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.

I wish someone would give Paris an introductory lesson in statistics, misleading polls and overstating an issue.

She clearly doesn't understand that the figure she keeps throwing around doens't mean what she says it means.

And I wish the Samaritans would say loudly in response to every tweet that uses the "48% of trans kids try to kill themselves" stat that repeating this ad nauseum is irresponsible and counter productive

They need to look up the Werther effect.

I wonder if it can be damaging to these vulnerable, confused and hurting kids to keep being told that half of them will attempt suicide - whether it's fact or bit.

"Fact or NOT"

Only reading the first page, but for those saying they will no longer support Children In Need. One of the things CIN do is fund bedroom grants for DC of women leaving domestic abuse to get furniture and soft furnishings for their new place, via Women’s Aid and other domestic abuse charities. That is only one thing, but for reasons I won’t go into, one I am aware of. So, this is just a plea to re-direct your giving, not stop completely.

Not wanting to sound sanctimonious, but CIN can be a godsend at difficult times, and make sure children don’t lose out (too much).

posted this link on the owen Jones thread. www.samaritans.org/media-centre/media-guidelines-reporting-suicide/advice-journalists-suicide-reporting-dos-and-donts

Excerpts:

Over-simplification of the causes or perceived ‘triggers’ for a suicide can be misleading and is unlikely to reflect accurately the complexity of suicide.

Don’t label locations as ‘hot spots’ or refer to a possible rise in suicides in a particular place or among a specific group as an ‘epidemic’.

Remember that there is a risk of imitational behaviour due to ‘over-identification’.

Vulnerable individuals may identify with a person who has died, or with the circumstances in which a person took their own life.

Avoid implying a connection where there may be none.

Be careful not to promote the idea that suicide achieves results. For example, that, as a result of someone taking their own life, a bully was exposed or made to apologise.

Fair point Cocoa and I will look for women's and children's charities that I can give the amount to that I would usually give to CIN.

Thank you for that, Cocoa. I will do the same.

So, this is just a plea to re-direct your giving, not stop completely.

Cocoa, agree completely. I have redirected at least one donation to a different organisation that stands up for women and girls, and intend to do the same with any other donations I have to redirect.

Jane Fae is now on twitter basically threatening girls' access to contraception if hormone treatment for "trans" teens is targeted, so that's nice.

Because threatening women's control over their own reproduction is such a feminist thing to do, right?

(I'm not in favour of under-16s having any sort of sex at all, but I also don't think girls should be subject to forced pregnancy if they do, hence I support under-16s having access to contraception.)

Both of my dds were prescribed the Pill under 16, for period pain so severe that nothing else would treat it.

(I also support under-16s having access to contraception - just pointing out that the Pill is also used for other medical reasons.)

I note the way they have changed the wording from: "a young trans girl was tragically removed from her mother" to "the child" in their revised statement.

Be careful Susie and Helen! Your bias is showing

Yes, perhaps they will say they were misled by the mother, and gave their advice in good faith?

If so, we will remember the original statement, which was issued a long time after the details of the court judgement. They themselves were keen to point out the amount of time elapsed between the judgement and yesterday's article. In other words, they had ample time to study the judgement themselves. Yet they still said 'tragically' and 'girl' as recently as yesterday. So why suddenly change their tune, after such a long time? Because they know full well they have enabled child abuse in the pursuit of their own agenda, and had no regrets whatsoever until they took legal advice. Now they're trying to cover their arses and pretend they didn't say what they said yesterday.

I think they're aware that if they don't tread carefully this could flare up and if the details of the case became more publicly known, it would be terrible PR for Mermaids. They seem to be in minimisation mode but no more.

Because they know full well they have enabled child abuse in the pursuit of their own agenda, and had no regrets whatsoever until they took legal advice. Now they're trying to cover their arses and pretend they didn't say what they said yesterday.

Yep, exactly. Unfortunately for them, the internet has a memory. As Julian Vigo said in that excellent article, they are not professionals - just a couple of parents of trans children who are seeking validation for the decisions they've made about their own kids.

