Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Mermaids

86 replies

BelaLugosisShed · 03/01/2018 09:54

I’m blocked by them but someone posted this by them last night. Note that they are being deliberately vague, but to me at least, the implication of suicides is there.

4 deaths in 6 months opposed to one officially documented Trans child suicide in 10 years ? - something is off here.

OP posts:
ALunerExplorer · 03/01/2018 16:01

And there's the assumption.

Suggesting that a child be left to decide and discover these things for themselves is neither new, nor radical.

There will always be butch lesbians. There will also be trans men.

Identities, like rights, are not like a pie. There is not a finite number of either.

Stickystickstick · 03/01/2018 16:04

ASC is associated with a life expectancy of 40 years

Are there any sources for this? Given many women aren’t diagnosed until after 40 I’d question this.

SarahCarer · 03/01/2018 16:06

My dd was interviewed by CAMHS for a potential referral to the Tavistock Centre (very different from Mermaids I know). I would never have agreed to that except for the fear of suicide that I picked up through internet research and her subsequent threat to kill herself after a puberty talk (and after hearing the story of a friend on puberty blockers). I'm extremely careful not to attempt to direct her towards a particular identity and to affirm the identity she has. I have always been gender critical but almost buckled under the fear. Thank heavens (and Mumsnet) I didn't.

ALunerExplorer · 03/01/2018 16:06

No.

I am okay with them exploring that, and coming to that conclusion for themselves.

guardianfree · 03/01/2018 16:14

LanceCleg
Thank you for mentioning safeguarding.
Any organisation that misrepresents suicide statistics is not keeping children safe.
Any organisation that actively promotes children taking untested drugs pre or during puberty as it's dangerous not to, is professionally dangerous.
Any organisation that tells adults working with children that they can keep the confidentiality of children who disclose any level of 'gender confusion' is breaking the fundamental rule of safeguarding - you never agree to keep a child's confidentiality, you must always share it with the appropriate safeguarding / pastoral officer. Individuals may well not be aware of the significance of a piece of information and there are dozens (if not hundreds) of serious case reviews identifying the lack of information sharing as a key factor in child deaths.

Safeguarding always takes priority - "the welfare of the child is paramount' Whatever is happening, a school's first responsibility is to ask ' is this child safe?' and then take it from there.

Examples of these dangerous practices can be found in written materials provided by a number of TG pressure groups.

BarrackerBarmer · 03/01/2018 16:16

luner What is the difference between a butch lesbian who falsely believes she is a trans man, and a 'true' trans man?

How do you establish whether both people, with their female bodies TRULY have 'male brains' or not? Surely it's like a belief in flat earth? We don't pretend that some people are inhabiting a flat planet and the rest are on a globe just because it's rude to dispute their vehement belief?

It seems like you think identities are magical. If you say it with enough determination it must be true. If you can be dissuaded your magic was never strong enough.

The rub being that it is forbidden to try to dissuade anyone anyway.

PricklyBall · 03/01/2018 16:16

ALunerExplorer posted these figures upthread (apologies if they've already been corrected).
"In 2016:

10 -14 yrs of age - persons 0.1%, male 0.2%
15 - 19 yrs of age - persons 5.3%, male 7.5%, females 2.9%"

Now my spidey senses went ping because 7.5% would be absolutely huge - a national scandal. When I clicked on the ONS link, it turned out they are in fact figures per 100,000 of the population, i.e. Luner was out by a factor of a thousand. That's a big mistake. Please, Luner, actually pay attention to being factually accurate (this is up there with your "revenge porn photos of a child" which were in fact publicly available photos of a 20 year old taken from their own book and twitter feed).

BarrackerBarmer · 03/01/2018 16:24

Since luner referenced the PACE study above, posters may be interested to read the facts about that study and what it ACTUALLY found, and the sample sizes:
fairplayforwomen.com/fact-checker/mermaids-tg-lying-unprofessional

Terrylene · 03/01/2018 16:25

I am okay with them exploring that, and coming to that conclusion for themselves.

