Susie Green article in the Graun

[Freespeecher]

Based on the Guides thing.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/04/transphobia-daughter-guides-inclusivity-girlguiding-transgender-girls

bd67th thank god you were able to access female only spaces. It’s terrifying that this may not going to be available for girls in the future.

I can’t believe that article was published 12 hours ago and they still haven’t added links for the Samaritans. Unbelievable.

Thinking about it more, it riles me so much. The “trans girls aren’t a risk” condescending tone in particular. I assume Susie Green thinks that trans girls aren’t a risk because if she had her way they’d all be on puberty blockers +/- cross sex hormones and would be unable to get an erection.

Mermaids has informed us that it has not been the subject of a court order; rather, it was told by the child’s mother that the judge had said that the child was to have no contact with Mermaids

This is because the order from the judge would have been made to the person with PR (parental responsibility) - ie, the mother.

It in no way exonerates Mermaids: the judge clearly felt its input was deleterious and so made a no contact order. The person that order would be made to in the family court would not be the third party; it would be the person with PR.

No one reported Jimmy Savile.

Until it all came out.

Thats the problem with saying because no one has reported something, and there isn't an issue.

Its willfully setting a test for measuring issues in a quantative method, which does not account for reasons why things might not have been reported.

People who have the least political power or are the most vulnerable are the least likely to use official routes and measures to report problems.

And thats the mistake that people, particularly those from nice middle class backgrounds make.

Its a political blindspot.

And its easier to accept at face value, because if you say theres no problem, you don't have to address anything because you are refusing to acknowledge its possibility.

It maintains your reality, rather than challenging you to look outside your bubble of experience and think critically.

DrEm long Twitter thread with thorough referencing:

"A detailed look at the U.K. Serious Case Review National Repository suggests to me that Susie Green of mermaids is making up statistics and in my opinion behaving unethically and in contradiction with the Samaritan guidelines around suicide.

This has come out of work @ AlfredBelpaire has done and privately shared with me. The 'stats' Susie Green and another Mermaids mum are pushing, the sensationalist Guardian article do NOT agree with the research by GIDS of the Tavistock and Portman.

GIDS evidence base is here: gids.nhs.uk/evidence-base

GIDS at Tavistock & Port: 'suicide is extremely rare', Serious Case Review National Repository evidence shows suicide is very rare vs. GIRES: 84% trans youth attempt suicide, Guardian 84% trans attempt suicide, Susie Green: trans children or they will commit suicide

The methodology of the GIRES study is extraordinarily weak - an internet survey - it hasn't even bothered with control groups or exploring other factors, also it is over 18s only so why is mermaids & the Guardian using it to make claims about childhood mental health?

In GIRES own report it appears that they state they have done no analysis of the data and are presenting inaccurate figures - rounding up and down at will, or am I misreading it? With a topic such as youth suicide surely one would do everything to try and ensure good data sets?"

twitter.com/PankhurstEM/status/1047870548968189952

Schools take great care in recruiting teachers. Many would not consider, or be able to recruit, teachers without appropriate training and qualifications.

Yet schools/Local Authorities seem to be "hiring" Mermaids or GIRES without carefully reviewing the background and qualification of those running these organisations.

Susie Green is a mum. A school will know lots of mums, but would not have them in to advise on teaching, curriculum or MH/welfare. Ditto the people behind GIRES. The fact she appears to disagree with the views, evidence, and experience of experts at the Tavistock should serve as a huge red flag.

Come now. Schools owe it to our children to carry proper due diligence.

Yet schools/Local Authorities seem to be "hiring" Mermaids or GIRES without carefully reviewing the background and qualification of those running these organisations.

Susie Green is a mum. A school will know lots of mums, but would not have them in to advise on teaching, curriculum or MH/welfare. Ditto the people behind GIRES. The fact she appears to disagree with the views, evidence, and experience of experts at the Tavistock should serve as a huge red flag.

James Kirkup Spectator May 2018:
(extract)
"Despite its influence, it is worth noting what Mermaids is not. It is not a research body. Its activities are support (for families) and advocacy: based on its contacts with those families, it argues for what it sees are better policies and practices by the NHS and others. It does not carry out or commission clinical or academic research. Its most recent annual report lists among its charitable activities “campaigning and advocacy” and says: “Mermaids has also become more active in lobbying”.

There is regular dialogue between Mermaids and the GIDS, but the two sides do not always agree. An example is on the time the GIDS team take to give referred children the hormone-blocking drugs that stop their bodies developing the physical characteristics associated with their birth sex.

In evidence to another Commons inquiry in 2015, Mermaids argued that GIDS should make such drugs available much more quickly. The GIDS team has generally resisted that call, more than once saying that “any decision around hormone treatment needs time and considered thought.”

And in evidence to that earlier committee, Dr Bernadette Wren of the GIDS said this:

“I know that Susie and Mermaids would like a fast track so that young people who are already well into puberty and feel that they know that they want to move forward into physical intervention would bypass our assessment process and move straight into physical intervention. We feel that is not an ethical way to practise.”

Here’s another summary. A transgender charity that says it is engaged in lobbying lobbied politicians and doctors to change the way children are treated by doctors. The doctors declined to make that change because it would be not be ethical to do so." (continues)

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

They’ve FINALLY added links to the Samaritans, 48 hours after it was published and with it no longer being linked to the main opinions page. What an appalling lack of standards.

Mirror had a similar article.
No reference to Samaritans.
Irresponsible discussion of suicide.
(I think the issue with Susie Green tbh, does she not understand the guidelines and reasoning behind them?)

www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/mother-transgender-jackie-explains-moment-13355068