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.

No - they are simply digging in further and repeating the same dogma. This shows me that they prioritise their agenda over the safety of children.

(That referred to 'Mermaids', although the Guardian has definitely been guilty of the same thing. I just hope their more recent gender-critical article might be the start of a bit more editorial responsibility towards vulnerable children.)

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.

Yes exactly. I remember this and thought of it too.

Oh god - you're absolutely right re Orkney/Cleveland - I hadn't made the connection.

Honestly, anyone having an interest in the new trans ideology should read the full child J case on Bailii. So many paragraphs elicit a "wow!" reaction, for example this account of how contact went with J no longer living with his mother:

"Is it difficult not being home?" Mum asks [J]. [J] states "No" to Mum. Mum states "I think it would be better if you were home" to [J]. [J] did not respond.

Mum states to [J] "have you told [P] what you feel like?" [J] states "kind of" to Mum

"Are you allowed to do girlie stuff?" Mum states to [J]. [J] quiet at first but then states "I can if I want" when asked again by Mum.

Mum asked [J] "Do you want to be a girl?" [J] tries to distract Mum and told her to look behind for a golden fish. Mum continues to talk.

Mum said "[P] said you wanted to be a boy and said it at school?" [J] did not respond.

Mum promptly states "I know you are a girl and you feel like a girl and want to be a girl" to [J]. "I know you do, grown ups don't understand you need to tell them". Mum said this all at once."

The judge then provides this comment "It was following this contact that J wet the bed twice."

That is horrific. And Mermaids call it a 'tragedy' that J was removed from her care.

Just to be clear, after reading that transcript. Did Mermaids support this woman in court, using funds that they received, amongst other sources, from Children In Need?

And afterwards Mermaids called the ruling a 'miscarriage of justice', and have continued to do so to this day, whilst referring to J as 'she'.

I've worked in a couple of different NHS Trusts and for patient service charities alongside lovely, caring people. If there were any concerns or reports of negligence, error or mistreatment, I would want them investigated. I would want to work alongside people that were also committed to providing the best care through a culture of "vigilance, monitoring and learning". I wouldn't leap to proclaim from the rafters that I stand with them - people are doing this that haven't even worked there, that aren't directly connected to the organisation. Even whilst the scandal at Kids Company was unfolding, good things were still being done by good people.

I think (and stress I can't confirm) in the first statement, that has subsequently been edited, Mermaids referred to J as a trans girl. If so, presumably they can't comprehend the severity of suffering and distress that doesn't fit their dogma.

It's even more horrific when you realise that's a 7 (or possibly 6) year old boy.

In the judgement the judge acknowledges that J suffers harm every time he has contact with his mother but there could be greater harm if contact ceased leaving J with a feeling of responsibility about her well-being.

metro.co.uk/2017/10/08/charity-advised-mum-to-force-her-son-7-to-live-as-a-girl-6984649/

They weren't in court but they 'provided the mother with support' apparently.

I think some of the organisations that support them are going to start distancing themselves from them very soon. Herbert Smith and the FCA aren't going to want to be associated with them.

Their last submission to the CC that @pisacake linked to is interesting - lots of trustees resigning 'for personal reasons'.

This is what happens time after time - the welfare of individuals 9and groups0 get repeatedly sacrificed in the interests of an ideology.
And even as we discuss this poor child's story there will be activists raging about the transphobia on Mumsnet and dreadful Terfs. And WE are considered by them to be on the wrong side of history

And this is an excellent article about the issue:

www.feministcurrent.com/2016/10/26/lobby-groups-like-mermaids-dictate-policy-discourse-around-gender-identity-kids-lose/

Below is taken from Mermaids original statement.

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.

Thanks for clarifying, Millicent.

kua that is the version that I saw as well, and dated today. Has it been edited since then?

It's even more horrific when you realise that's a 7 (or possibly 6) year old boy.

And is referred to by the judge as being a four and five year old at certain points.

I hadn't read that before @theendisnigh - brilliant article. Thanks for sharing

The mother sounds unfit in so many, many ways

The case also reminds me of the Forced Adoption stuff championed by certain men, where they weigh in to support a mother where SS are trying to get a child taken into care, regardless of the merits of the case

Mermaids was recently approached by a journalist with a series of enquiries concerning Mermaids' involvement with the court judgement following the case of ‘Child J’ in October 2016. The case was covered extensively in the national media at the time.

The story published today in the Sunday Times (8/10/17) refers to this case and references Mermaids. Mermaids supported the mother during the court case, although none of our representatives were present at any of the proceedings as they were conducted in a ‘closed family court’. While the court documents have been sealed, a public summary judgement can be found here: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/2430.html

Contrary to what is implied in the Times article, Mermaids has not been banned from contact with the child by the high court, and Mermaids was directly referenced only once during proceedings, to state that the mother had been receiving support from the charity. Following the proceedings, the mother informed us that the judge had ordered the child should have no further contact with the charity. While we have not received any legal notice to support this statement, we have respected this request.

We are disappointed to note that while we informed the journalist of the above facts, they have chosen to publish this article. While we appreciate that there is currently an interest by the media in transgender children, it is very unhelpful to publish an article which could undermine the only national charity supporting them.

All of us engaged with gender diversity and supporting gender-questioning and transgender youth 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-sensational 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.

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.

Mermaids is in active discussion with a lawyer regarding misinformation in the Sunday Times article.

Post amended on 8/10/17 at 11.13am to reflect official statement made by Mermaids Trustees

Nice rewrite - they obviously took some advice as the second version sounds far less professional. I'm not sure what they think a lawyer could do? As far as I could see the times article was entirely factual?

They bloody don't support gender questioning! They reinforce gender like all the other trans activists.

Indeed First . Ask a question on gender questioning/detransitioning vs trans and see how quickly you are blocked on FB/Twitter.

Paris "being sexually harrassed on the street is so affirming" Lees has just weighed in with the expected suicide promotion tweet. So bloody irresponsible.

It's the card they always play, a silencing tactic.