biphobia and transphobia. This desperately needed training was highlighted in the 2017 Stonewall School Report, which uncovered shocking statistics about the treatment of transgender pupils in schools. With 51% of trans pupils being bullied, one in ten receiving violent threats, 84% of trans kids self-harming, and 45% attempting suicide, this training is crucial.

Similarly, with demand for Mermaids services increasing; as illustrated by the increase in phone calls and emails to Mermaids helplines from 400 in 2013/14 to nearly 4,000 in 2016/17, the Children in Need funding is essential to ensuring that Mermaids can answer the immediate need when vulnerable young people and desperate parents are reaching out for help.

Lastly, the statement that Mermaids was ‘advertising’ same-day cross sex hormones is misleading. On approaching Mermaids for a quote for this article, the journalist highlighted that there was an email within the ‘resources’ section of the Mermaids website from a German doctor called Birgit Moller. We confirmed that the email was actually out of date, as the doctor no longer practiced in the clinic mentioned, and removed the document accordingly.

Mermaids is not, and has never claimed to be, an advisory body. Whilst Mermaids provides information on treatment pathways, legislation, and research in both the UK and other countries, the charity does not promote or recommend that individuals pursue any specific medical treatments or procedures. If young people and families need professional medical advice, the only organisation that Mermaids refers them to is the NHS Gender Identity Service. Mermaids does not coerce anyone into following any particular treatment path, bus simply provides information and support.

We are dismayed to note that while we informed the journalist of all of the above facts, they have chosen to publish a misleading and defamatory article. While we appreciate that there is currently an interest by the media in transgender children, we find it wholly unacceptable to publish a ‘news’ story undermining the only charity supporting them for the benefit of column inches. We also question, again, the practice by mainstream media of publishing quotes from unqualified sources with an agenda to undermine the validity of transgender people, and transgender children in particular. Mermaids is happy to engage in conversation with individuals and organisations with a legitimate interest in supporting gender-questioning and transgender youth.

All of us engaged with gender diversity and supporting gender-questioning and transgender children are familiar with negative reactions based on ignorance, fear and prejudice. This makes it even more important that the UK media report on this subject in a truthful and non-sensationalised manner.

While Mermaids has been recognised by, and received numerous awards from respected institutions, the impact of such negative reporting has a direct impact on the families and young people we support and vulnerable youth that may be seeking support in the future.

Mermaids will continue to offer much needed support to families and young people, and to provide education and guidance to organisations and professionals, and maintain our objective to strive towards making the world a fully accepting and inclusive place for gender non-conforming and transgender children and young people.

The stats are from here (someone asked on other thread)

www.stonewall.org.uk/school-report-2017

Sounds like the judge noted a case of child abuse and acted upon it.
In 20s years time there will be a few massive pay outs by the state for not protecting children when we all knew this was going on.
Adults can do what they like, but pre-pubescent kids? I'd be looking at what they are accessing on the internet and also what their parents are teaching them about sexist stereotypes.

It's disgusting. Children should not be given hormones In this way AT ALL. I am not anti trans people but these are children?!
They don't know themselves yet and honestly at that age I may have thought I was meant to be a man especially with all the trans media at the moment. I was speaking to my mum's partner about this and she said as a child she definitely would have transitioned given the chance as she was a tomboy and people called her a boy.
This is so damaging.
Feel free to express as any gender you want but as a child you have a lot of thoughts going on. As a teen you have lots of hormones going on and you feel unaccepted and 'wrong' most of the time anyway so lots of people are going to make life altering mistakes before they really know themselves?! Its too much.

About time that Mermaids have been exposed for being the agenda-pushing pressure group they really are.

The statistics that Stonewall collated are about all LGBT teens. What I find astonishing is that all the quotes I've seen used from that study completely ignore the ones about LGB kids. No one cares about them. :(

And where is the evidence that Mermaids is doing any good at all? Presumably their intervention and support should alleviate the mental distress of TG youth but it doesn't seem to be having that effect does it?

Groups like this promote transgenderism, they create a problem then offer to solve it. They reframe autism as trans, they reframe other mental health issues as trans. This does not help the very few children that are genuinely disphoric.

