Posie: truthcrime harassment continues

[Pratchet]

Susie Green from Mermaids has appealed against the CPS decision not to pursue Posie.

Posie described truthfully what Susie Green did to her child in Thailand at the age of sixteen: surgery involving the removal of genitals, a decision so shocking to the Thai government they raised the age bar for such operations to 18.

A woman is being pursued and harassed for telling the truth. Can we show as much support as possible please.

Ok so you think Susie Green was wrong then, to go public with details of her child's medical treatment and conditions and surgery?

But we aren't allowed to discuss what she has chosen to make public, or what the reality of her chosen course of action is?

I'm impressed if that post is actually an admission that you think she was wrong btw :)

Does this mean that mermaids are acting lawfully if they counsel a mtf child towards genital mutilation, but not if they councel a ftm?

@terfulike I'm assuming you're talking hypothetically because I've not seen any evidence that Mermaids counsels children in this way. It would seem that this would be the case, that it would be legal to counsel a boy towards seeking reassignment surgery, but not a girl if the surgery involved destruction and reconstruction of genitals.

I've not really thought about it from this angle before. You'd hope there would be some guidelines for charities to use when counseling under 18's regarding promotion of surgery/hormone treatment.

Because we don't think it's right to discuss children's genitals on social media, but unfortunately we can only control what goes on on Mumsnet

Until you made that point MNHQ, I was about to vehemently disagree with your position. But that is a point very well made, no-one should be discussing specific children's genitals in public. If a parent believes that it is ok to go to the media and share intimate details of their child for publicity that does not make it right, and we shouldn't implicitly condone it by repeating details which should be private to that child.

Because we don't think it's right to discuss children's genitals on social media, but unfortunately we can only control what goes on on Mumsnet

This is a really good point. Whatever anyone's views, individual children are individuals and we should consider how to treat them with respect. Doing that and raising concerns about medical ethics and individual actions of lobby groups are not mutually exclusive.

Posie do find a way of letting us know when the coffers start to look a bit low - I'll more than happily bung you a bit more, in fact I consider it a privilege to be able to.

Posie do find a way of letting us know when the coffers start to look a bit low - I'll more than happily bung you a bit more, in fact I consider it a privilege to be able to.

Same here, Posie. I think this has implications way beyond trans issues.

I do not wish to live in a country dominated by denunciation culture, which is backed up by statutory authorities.

Because we don't think it's right to discuss children's genitals on social media, but unfortunately we can only control what goes on on Mumsnet

OK, I can get with this. Being a terrible parent and allowing one's child to be mutilated and then sharing said mutilation with the world at wide should be condemned by all right thinking people. We can discuss the broader principles at play without bringing individual children into the conversation.

However, if we are having such a general conversation, I would hope that we would be able to quote children and their parents where pertinent, such as when someone pops up to say "this is all scaremongering, no-one would do this to their own child!". Or where children have voiced regret - or indeed satisfaction - with undergoing such dramatic surgery at a young age, we should be able to discuss that in an appropriate and sensitive way, because the children themselves have spoken publicly.

Because we don't think it's right to discuss children's genitals on social media, but unfortunately we can only control what goes on on Mums net

Ok, fair enough.

She is strong, funny and articulate. Pity she isn't using that to achieve something humane and good.

I think this has implications way beyond trans issues.

Agree

I do wonder how much some of this is an effective distraction (opportunistic or otherwise)... there are key events happening in coming weeks and (as we know) lobbying has already started.

Yep. The event in Edinburgh on the 22nd is going to be a biggie

www.engender.org.uk/content/events/85-why-womens-equality-organisations-support-the-proposed-changes-to-the-gender-recognition-act/

You have my full support posie
I will also donate

9th May Caitlin Jenner speaks on Diversity

15th May Stonewall reception for MPs

17th May Peter Kyle MP (Labour) Has secured a 3 hour debate in the Commons to mark International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3237973-Commons-debate
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3223840-Parliament-hosting-Stonewall-panel-event-on-trans-issues-and-changes-to-GRA

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3238618-Trans-Media-Watch-has-written-to-parliament-saying-trans-identified-male-can-be-considered-as-hate-speech-and-that-Mumsnet-users-referring-to-penises-are-being-transphobic

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/why-are-some-mps-trying-to-shut-down-the-transgender-debate/

She is strong, funny and articulate. Pity she isn't using that to achieve something humane and good.

That's arguable. If she gets more public scrutiny of certain dubious organisations and the overreach of their role in government policy making I'd say she would be doing exactly that.

She is strong, funny and articulate. Pity she isn't using that to achieve something humane and good.

No watering down of child protection safeguards as an (undoubtedly unintended before anyone reports me) consequence of GRA sounds like a pretty worthwhile thing to achieve?

Or do you want current safeguarding protections for children, all children, watered down?

What would be the reason to mention mastectomies in 13 year old if not to shock and jolt? It's shocking

That's just so so ridiculous.

#IstandwithPosie

I don't know where to post this, so just going to put it here... I was thinking about the screen shoting and wondered if a way to prevent it might be to have links to valuable resources or sites right at the top of the message box, so there is no way to capture the text (and username) without the link? Hope this makes sense/might be useful?

They could block it out, but then readers would wonder what was blocked and check it out themselves possibly?

I think if this went to court it’d be a huge eye opener for a lot of people.

Of course that means Posie has to go to court, and that’s extremely stressful and not something I would wish on her (unless she wants it.)

I would also contribute again to the crowdfunder.

Or do you want current safeguarding protections for children, all children, watered down?

No I don't. They need to be strengthened if anything. But preventing a child from accessing medical care they require is also a safeguarding issue. You created a false dichotomy.

But preventing a child from accessing medical care they require is also a safeguarding issue. You created a false dichotomy.

No, you have. Who suggested preventing children from accessing medical care they require? Would you like a definition of "false dichotomy"?

But preventing a child from accessing medical care they require is also a safeguarding issue

that's not what safeguarding means

I can kind of see where MNHQ are going with this - agreed that both 'in the public eye' kids (ie the 1 now adult, 1 approaching adulthood) referred to on this thread have already had their most private info publicised by their (to my mind) narcissistic & abusive parents - utterly shameful behaviour by those parents imho. But it's precisely because I judge those adults so harshly as atrocious parents to those poor kids that I think we ought to not use what they've exposed about their individual kids in their wanton pursuit of publicity, validation & money. I don't believe they were ever in any way in the right to expose their kids as they have, and I think as women who object to that, it's reasonable for us not make the already huge public humiliation their parents have caused them any worse than it is already.

Sorry if that reads jumbled, but trying to work out my thoughts as I type - guess what I'm saying is that we can amplify our message best by not stooping to their despicably low level IYSWIM

However, think it's also very important we're allowed to communicate about why we're opposed to the horrific acts those parents have committed, and fully support Posie's right to name it for what it is - castration, and mutilation of otherwise perfectly healthy kids' bodies - the shame lies with those pushing this agenda, not with those of us calling them out for the harm they're committing.

But preventing a child from accessing medical care they require is also a safeguarding issue.*

Who is doing this?