I don't think we have the luxury of this any more. We have the internet in every home, and with it are all the people who wish everyone to come to a conclusion for themselves, preferably the same one they have come to and to affirm their way as right, and will go the extra mile to help them in their hour of need. And you will never know Wink

LangCleg · 03/01/2018 16:30

guardianfree - I truly believe that Mermaids is one of the most dangerous lobby groups I have ever come across. Even Kids Company didn't trash safeguarding in the way this group does. And they don't even hide it. Whatever position parents take on trans issues and their GNC kids, they should keep far, far, far away from Mermaids. (I know I said this already, but I can't emphasise it strongly enough.)

guardianfree · 03/01/2018 16:49

LanceCleg
I so agree. There should be no place for pressure or activist groups in schools actively promoting their own particular ideology.
Education has (until this) been really 'hot' on dealing with sensitive issues, ensuring that political parties are presented as part of a 'balanced' topic with coverage from both sides and frankly keeping out extreme organisations pushing their own narrow agendas.
The trouble is that they present themselves as 'child advocates' educating the rest of us transphobic and hateful folk in the error of our ways. The materials they use look and feel like excellent anti bullying materials for schools - which of course superficially they are - until you delve down into the ideology behind them.

Promoting the 'rights' of one group at the expense of other groups. Ignoring safeguarding issues in favour of promote transgender ideology.
Presenting outrageous issues as facts - that children pre and during puberty must have access to untested drugs - actively stating this is important and, as the DfE fund and direct schools to them, schools just accept that these people know what they are talking about. Until of course you look at those wretched facts and statistics - what the drugs actually do to young bodies, the lack of any testing for this purpose, detransitioning rates, that this is medical experimentation on children.
Yet few politicians, medics, headteachers, those in social care etc have the courage to stand up and point this out.
Because #nodebate is such a successful threat and people want to keep their careers.

It is a scandal of epic proportions and some of the worst casualties will be children - despite all the safeguards we have (age of consent, Fraser guideline competence, safeguarding rules) in our supposedly sophisticated society, we are just abandoning these children and young people to those seeking to use them to validate their own adult decisions.

RedToothBrush · 03/01/2018 17:16

Many years ago, when I realised I had a problem with the idea and concept of childbirth, it lead me down a path of worthlessness and questioning my value and role as a woman.

From many years I was hostile to the idea of having children. I knew I didn't want them. They were repellent to be and I couldn't bear to be around them.

At this point I realised it wasn't the problem I thought and I looked around actively for explanations and solutions. And this is where it starts to get murky.

You unconsciously start with an idea in your head and you look for things to prove it. This isn't necessarily healthy, and I was aware of this.

But getting information thats unbiased in this area is damn near impossible. There is a substantial amount of ideological basis on display from within the medical profession. Not only that, but it soon became apart to me that educated people who were supposed to understand statistics and routinely translate data for laymen were incapable of doing so because they made the most basic of mistakes when it came to methodology and comparing different groups. Rarely were ideas about things outside the scope of a study which might make a study fundamentally flawed even identified. Correlation was too frequently labelled causation and simply repeated the ideology belief that the study sort to prove.

It was riddled with bad science.

What I found out during my experience was it was too easy to become emotionally submerged in it all and lose all sight of objectivity. You had to consciously step back outside of it all and remove your own feelings.

What I discovered was pretty much all the data had some sort of flaw on both sides. But you could piece together patterns and different common themes. And indeed causes. They were complex in nature and very individual. Risks in one group were not the same as the risk in a slightly different group. You had to think about which risks might apply to you and then look at the worst possible outcomes from all scenarios.

Above all else, it required you to start being honest with yourself - and no one else - about what exactly was the problem and what individual elements bothered you most. You had to pick it all apart bit by bit rather than treating it as a singular problem with a simple singular solution. And acknowledge that even then this wasn't necessarily going to go to plan. You could not control it, you could only be at peace with your decision. You had to confront that slither of doubt and be able to cohesively reply to criticism, not for others benefit but to be honest with yourself. Mantras don't satisfy that. They merely suppress fear, criticism and inner doubts.

Your outcome wasn't for you to impose on otherwise either as problems in this area unique to everyone. You couldn't treat it as a problem which produced an identity common to everyone.

The things that were most problematic to this is some respects were groups which advocated a method and/or solution above addressing the building blocks which formed the unique make up of the problem.

Natural birth advocates and pro-cs advocates had the same deep flaws. Some to a greater or lesser extent. The communities that built up around these movements were not helpful and didnt necessarily serve the interests of everyone they claimed to serve. Indeed some were out right harmful or damaging to certain individuals because of the particular nature of their problem.