With 51% of trans pupils being bullied, one in ten receiving violent threats, 84% of trans kids self-harming, and 45% attempting suicide

That worries me hugely. I would like to see the evidence that it is their transgender nature or status that causes transgender teenagers to self-harm, rather than the other way round. In other words, do anxious, stressed, self-harming, bullied children have more of a tendency to latch on to the idea of being the wrong sex?

Binding, cross-sex hormones, sterilization and amputations seem a further form of self-harm to me.

That worries me hugely.

I would like to see the methodology and questions asked - for some reason this is missing from the methodology section of the report

Mermaids are best chums with Paris Lees.

The head of Mermaids flew her son to US for trans treatment at age 12 and then at age 16 to Thailand for full sex reassignment surgery www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2089432/Jackie-Green-worlds-youngest-sex-change-op-16-says-I-want-Miss-England.html, because the NHS would not undertake the extreme treatments she wanted. (But if you mention this fact in anything other than glowing positive terms you will be accused of a hate crime and reported to the police.

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/27/police-investigate-online-abuse-charity-transgender-children-mermaids)

They try to stifle and silence debate by claiming that criticism is hate crime.

They are dangerous, very dangerous, yet they are cited in Parliament as some sort of neutral, reliable authority. www.feministcurrent.com/2016/10/26/lobby-groups-like-mermaids-dictate-policy-discourse-around-gender-identity-kids-lose/

And Mermaids have apparently received funding from the DfE. I wonder how they have justified that!

Interestingly despite this woman campaigning for hormones for pre-teens, the outcomes in terms of passing as a woman for the child who took hormones at 12 and full surgery at 16 don't seem any better than those who do it later in life - very masculine looking face, tall, etc.

If receiving money from the DfE, a central govt department, isn't being directly funded by the taxpayer then I don't know what is.

Re the survey methodology I found this :

www.transgendertrend.com/stonewall-school-report-what-does-suicide-rate-mean/

I didn't know they got money from Children in Need, that certainly puts me off fundraising for them any more.

That's very confusing but if I understand correctly it's very worrying.

That does put me off donating to Children in Need. I will need to look for an alternative.

I don't think it's fair to dump Children in Need but it's worth informing them of the facts re Mermaids

The finances are quite interesting.

Susie Green is the mother who gave her son trans surgery age 16. Since 2016 she has got a salary from her charity. www.mermaidsuk.org.uk/mermaids-trustees.html

That charity is funded by:

apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends75/0001160575_AC_20170331_E_C.pdf
Children in Need £128k over 3 years (4/2016)
Leathersellers £40k over 4 years (5/2016)
Awards for All £10k (National Lottery) 1 year (7/2016)
D for Ed £35k 2.5 years (10/2016)

So she is paid, out of public funds, to validate her own extreme decisions for her son.

Not a penny of mine will go to Children in Need while they fund Mermaids.

I read the full judgement on that very difficult and sad case mentioned above when it first became public last year. It's probably still available online. I am not a lawyer and was pleasantly surprised how clear it was and how accessible to the average person. I was left in no doubt at all that the judge came to the right decision and that the involvement of Mermaids had not been helpful in the slightest.

Fourth Wave Now is a terrific website campaigning tirelessly on the issue of children and teenagers identifying/being identified by their parents as transgender. So many of them have pre-existing conditions, such as Asperger's, anorexia, clinical levels of anxiety and depression, self-harming. A lot of them would undoubtedly eventually have come out as gay if left to work through this alone. Anecdotally, it seems a lot of transgender teenagers detransition in their early 20s.

I wonder how long before we start seeing lawsuits from the detransitioned against their healthcare providers, parents and organisations like Mermaids who told them there was no alternative to this irreversible medical treatment.

Male to trans are the ones getting all the attention as (imagine this ) they are often very vocal and assertive, not to mention aggressive.

