Susie Green

[dorade]

First thing first, I fully support Posie Parker.

I decided to look at a bit of the backstory including watching Susie Green's TED talk.

Starting from the premise that mothers want the best for their children, I tried to consider how she travelled down the path that she did.

Clearly she didn't have a problem per se with her son playing with 'girl toys' (although the father was sending strong messages to the child that he did).

To my mind, the only way Susie Green can have taken the path that she took is that she must believe that someone can really truly be born in the wrong sex body. If you believe that with religious fervour then the actions that follow, particularly if medical professionals are validating you, don't seem as outrageous.

There then comes a point somewhere down the line when you have gone so far, where you can't allow even a chink of doubt to creep in because the whole house of cards and the horror of irreversible decisions would be too awful to contemplate.

For Jackie, I am sure much of the attention has been unpleasant but equally instead of being a run of the mill gay man he can be feted as a 'brave beauty queen'. His mother gets validated by Buckingham Palace and the Police amongst others.

Sorry, this is all a bit stream-of-consciousness, but what I'm trying to say is that at the root of it we must challenge the narrative that it is possible to be born in the wrong body. It's not.

We also need to retain humanity towards those who, aided and abetted by professionals and under dire warnings of suicide, have made awful decisions.

I've had a look at TED talks but can't get anything when I look up Susie Green or Mermaids. She hasn't appeared under 'Transgender' either. Does anyone have the link please? I would like to look at it.

I think she's fighting so hard for no debate because if she's ever forced to admit to herself that she got her son castrated because he wanted to be pretty and play with dolls then she'll just start screaming and never be able to stop, primal howl of grief and pain style.

Letting that be done to your child? How else can she live with herself other than by never allowing the idea that a different, better choice could have been made to exist?

Mothers doing the best for their own children is one thing. And not all mothers do. And even when they do, they can still be misguided.

But where I really have a problem its when a mother decides that because she has done one thing that its the best thing and every other mother should do exactly the same. Its incredibly arrogant and incredibly narrow minded and self righteous. You see it all the time on debates like breast feeding.

The fake suicide stats are there to create and help support that monolithic approach to this. The suicide stats have so many issues - none of which are acknowledged by, well pretty much anyone - that I'm not going to go into them here.

You can not help others to make informed decisions if the information you are giving out is flawed, and isn't properly nuanced. You have to always apply the 'exceptions to the rule' can and do always exist too.

Anything else is irresponsible lobbying especially when you have an unhealthy emotional investment you can't separate from your own needs. This leads to you projecting them onto others. Which is in its very own right, a social contagion.

You need neutral language, neutral approaches, good quality information and multiple possible outcomes in order to be able make free choices.

This is where Mermaids are lobby group rather than a support group, because they fail on these scores.

@RedToothBrush
Are there consequences for charities working with children but using verifiably manipulative and perhaps misleading information as persuasive tools? Not talking about Mermaids specifically - just a general question about charities and working with children? Do you know?

I don't know of any rules that are specific to lobbying, though there could be. It would probably fall under general safeguarding.

Creationism is a banned subject in free schools and academies, and the wording of the clauses of the ban I do find interesting. It is very specifically worded, and couldn't be applied to trans issues but at the same time there are some interesting points within that same wording:

^"Clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the funding agreement... explicitly require that pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching 'creationism' as scientific fact.
"'Creationism', for the purposes of clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the funding agreement and clause 23E above, is any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution. The parties acknowledge that creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream churches and religious traditions, including the major providers of state funded schools such as the [Anglican] [Catholic] Churches, as well as the scientific community. It does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory.^

"The parties recognise that the teaching of creationism is not part of prevailing practice in the English education system, but acknowledge that it is however important that all schools are clear about what is expected in terms of the curriculum which they need to provide. The parties further recognise that the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.

"The secretary of state acknowledges that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement, and clauses 23E and 23G above do not prevent discussion of beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things, such as creationism, in Religious Education, as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory."

The first thing I notice is the part about 'a broad and balanced curriculum'.

The second is 'It does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory.'

The third is that 'is any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution.'

Story about creationism ban here

Combined with this 'born in the wrong body' stuff which requires this notion of a spirit or soul and a denial of biology, I find some parallels here which make alarm bells go off in my head.

Mermaids became a CIO (Charitable Incorporated Organisation) in 2015/16 and so is registered with The Charity Commission. The scope, activities and policies are therefore publically available eg [[http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends75/0001160575_AC_20170331_E_C.PDF] Mermaids2017] The Safeguarding policy is available on Mermaids website/

oops apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends75/0001160575_AC_20170331_E_C.PDF

Its scope reads:
THE OBJECTS OF THE CIO ARE TO RELIEVE THE MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STRESS OF ALL PERSONS AGED 19 YEARS AND UNDER WHO ARE IN ANY MANNER AFFECTED BY GENDER IDENTITY ISSUES, AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND TO ADVANCE PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE SAME.