By a stroke of luck I happened upon an article written by someone who had to do something more than most midwives, ironically by virtue of being male. Basically he listened more than espousing his own views on others. It allowed those women to unpick it all and to start to take control of elements in their lives which were not working with regard to their relationship between the physical and the mental.

He personally has a strong belief in the merits of natural childbirth, but realises that not everyone fits this model and that championing a method before individually tailored care which respected women and their experience and recognised the value of them was paramount. Pressure or social influence of any kind was simply at the very best unhelpful and at worst actively harmful.

I see so many common patterns here.

The science surrounding this, is bollocks. All of it. Bits of it demonstrate certain possibilities but nothing is anywhere near conclusive. Its flawed and too often its coming back to use of language and agendas. Researchers are being handicapped by ideology restricting them. They can not prove, nor disprove anything conclusively.

This is something that sets off alarm bells in my head, and should in even the most pro-trans person. How can you advocate something you have such little real understanding of and not have an honesty and desire to pursue it? In order to prove something you need to be self critical and look for alternative explanations and solutions.

Mermaids also falls foul of method before individuals. Anyone worth half their salt would be talking about positive outcomes in a range of different scenarios and with different methods. Because so few things in life have simple singular solutions, particularly when it comes to anything that has a medical role in it, purely because side effects affect people in such vastly different ways and individual experiences mean people have different coping strategies. Instead its stressing the negativity about if they aren't given influence and power. The combination of mental health and negativity in this way is potentially toxic because it has the power to become self fulfilling in those who are vulnerable. If there is a problem with suicide, then there should not be anything near that tone being used to promote their agenda. It is playing into insecurity and playing power games to serve it own agenda rather than serve individuals.

Not only this but its healthy to have multiple support structures rather than encourage a single community and identity around a medical experience or condition. People are not singular in identities and experiences. Its a retreat into this that makes people potentially less able to cope with outside challenges.

This is where it becomes cult like and indeed makes it open to abuse and harm to those who don't quite fit that particular model by individuals who might see it as an opportunity to exploit vulnerable people.

Mermaids reflects the worst elements, traits and flaws of all of these issues that I faced in the exploration of something which was fundamental to my identity and being and how I fitted into wider society.

That single tweet embodies so much about its flaws and despite its brevity reveals a great deal.

Multiplicity and discussion is essential to those in situations like this. You can not escape your own reality.

Datun · 03/01/2018 17:32

"sudden onset gender dysphoria" (which started popping up in the summer) pathologies' children, as well denying them agency with a totally made up label for which I have been unable to find any peer reviewed, academic studies on by the way. It also denies agency and autonomy to trans/GNC/gender questioning children.

As red says, you may be looking in the wrong places.

Try here for the study into rapid onset gender dysphoria.

www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(16)30765-0/abstract

red

Your thought process is admirable. I find your posts reassuring in the extreme.

Lancelottie · 03/01/2018 18:05

ALuner - where does your interest in this arise, if you don't mind me asking? Your approach is somewhat similar to mine a couple of years back, as far as I can see, and seems to stem partly from a trust in the current process and the stages of counselling expected.

Do you work in the area and thus have recent experience of it?

I'm wondering, because five years back, when the first of our friends announced to everyone that they had a transgender child, they were clear that the counselling process had been going on for two years, had been very thorough, that their former daughter was in fact their son and that transition was very much in their best interests.

Two years back, a second set of family friends announced the same process. Counselling still hasn't even started, and they're still on the waiting list for an appointment at the Tavistock, but social transition was pretty much automatic at school from the moment she first mentioned it - barely time to pause for thought, bang, new name, new pronouns. I am worried that this anxious, shy child will find it hard to navigate a way back to normal gruff tomboyish girlhood if that is what she needs (as her family seem to think likely). When I met them recently, one parent was carefully avoiding all pronouns entirely and the other was using 'he' and 'she' at random.

This autumn, the third family friend started the process by dint of, as far as I can see, posting indignant rants on Facebook. No mention of any counselling or waiting. Just 'yay, rainbows, #NoDebate, and you're all ancient bigots on the wrong side of history (where have I heard that before?) for thinking I was ever a girl'.

The anecdotal impression I'm getting from this is that counselling is ever harder to come by, and so teenagers are finding their own support from sources that are far from neutral.