But actually in the UK the referrals to transgender clinics are mostly girls wanting to become boys. Life is not easy for teenage girls in this porn-saturated world, and it's not hard to see why some think transitioning may make things better. There is huge peer pressure in some circles. I find this dreadfully sad. Teenage girls having double mastectomies and taking testosterone to deepen their voices and produce facial hair, then by 21 or so realising that they actually can cope with being a woman, but they are stuck with the deep voice and beard.

I would love Mermaid to explain how they are working to end homophobic and biphobic bullying, given that much of the TRA agenda is exactly that ("suck my lady dick lesbians!")

And Mermaids have apparently received funding from the DfE. I wonder how they have justified that!

1. The Secretary of State at the DfE is Justine Greening. Expect to see more validation of Mermaids.

2. www.economist.com/news/britain/21729997-new-policies-tuition-fees-and-housing-aim-close-gap-labour-tories-make

That's a really great takedown @ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Gasp0de - the judgement is indeed still online: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/2430.html

If any of you haven't read it yet, I really urge you to. It's extremely clearly written as Gasp0de says and a really shocking indictment of Mermaids. I would like them to be stripped of their charitable status as I don't believe they are for public benefit at all. I find it astounding that a charity that has been criticised so publicly still receives any central government funding at all.

It does put me off donating to CiN. I know they support many great causes, but I can always donate to other causes directly. I feel very strongly that I do not want my donations funding the absuive doctrines Mermaids perpetuates.

I've long felt that Children in Need has a bit of a Kids Company vibe about it. A bit too much personality and celebrity for my taste.

"6.5. On 01/03/13 an anonymous referral was received. The referrer advised that they were aware that [M] uses "skunk" in front of [J] and [J] may be able to access the drug. The referrer alleged that [J] shows challenging behaviour and has head butted other children. The referrer also raised concerns in relation to [J] wearing a pink headband and nail varnish as it makes [M] happy. The referrer also raised concerns in regards to [M]’s mental health, her acting irrationally and the impact of this upon [J]’s emotional welfare”
“6.8 Between October 2013 and November 2013 the Local Authority received two referrals in relation [M]’s mental health, [J]’s presentation and [M] informing school that [J] was gender non conforming. The referrals are as follows:”
“6.9. On 22/10/13 the Department received a referral from the NSPCC who had received an anonymous call; the referrer was concerned that [M] had stated twice in a week that [J] is transgender and that [M] had also alluded that she was going to disappear with [J] and 'they will never find them'. The referrer also advised that [M] suspects that [J]’s older half brother [K] is too. The referrer was concerned about [M]’s mental health at that time.

“6.11. On the 14/11/13 a referral was received from [School A]. [School A] reported concerns regarding emotional abuse of [J] and [M]’s mental health. [M] had claimed that [J] is gender variant and should be allowed to go to school dressed as a girl. [M] had made accusations that [J] was being bullied at school because of gender variance. [M] was unable to provide names of the bullies and staff at school had not observed any bullying. Staff advised that at school [J] behaved no differently than the other children but they felt that [M] was unwilling to accept this and on occasions she reduced a teacher to tears due to her ‘forceful and confrontational’ manner.*

“6.12…[M] was also asking about sending [J] to a gender re-assignment clinic. School explained that in class, [J] doesn't display any differences to the other boys.”

“6.14. Following this the Local Authority received a number of referrals between March 2014 and October 2014 which reported concerns in relation to [J]’s presentation; [J] being allowed to dress as a girl; [M] requesting that [J] is referred to the Tavistock Centre and refusing input from CAMHS; [M] informing Health that [J] had been diagnosed with a medical condition although there had been no professional diagnosis and [M]’s mental health. During August and October 2014 the Department also received information from the police in relation to incidents that had occurred in the community where [M] felt that [J] was a victim of hate crime.