That doesn't really say much at all does it?

The 2017 Annual report makes clear the expansion of scope from supporting children/young people & families to a much wider role including lobbying, education etc etc

Here's Susie Green's TED Talk.

& interview from The Independent April 2015 www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ive-been-called-an-abusive-and-dangerous-parent-when-all-i-did-was-listen-to-my-transgender-child-10165241.html

The 2017 Annual report makes clear the expansion of scope from supporting children/young people & families to a much wider role including lobbying, education etc etc

Is that a good idea? Or does it represent certain conflicts of interest which could be potentially problematic?

There are aspects to the way Mermaids are promoting themselves and their approach which are dangerously close to be accused of being cultish.

Combined with the comparison with section 28, it makes it difficult to apply scrutiny, accountability and transparency without being accused of being transphobic.

Given the Posie Parker situation, I also question about whether if there were genuine concerns whether it would be possible and indeed whether anyone would be willing to whistle blow if something DID happen. I think its rather undermined their ability to safeguard effectively as an organisation.

I have to say the whole culture around the charity, is one I don't think is particularly open. I think it is good practice for a charity to open to criticism and to questions about what they do and the information they are giving out. A real intolerance of that, is something I am deeply suspicious of.

Would I trust them? No. For these reasons over and above their central issue of what they are campaigning about.

what I am struck by is the difference between what I have heard Polly Carmichael say and what I have seen said by for example Susie Green and Sgt Gina Denham. Both Susie & Gina have very powerful personal experiences and I understand their drives to help others in similar circumstances... ( I've been involved with charities specific to my experiences, motivated to make things a little easier for those who follow etc)
I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of obvious professional endorsement... especially in so far as the two organisations they represent seem to have been involved with schools etc. I'm really surprised that Tavistock (or similar) don't take a more prominent role.

& given the high levels of reported suicide ideation and vulnerability of the young people concerned. I am really shocked that the training program for volunteers seems (according to the report) being devised by Susie Green alone... surely CMHT/Samaritans/Tavistock etc etc would have been involved?

R0wantrees the personal experience is both a motivator (which can be a positive or a negative thing) and an emotional thing (which can be good if it helps you connect with people but unless it can be controlled and you can step back from your own experience can also mean you are really blinded by your own experience).

I think it is really difficult to do that necessary stepping back. I know my Mum is unable to question anything relating to my sibling in her own head. It has led to the breakdown of my relationship with her, because she can not separate from that. Areas which she would always normally do that in she is completely blinded by my siblings experience.

I have found the process of actually doing that, has been the very thing that has alienated me. The trouble is, the whole experience does make you look at your family and question things and I think I would have to shut down completely and utterly mentally in order to do that. I couldn't. That's not how I have been educated. It put me in direct conflict of what I believe in and think matters and being asked to forget all that for the sake of my sibling. It was never going to work.

I think the lack of room in the trans culture to explore issues in an environment in which any sort of dissent is labelled as transphobic is a big issue for this reason. It reinforces the sense of defensiveness and doesn't help build up a tolerance and understanding of the difference between a lazy, ill thought out comment, one that is well meaning and trying to learn and understand and one which is genuinely abusive. Instead it creates this bubble in which the only people who really are on your side are the support group and its unquestioning allies.

This is why I have difficulty in seeing them as a support group and do see them as being very cultish, as one of the key features of a cult is to try and discourage critical thinking.

My sibling was already wound up so much by the people they were around that they would be rejected by their family, that DH was judged as prejudice before the event of being told. This ultimately set up a whole spiral of being unable to engage and hold a normal conversation. It led to abusive behaviour and a complete breakdown in communication because of the overly defensive manner in which we were treated.

I don't see how affirmation only, ultimately helps in that context. It just makes the cycle of it continue and be worse, because it never helps to build skills to be resistant or understand where comments are coming from. In the short term it might be helpful. In the long term I just think it sets you up to live in a bubble of reality which is somehow parallel to the rest of the world, and it makes it harder to be part of the world.

I don't know that trying to force the rest of the world to pander to that will work. I fact I know it won't. It will just lead to greater isolation and resentment rather than proper understanding. Especially if there are a lot of people who fall through the cracks or are let down by an affirmation only policy.

I don't know. I just feel there are issues with this charity, which need careful consideration and thought about, before getting involved with them. Their own bias is hard to ignore and avoid.

Susie Green is capable of going to the Samaritans website all by herself and reading their guidelines on talking about suicide and how it is a social contagion.

Susie is not ignorant of this.

It has been talked about repeatedly on social media and on MN. We know that Mermaids are reading these threads and checking for things they can report or find a way to attack MNHQ for allowing.

That the issue continues to be used is alarming.

The suicide reporting guidelines are here:
www.samaritans.org/media-centre/media-guidelines-reporting-suicide

One point is this:
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.