AnotherQuoll · 03/01/2018 18:22

Interesting that so many of us read that Mermaids tweet and understood it to mean Mermaids knew four young trans people who'd committed suicide. My first assumption was teens to mid twenties
But it doesn't actual say that.
It also doesn't tell us who the "network" is- Mermaids' trans clients or volunteers, trans activists, the whole UK trans population? In fact, it doesn't even say they were trans.
It also doesn't state causes of death. They could've been anything from workplace accident, to typhoid while travelling, or complications from surgeries...
But maybe they were under 25, trans, and it as the suicide as implied....Did this happen while being "supported" by Mermaids? And how does that support an appeal for donations so they can keep doing what they're doing, if they've just lost four young trans people while doing what they're doing?

RedToothBrush · 03/01/2018 18:23

The basic problem is that people make assumptions BEFORE they examine a problem.

This leads them to conclusions that might not be right, because they essentially know the answer before they ask the question.

You should actively try to disprove your own initial belief to the best of your ability to see if it stands up to this scrutiny. You should consider alternative explanations.

What I'm seeing with regards to trans cult is a complete void of ethics. Given the nature of being trans, its different and this reality can not be ignored. This means you can reduce it to the issue of consent to see these problems laid at their barest.

  1. Are those making decisions Gillick Competent? Many aren't. Decisions with such life long consequences are being made by others on their behalf. There are massive ethical questions here.

  2. Those who are Gillick Competent but still minors are still vulnerable. The void in the lack of safeguarding here is huge. Just how much are teenagers able to make their own decisions free from undue influence?

  3. Self ID and medicalisation without scrutiny is totally unethical in adults, never mind children.

  4. There is a lack of research and an absence of knowledge about long terms outcomes. Yet again, young people are being lead into this.

  5. This means that individuals are totally unable to make informed decisions.

  6. How do we measure the very idea of the 'successful' treatment / help / support of someone who presents as trans? Information about those who desist seemingly isn't relevant or recorded. This is a total absence of relevant information. Its selective picking and choosing of data.
    Indeed the emphasis here very much seems to be on the idea of 'failure', which may simply be a correlation rather than caused by exploring the possibility of being trans. But how do we measure harm properly? Its not just about those who are trans. Again there is an absence of data here too.

  7. On top of this you have trans activists pushing for a de-medicalisation of the entire process, which would automatically remove all ethics from a process which in many cases does involve medical intervention or consequences.
    Which is a great big huge red flag because the very concept and principles of consent automatically become weakened or totally removed.

We are talking about people, who if they are at risk of suicide, are therefore vulnerable, and do need safe guarding and gate keeping at certain points.

I speak as someone who hated the hoops of the system I had to jump through. My experience was good though but I do see that other trusts are doing harm through poor procedure for the same situation. I don't think you should scrap the system entirely though. You need to develop better care pathways and handling of a sensitive issue through training and understanding of what works and what is part of the problem. To rip it all up and just let patients get whatever they want without advice is going to do much more harm.

guardianfree · 03/01/2018 18:30

Thank you RedToothBrush'. You add such a lot of insight into these difficult issues.
The challenge is HOW do we get people to hear this? Especially those in positions of power and influence. I have said it to my MP who has parroted the government view back at me.
I have peaktransed as many educationists as I can.
But the fact remains that the pressure groups are funded and promoted by the DfE and therefore people working with children have suspended their critical faculties and accept that pressure groups know better.
That Trump tweet that you posted was I think very pertinent to this.

ArcheryAnnie · 03/01/2018 18:38

It isn't Mermaids who are weaponising the situation.

It really is, Luner. All that "I'd rather have a live daughter than a dead son" stuff they push. They absolutely do push the "transition or die" message, which is utterly dangerous and disgusting of them to do. (Mainly because it actively promotes suicide to young people, but also because it's a cover for their other message, which is "better a trans daughter than a gay son", being the fucking bunch of homophobes that they are.)

Ereshkigal · 03/01/2018 18:47

And is it owl or fox who represents them? He called homosexuality deviant. And tried desperately to refute the statistics on trans sex offenders, despite them being subsequently verified by the Ministry of Justice.

It was Fox who called homosexuality deviant. And Owl who wrote a stupid article in the Independent rubbishing Fair Play for Women's article on transwomen sex offenders. Which got beautifully taken down in turn by Andrew Gilligan.