15. In May 2014 information was communicated to social services from their own Housing Department which was entirely in conflict with the information they had previously received. In particular it contained the alarming assertion, which as it transpired was entirely untrue, that J had been ‘diagnosed as transgender’. It perhaps requires to be re-emphasised that J was at this stage 4 years of age. “6.16. On 30/05/2014 a referral was received from Housing who reported that they had concerns for [J] due to [M] claiming [J] had been diagnosed as transgender. They also advised that [M] had removed [J] from school due to them having issues with [J] dressing as a girl [M] was collected by housing staff for a meeting; staff reported that [J] looked dirty, had pen marks to the legs and was dressed as a girl. They also reported concerns for [M]’s mental health. No further action was taken from the Department due to there being no safeguarding concerns. “6.19. On 16/07/2014 a referral was received from the GP requesting that a social worker visit the family due to concerns around [J] possible having gender identity disorder. The GP advised that they had spoken to the Tavistock Centre and that they advised to contact Children’s Services. No further action was taken. “6.20. On 21/08/14 there was a contact from the police who were requesting agency checks in relation to [J] as it had been reported that [J] was possibly transgender and a victim of hate crime from neighbours. Information was provided and no further action was taken by the Department. “6.22. On 24/09/14 a referral was received from The Health Centre requesting agency checks. Health advised that [M] had informed professionals” that [J] had been diagnosed with a health condition, yet the referrer is aware that there has not yet been a professional diagnosis. The caller was advised that there is no current social work involvement with the family, and no further action taken.

“6.23. On 27/09/14 a referral was received from the Police. Officers have attended the home address where [M] advised that [J] was born as a male but identifies as female and dresses as such. [M] advised that this has affected her relationship with [J]’s father and family and that this has resulted in them being served with a harassment order. [M] advised that a few days ago [J] was playing out in the garden when she has seen the other children pulling at [J]’s clothes to see if [J] had a penis. [M] intervened and took [J] inside informing the children they are no longer allowed to play with [J].
[M] did not report the incident to the police, there was another incident on the street which the police attended. [M] was concerned and reported the matter for fear of any escalation; this matter is recorded as a hate incident as there are no criminal offences. [M] is in contact with [a local charity] and a [Housing Association] whom are providing her with support, and no further action was taken.”
“6.25. On 22/10/14 a referral was received from [Learning Centre] enquiring as to whether [J] is subject to a Child Protection Plan. [J] moved to the setting from another setting, [J] has been finding it hard to settle in and [M] has now taken [J] out of school. [M] states she has taken [J] out of school due to [J] being bullied and the school have not resolved the issue. [J] has been attending 5 days a week and [M] is not reliable in the times that she drops [J] at school. Since summer [J] has been going into school upset which is out of character. Today [M] has become annoyed after waiting outside for 15 minutes, she then informed staff that she had no money and could not afford to send [J] anymore. Caller informed that they are concerned that [M] may not be coping. Child and Family assessment to be completed by the Department.”

This local authority has consistently failed to take appropriate intervention where there were strong grounds for believing that a child was at risk of serious emotional harm. I propose to invite the Director of Children’s Services to undertake a thorough review of the social work response to this case. Professional deficiencies to this extent cannot go unchecked, if confidence in this Local Authority’s safeguarding structures is to be maintained.

22. Not only are the conclusions of the report irreconcilable with the core information within it but it is striking that the Local Authority had moved into wholesale acceptance that J should be regarded as a girl. Once again, I make no apology for repeating the fact that J was still only 4 years of age. The conclusions of the report speak of J by use of the feminine pronoun. There was no independent or supportive evidence that J identified as a girl at all, indeed there was a body of material that suggested the contrary. The cry for investigation went unheeded:
    “23.5. The Local Authority have received a large number of referrals where concerns have been raised in relation to [J] presenting as a girl rather than concerns in relation [J]’s welfare and the care that is provided to [J]. It is evident that some agencies do not have a full understanding of gender non conforming children and have therefore contacted Children’s Service, sometimes when they have not met [J]. This clearly frustrates [M] and leaves her feeling that she is unsupported, and has caused her to feel stressed and anxious. Therefore [M] mistrusts professionals which is often interpreted as that she is unwilling to engage with services. ”

23. As the proceedings before Judge Penna progressed there developed a prevailing orthodoxy that J identified as a girl. Though I suspect the father continued to have his doubts, he had been unable to secure contact with his son and, driven to rely on others, I think began to assume that so many professionals having accepted that J was presenting as a girl, they must be correct.