They are also leading with the "gender-questioning" stuff - which in reality they completely ignore. Your son likes pink? He's a girl, no question at all!

From what I remember at the time, Mermaids posted several Facebook comments calling the judge ignorant and uninformed. Despite him being the foremost judge in the country on transgender legal matters. And having written a forward to a book about same sex families. Certainly not the crusty dinosaur they were implying.

They also got Fox Fisher, one of their representatives to start a petition to overturn the ruling, which states.

We believe that this case is a clear case of abuse on behalf of the judge towards the trans kid and their mother.

As soon as the judgement was made public, I seem to remember a flurry of infuriated tweets and comments from Mermaids, incensed that their authority was being questioned. And overruled.

More analysis and the petition here.

gendertrender.wordpress.com/?s=Mermaids&submit=Search

There are several articles about Mermaids, but the specific one I have referenced is the second one down.

It is beyond distressing that a charity which could do so much for trans-kids is pushing an agenda in the opposite direction.

Fox Fisher, if I remember right, also posted a pic and details which meant that with very little effort I - a total internet stranger - found out the identity of the family. (I can't remember it now so don't ask.) Fisher eventually deleted it, but I think it says everything you need to know about their attitude to safeguarding.

This is the statement Mermaids made at the time on their FB page:

"Today as CEO of Mermaids I spent my morning supporting a Mother whose child was removed earlier this year, when the judge overseeing a contact case decided that the child was being emotionally abused as the Mum was forcing the child to live as female. Mermaids has known and supported this family for a number of years. This case is hugely upsetting as well as completely prejudicial. It is difficult to imagine the suffering this removal has caused both the Mum and the child, with no actual basis in truth.
The Judge has now issued the judgement which not only brands the Mum as abusive, but will also have a huge impact on all families supporting a younger child to live as the gender they identify as. During the 3 years that Mermaids have supported this family there has been no evidence AT ALL to support this judges views.
Mum has listened to her child and supported her unconditionally. There have been 2 independent gender specialists who have reviewed the family and agreed that Mum is not responsible for her child's gender expression.
This judgement is a disaster. In current times with laws protecting gender non-conforming children and young people, this judgement is deeply and profoundly shocking.
Mermaids will continue to support the Mum and try to help to reverse this decision through appeal and any other avenue available. This cannot be allowed to stand.
When people ask me how can a child this young decide, it makes me so angry. No child decides this. Most children are happy with their birth gender. But sometimes they are not. Sometimes this feeling will change in time. Sometimes it won't. But listening and supporting your child so they know whatever the outcome they are loved for who they are is vital.
If you are known to the press you may be asked for an opinion. If you are affected by this issue and need some support let us know. It is a very sad day.
Below are some of the comments and posts I have received from parents who could potentially find themselves in a similar situation. Mermaids has supported thousands of people over the years. From a parent dealing with their child’s gender variance, to the teen whose parents refuse to acknowledge their identity. This is not a choice."

This article on 4thWaveNow, written at the time: also links to the Change petition that Fox Fisher set up which states: "It's concerning what little support there has been for the Mum, with a ban on Mermaids being involved with either of them for many months. "

I assume Susie Green would have corrected that assertion if it were untrue. And yet she didn't.

Well, Mermaids lying and changing their story? Who'd have thunk? (Answer: most of us here.)

It takes a certain kind of arrogance to constantly change your tune, despite evidence to the contrary being left on the Internet forever.

And that doesn't surprise me about Fox Fisher either Annie - odious little twerp

Hmm. Would it be worth contacting the DfE, Lottery funding, Lloyds Bank, etc. asking them NOT to fund this charity? A reminder of the embarrassment of previous failed charities such as Kids Company would perhaps be in order.

@SerendipityFelix @nauticant @OddBoots @GaspOde @pisacake @Butterymuffin

Tell Children in Need on twitter what you think of them funding Mermaids

Children in Need are here: @BBCCiN