TheCowWentMoo · 03/01/2018 18:50

This is a tweet that states absolutely nothing but is designed to perpetuate a very dangerous narrative.
4 people in their network have died, it implies suicide of trans children however it doesn't mean that. It just means 4 people have died, could be trans people, could be the family of trans people, it could be workers. They may be old, ill, they may have been in car crashes etc. It means absolutely nothing. Obviously any death particularly of a child is tragic however mermaids are using a very emotive topic to push their ideology.
I would expect that trans people would attempt suicide at a higher rate that non-trans people, that is the nature of being trans. Being so unhappy in your own body that you wish to take medication or surgery to change it is likely to lead to suicidal feelings. It is body dysmorphia, similar to the fact you would expect higher rates of suicide amongst people with anorexia. They are also likely to experience more bullying and much more likely to have Asd. Often girls with asd feel 'wrong' and they can be lead to believe that they are born in the wrong body, however transitioning doesn't change their sense of wrongness because it doesn't deal with the root cause. Therefore i would expect higher suicide rates in that population too.

However that doesn't mean that we should transition children, that we should give children potentially life altering treatment because they feel they are in the wrong body. It doesn't mean that a lack of rights for trans people triggers suicide, it could in fact mean the opposite that transitioning leads to suicidal thoughts. The statistic of high suicide rates amongst trans people alone means nothing, it is simply a statistic that trans people have a higher rate of mental illness, which we already knew.

Mermaids doesn't take this statistic and campaign for more counselling, more help and support for children who feel in the wrong body, it doesn't campaign for better access to MH care. They campaign for less access to MH care for these children in reality as they wish to push through transitioning that anyone who feels 'wrong' must be trans as opposed to further counselling and exploration of why these children feel this way. They are simply picking up a (perhaps false) statistic to push through their own agenda, it is a little like emotions blackmail. "transition your child or they will commit suicide", it is so incredibly dangerous and unethical.

RedToothBrush · 03/01/2018 19:05

guardianfree, this is the whole thread on Trumpisms and how it works

twitter.com/GeorgeLakoff/status/948424436058791937

I don't agree with all of it, but for the most part its right.

Turn the debate, by reframing things and go at from a different angle.

At the moment feminists are following the framing rather than creating framing over the debate. They are responding rather than asking the questions that matter.

There has to be an offensive where you focus on certain key elements - like this idea of ethics and consent - and then throw it back at institutions who have legal duties and responsibilities which this then raises.

If they have been asked these questions and something then happens, this means their response was insufficient / weak / non existent and they have failed in their duty.

Public bodies won't like it being exposed where they are forced to admit to a gap in a duty of care of the vulnerable.

Example: Ask questions about how success / harm are measured, and in whom, rather than playing along with this already constructed narrative about suicide and just in those who are trans.

Its about finding the gaps in the story which are important and sticking a bloody great wedge in there to turn the story to an agenda that transcult is not leading.

Speak the language of institutions and use it against them.

guardianfree · 03/01/2018 19:09

Thank you RTB.

I am just working on a complaint about this and this is incredibly helpful.

Ereshkigal · 03/01/2018 19:11

There has to be an offensive where you focus on certain key elements - like this idea of ethics and consent - and then throw it back at institutions who have legal duties and responsibilities which this then raises.

If they have been asked these questions and something then happens, this means their response was insufficient / weak / non existent and they have failed in their duty.

Public bodies won't like it being exposed where they are forced to admit to a gap in a duty of care of the vulnerable.

YY. This is exactly what we need to do. They will get the jitters. These public sector orgs aren't mired in queer theory, they don't have the rigid dogmatic beliefs that drive the trans agenda. They are just trying to be politically correct and reduce chance of non compliance with equality legislation. Let's challenge that.

Ereshkigal · 03/01/2018 19:12

They won't like to think that they might be responsible for the next massive scandal.

RedToothBrush · 03/01/2018 19:23

Guardianfree, my degree taught to 'listen for the silence' and to use that to try and spot the gaps in knowledge / information / a story. Its invaluable as a way to try and rethink things and create a new angle.

In terms of institutions, they are all down to process and procedure about what their role and responsibilities are. This makes them cumbersome but they provide their own framework for you to work around.

Unpick what they do, frame your argument on their terms and structure. Effectively use their system for your own ends.

(This is how transcult are being successful. The stuff on the internet is a stretching of boundaries and a distraction from how you can get to the people / institutions that form policy).