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.

47. I have noted from reports that J has become interested in Power Rangers, SpongeBob, Superheroes and is constantly finding new interests. F, significantly to my mind, does not always share J’s enthusiasms, though he goes along with them. It is striking that most of J’s interests are male oriented. I am entirely satisfied, both on the basis of the reports and F’s evidence at this hearing, that he has brought no pressure on J to pursue masculine interests. J’s interests and energy are entirely self motivated:
    “[J] also asked for football stickers recently but [F] is not ‘into’ football so had to locate these.

48. I have been disturbed to read that J has touched a number of women in a way which is very concerning, as Ms Sambrooks has pointed out:
    “However I do feel that [J]’s inappropriate touching of others is of considerable concern. When considered alongside his comments and his behaviour towards his mother in contact (eg. April 22/4) then it would seem that [J] is very used to touching [M]’s breasts and that she has afforded him considerable knowledge or discussion of genital anatomy. Whilst this may reflect [M]’s view of [J]’s gender issues it is not in my view appropriate knowledge nor would a child of [J]’s age, transgendered or not, generally have such discussions. At most they are likely to have a rudimentary awareness of male/female differences especially if brought up with a different sex sibling.”

49. Ms Sambrooks proffers a view as to M’s motivation for permitting this kind of intimacy. I am bound to say it makes discomforting reading:
    “I can not offer a view as to why [M] would encourage such behaviour except that potentially it may feed into her perception of [J] as a transgendered child in some way and the attributes he might hope to acquire.”

[J] can be very closed about things but has recently begun to open up a little. He may simply say he does not want to talk about things if they try to explore issues. On the bus recently he observed a man talking to himself who clearly had problems and [J] asked what was wrong with him. [P] tried to explain and subsequently over lunch he talked about his mother telling him that [K] had been born with an ‘upside down flower’ and this has been made into a ‘right way round flower’ whereas other people are born sometimes with a ‘right way round flower’ like his which can be made into an ‘upside down flower’. He was clearly aware of the surgery that would take place for the transgendered male. [P] explained that his mother’s account on [K]’s problem was inaccurate, this was not the case and [K] had been born with hypospadias which had been corrected by a small operation. She explained what this was and said it had been corrected when [K] was four which [K] may not even recall.
60. In her evidence Dr Hellin clarified that M did not suffer from any disorder of personality or psychiatric condition. M was, Dr Hellin said, locked into a rigid and unshakeable belief structure. It was not likely to change nor was it receptive to therapy.
61. I have already alluded to the fact that M can be excoriating in her criticisms of people. I was particularly shocked by the language she used in a text message to F describing his sister, who has learning difficulties. The word she used, which I will not repeat, would not be tolerated these days on the football terraces. From a nurse who has specialised in mental health issues it is particularly alarming. It was selected to hurt and goad F. I noticed that when the point was raised in cross examination F found it particularly upsetting. F, in the past, worked as a disc jockey in various night clubs. He obviously had an interest in music. I have read that M refused to return his decks to him following the separation, though they were quite obviously F’s most prized possession. I consider this to be illustrative of M’s very controlling behaviour when she perceives herself to be under pressure.

62. M has been particularly disdainful of other mothers who attend the Contact Centre. She plainly considers herself to be socially and intellectually their superior. She expressed similar views about her neighbours when she lived on a council estate. Notwithstanding this however I note that she has abused Ms Davidson, at the Contact Centre, in language that I expect many of those mothers would draw back from. Indeed very few, myself included, have escaped the sting of her wrath.
J is frequently boisterous. I have the strong impression that all of this has rather taken F by surprise. F himself is of a far more gentle disposition not instinctively attracted to football or Power Rangers.

. I consider that M has caused significant emotional harm to J in her active determination that he should be a girl. I find that she has overborne his will and deprived him of his fundamental right to exercise his autonomy in its most basic way. Whether J chooses to present as a girl or not, ought to be his choice. This is not a case about gender dysphoria, rather it is about a mother who has developed a belief structure which she has imposed upon her child.

. At home with his father, J now lives life as a boy. He asserts his own masculine gender. In contact he meets his mother who believes him to be a girl whose true gender identity is being repressed by F and the professionals. There have been many difficulties: M has brought toys more suitable for a girl; there has been much whispering; M has encouraged J to speak to her in Spanish; M has questioned J about coming home; J has been encouraged to make a necklace and play hairdressers

Thank you so much for sharing.
I have learnt so much on these boards, made a few Facebook comments and not got abuse yet.
I think a letter to Justine Greening is in order, and also an email to Children in Need, a charity I often support

I've just read the case in Bailii. Blimey. It shows just how far things can be pushed before rationality is allowed to intervene.

J was lucky in having a father who was willing to fight for his interests against a mother who had discredited herself to a remarkable degree. I wonder how many kids will not be as lucky as J.

That's God awful. Poor wee boy. Fucking nutcase mother. Thankfully his father sounds lovely and level headed and hopefully J will be ok

Having just read the excellent summary by @pisacake to me it sounds like the Mother has a form of Munchausen by Proxy.

I remember a story years ago of a woman who was adamant her daughter had a terminal disease, lied and lied, moved round the country to get treatment, put her daughter through the most horrific shit.

It sounds so similar.