“It is clear that [M] has strong opinions. Her response to Court intervention and requested assessments has been highly oppositional. This is not only in respect of any assessment of [J] but also of herself. She would appear to need to be in control and indeed choose those professional with whom she interacts.”

34. By contrast Ms Sambrooks’ assessment of F was entirely positive and wholly irreconcilable with the picture of him presented by M. M has traduced F and belittled him throughout the course of this litigation, at times, quite literally, snorting with derision. In particular M has presented F as insensitive to the whole issue of gender dysphoria. In fact Ms Sambrooks found him to be ‘very comfortable with diversity’. F’s elder son, who I have been told is zany and funny was noted ‘to have clearly been allowed to develop his own interests, beliefs and presentation’. Ms Sambrooks leaves the point thus: ‘I am therefore confused as to why M feels that F would not be able to accept J’s presentation’

M told me that J ‘was living in stealth’ by which was meant, she explained, that he was living life entirely as a girl. He dressed, at all times, like a girl and, it transpired, had been registered at a new General Practitioner’s as a girl. M told me that she had been advised to take this course by the Tavistock Centre, which is recognised as a specialist service for advice concerning gender dysphoria. Though I was by no means certain, I very much doubted that the Tavistock would have given this advice in respect of such a very young child.

It was for these reasons that I added to the Draft Order of the 25th November my own requirement that the Tavistock Records be filed and served upon the parties. That particular Order is recorded as having been ‘of the Court’s own motion’.
40. M sought to defeat the Order. She refused to give her consent for the release of the records. Once again the professionals bent to her will and the Order was not complied with.

On the 8th February the records were still not available and so I was driven to take the unusual step of ordering that the case would remain listed until the records were produced. It was also plain that J’s welfare required an Interim Care Order, both because he was at risk of significant emotional harm and, given M’s manipulative behaviour, parental responsibility required to be shared with the Local Authority.
41. Rather to my surprise the Tavistock records were produced within 2 hours. They did not support M’s contention that they had advised the ‘stealth’ arrangements. Indeed, the records were sparse and only served further to confirm that M’s cooperation was partial and on her own terms.Following a contested hearing, I found myself in agreement with J’s Guardian that the risk of leaving J in M’s care was unacceptable

. What was perfectly clear however and requires emphasis is that M was determined that J should live entirely as a girl. At only five years of age that did not strike me as offering J choice or even the opportunity to express any ambivalence or confusion. I was also entirely satisfied that whatever choices J made and however he presented, he would be loved and cared for and his choices respected in F’s care.

42. The February hearing was very stressful for M. However what struck me forcibly, both then and indeed at this final hearing, was that M spoke of J only in the somewhat opaque and convoluted argot of social work and psychology. She offered an impressive, intense and highly articulate evaluation of the problems faced by children with gender dysphoria but she conveyed no sense of J’s personality, temperament or enthusiasms, notwithstanding frequently being encouraged to do so. Repeatedly she struck me as a professional witness giving evidence about somebody else’s child.

43. Concerning J’s evolving presentation, Ms Sambrooks highlights the following:
    “[J] came with or has gathered seven pairs of boots or shoes during the three months he has been at his father’s. They go with his feminine clothes. When they went shopping [F] took [J] to the girls section for underwear but he eventually chose boys shorts with a picture on them. [J] constantly rearranges his private parts and seems uncomfortable. He does not try to wear several pairs of knickers however as reported in the past. When he started wearing underpants [J] liked fancy underpants with Power Rangers or similar on them. Initially every two minutes he would say he did not like his floppy bits flopping around. He has also said ‘my mother does not like her floppy bits flopping around’ and that ‘she has got a big fat sandwich’. This somewhat took [F] and [P] aback. [J] will talk about his mother but does not get upset.”

44. J’s behaviour at school has also been interesting to read about:
    “From day one [J] would put his hand up. He was mistaken for a girl once by a visiting teacher and asserted in front of everyone ‘no, I am a boy’.

There have been no reported references from school about any problems in the playground. There have been no gender issues reported and he has settled in quickly. He enjoys playing superheroes with the other children.”