For example, combining references to life circumstances, say a debt problem or job loss, and descriptions of an easy-to-imitate suicide method in the same report, could put at greater risk people who are vulnerable as a result of financial stress.

Since we are talking about identity politics this seems a pretty big and easy problem to spot.

The Samaritans report on suicide is here:
www.samaritans.org/sites/default/files/kcfinder/files/Suicide_statistics_report_2017_Final.pdf

It has a lengthy section on the problems with suicide statistic and reporting. It talks about how comparisons of figures are problematic and how they should not be used on small population figures because they can be grossly misleading.

The idea that Susie is unaware of this is mind boogling and I find inconceivable.

If in the remote chance she genuinely doesn't she hasn't done enough research on her own.

If the Mermaids spies are out in force on MN, then the link above are for Susie's personal benefit and I suggest they have a good look at them and pass them on to Susie to help her with her programme.

the personal experience is both a motivator (which can be a positive or a negative thing) and an emotional thing (which can be good if it helps you connect with people but unless it can be controlled and you can step back from your own experience can also mean you are really blinded by your own experience).
I completely agree and this is something that I am acutely aware of when sharing my experience in the hope it might support others eg that whilst we might share one key similarity, our wider circumstances and needs are very different. I've seen how some people who are emotionally driven are often blind to the actual needs of others. The charities that I have worked with (for a specific health issue) are also really heavily informed by medical guidance, good practice etc. and these are primarily supporting adult women.
There seems to be a gaping hole in the resources that I've seen regarding children and young people and I'm gobsmacked!!

I am fully expecting this thread to disappear in a puff of smoke with a deletion message from MNHQ, such is my current scepticism towards Mermaids inability to deal with any level criticism or divergent thought. If it should disappear, I think it would rather prove my point.

If they are to have credibility and for people who might come into contact with the charity to trust them, they need to address these areas.

I'm not at all surprised that Susie Green continues to be adamant they they did the only thing possible for their child. Reading other trans account on here and elsewhere, perhaps it truly is the best option for a very few people, who cannot live with their natural bodies and expected roles, and don't have the luxury of waiting for a less gender-ridden society.

None of us will never know whether her child really fell into that category, or whether, given parents and a society who had never heard of SRS, this child would have grown out of it like so many others, I personally think it is a tragic outcome, but then so are many other decisions taken for a child in good faith.

It's the pushy, blinkered campaigning that sticks in my craw.

Thank you R0wantrees and RedToothBrush (again)

This from Mermaid's Trustee's annual report:
"Mermaids has also become more active in lobbying on behalf of its members for better treatment, in contributing towards policy decisions within the NHS, in providing training on trans issues specifically regarding children and young people.... All of this is crucially important to help influence changes that are so desperately needed." So quite clearly a lobby group - and there's nothing wrong with that.

Working in education with training, safeguarding and sensitive issues, you come into contact with countless organisations wanting to access schools and children and schools must gate keep. The DfE has guidance on the role of 'political ' and lobbying ' organisations in schools, They are forbidden to allow the promotion of 'partisan political views' and have to ensure a balance of views.

I fail to understand how the DfE have exercised due diligence in enabling these lobby groups direct access to schools. I can see how it has happened - groups that frame everything within an equal opportunity / anti discrimination framework are seemingly appropriate - until you examine the materials and see that groups are using not just persuasive techniques but as highlighted, countering the Samaritan's guidelines on suicide in an attempt to persuade the audience of a particular cause and effect. Framing presentations within a definition of 'transphobia' that silences an audience and inhibits legitimate questions. At times, undermining basic safeguarding principles by insisting that children have no right to expect commonly accepted principles of safety and privacy. Undermining a child's understanding of the basis of consent by promoting the eradication of sex segregated spaces.

I am minded of Red's caution that we must approach all of this with care. These are organisations representing vulnerable people and children and I do believe that their intentions are 'positive'. However in their zeal to promote their version of reality and to change schools and society to enable their particular model of validation, they fail to appreciate the harm that is happening to children who are having their boundaries and their ability to consent removed - all in plain sight.

When you work with children you know that school can be a place of acute agony for many children if their right to privacy and safety, in particular in relation to puberty and their developing bodies, is not respected and enabled. Knowing this, it seems unbelievable that any organisation working with children would promote practices that remove these rights from any child.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

The NHS Choices website page for Gender Dysphoria has removed the link to Mermaids as a suggestion for getting support (hooray! - someone out there is listening).

The NHS Choices website page for Gender Dysphoria has removed the link to Mermaids as a suggestion for getting support (hooray! - someone out there is listening)

Now that is extremely good news

Well done to whoever reported that.

Red - the "broad and balanced curriculum" phrase is a general term used by the DfE. Some religious schools fall foul of it (or come very close to it) when the timetable is dominated by RE, bible studies, catechism classes and prayers (for example)