So glad thisoor boy is away from all this.

And this case exposes the problem with taking things at face value, and not investigating suspicions.

I am the most lefty, pc snowflake ever, but I almost want to say "it's pc gawn maaad" because the inability of people in authority to challenge a "say so", from a woman with clear issues, and to ignore the actual facts in front of them, smacks of not wanting to rock that boat.

So many people with knowledge and authority failed that boy.

lana
I suspect that a number of children (particularly young children) are continuing to be failed by professionals while Mermaids et al promote their - 'don't challenge or you're transphobic and bullying'.

It looks like Mermaids is getting a fair bit of support on Twitter - #IStandWithMermaids and the like, saying the report is a 'smear' and factually incorrect, and that the judge's summing up mentioned little or nothing about Mermaids, yet Mermaids is in the headline. It hasn't been shared nearly as much as previous gender-critical articles and I'm not seeing many supportive tweets. That might change in the course of the day, though...?

This has now also popped up in the Sunday Times. I'm sorry that I can't make it shareable... www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a297cb4c-ab73-11e7-b601-427587316988?CMP=Sprkr--Editorial--thesundaytimes--News--Imageandlink--Statement--Unspecified-_-TWITTER&linkId=43249019

Just to clarify in Children in Need - they're a charitable foundation which means that they raise income and then distribute it via a grant application process to service providing charities rather than directly doing any charitable work themselves. Comic Relief is the same. Personally I don't donate to either for this reason, I instead choose to donate directly to organisations carrying out work I care about as it is more efficient for them.

Back on topic though, glad to see this in the news. Feels like people are becoming more aware.

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

Me, too, OddBoots I think an email may be in order. Absolutely makes me sick to my stomach the idea that my own money is funding a homophobic organisation.

It's a movement that's putting children at risk in the guise of helping them. By all means organisations should work to counteract restrictive gender stereotypes in the classroom, bullying, gendered expectations of play, dress and behaviour. But I agree with ArcheryAnnie - I feel sick about this and don't feel that I can continue fundraising/donating to Children In Need.

Apparently the boy being taken away from his mother was a terrible miscarriage of justice. Despite the fact that he was exposed to drugs, social services were involved on a number of occasions and he had very poor boundaries about bodies. To any objective POV, this woman was clearly a very unfit mother. And yet transadvocates think she has been unfairly vilified. How can anyone think they have children's best interests at heart?

growinguptransgender.wordpress.com/2016/10/27/%EF%BB%BF10-reasons-why-the-dontjudgegender-verdict-makes-families-of-transgender-children-concerned/

Didn't Mermaids defend this mother extremely strongly when this story about J broke? It was all a case of rampant transphobia, ignorant officials and court system etc.

I've never previously gone near the Times, btw, and have to put gloves on before linking to an article by Rod Liddle. When I first started thinking about this issue, I honestly, seriously considered the possibility that I was suffering some kind of midlife lurch to the right. But on close examination I found that my principles remain exactly the same. I'm still as leftwing as I ever was, yet here we are .

They are still pushing that line. If you read their statement they refer to J as a tragic "trans girl".

Yes (apologies for derailing) - I remember this at the time, and Mermaids are continuing to state that the child's removal from his mother is 'tragic'. Even if you remove the transgender issue from the equation, his removal does not sound bloody 'tragic' to me, given the details of the summary. It just goes to show that, for Mermaids, their agenda trumps all other concerns.

Oh that's DadTrans, isn't it?

I've just read the court judgement too. So glad the judge was sensible.

From Millicent's link:

There are a couple of references to the mother’s general parenting and mental health

Er, no I think that's actually quite an important factor.

but the vast majority of the case (and judgement, and accompanying press release) focuses on issues relating to the child’s gender identity. A case resting on a child’s gender identity is of very significant importance for a family of any gender questioning or transgender child. In such a case, having a judge who is ill-informed, ignorant or transphobic is not a moot point – it is a critical concern for anyone interested in justice.

So this poor kid should be sacrificed on the altar of your personal ideology?

Yes they did bambambini.

Just rereading a Guardian article about the case and it has an addendum: "This article was amended on 1 December 2016 to better reflect the ruling of Mr Justice Hayden that the mother in the high court case perceived her child was transgender, rather than her child identifying as trans, and to mention that the charity, Mermaids, supported this mother in court."

So in the original article, they asserted that the child identified as trans rather than that the mother decided he was which is the whole reason he was removed from her care. FFS.

morningrunner
Yes - this is very similar to the Orkney & Cleveland scandals where many children were 'abused ' by a system where professionals swallowed hook, line and sinker a particular orthodoxy and acted on it - in those cases removing children from their parents because of spurious beliefs and allegations.
And here we are again - professionals swallowing a spurious orthodoxy where actual harm is being done to children. The judgement that pisacake has referenced above makes very sobering reading when you look at how a little boy was left with a delusional mother who behaved completely unacceptably towards him. Because she used the transgender argument, social care professionals backed away despite repeated referrals to them.
And Mermaids et al have NEVER had the insight or moral code to acknowledge this.

MillicentFawcett
And that is why I cancelled my subscription to the Guardian. When a paper deliberately manipulates facts to promote a particular agenda, then I will no longer pay to support it.