I would love to see a geographical breakdown of children identifying as trans.
Im not sure it would help in political terms. The interpretation would be that these are merely more accepting areas and more must be done in areas it wasn't happening because these areas are prejudice. I was told this over ten years ago, to explain away clustering which was known about even then.
In research terms its necessary but its highly sensitive information which could be used for targeting if it is indeed a social contagion.
My sibling came out in his mid twenties but they were part of a cluster which originated from school. They never moved away from home and all had social skills issues. One was in the same class at school and was known to our family since age 8. They had very homophobic parents too.
It's long been one of the things that has led my concerns. It never sat right.
I grew up somewhere which couldn't be more liberal, white Middle class if it tried.
Time and again I keep hearing the same things. The same pattern.
I need the research to be done, for my own peace of mind and to put my long term fears and concerns, to bed once and for all if nothing else.
I do not see how it can do harm, if it increases understanding. We either find out it is social contagion once and for all, or we can provide better support and normalise it.
Until its done, I know that I will never fully be on board as that nagging feeling will always be there. Its pretty clear I'm not alone in this.
As for mimmy prattling on about criminal offences, it would be an offence not to raise concerns that could result in harm to children too. That's the thing with whistleblowing, you can in certain circumstances, raise concerns if you have a motivation which is in the public interest.
We should always encourage a climate in which whistleblowing is understood as being fair, proportionate and legitimate if handled with care. This is a fundamental of safeguarding. Its also lawful. The main criteria being a concern that something has the potential to cause harm to others.
Protection for whistleblowers was original embedded in The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 but this was found to be lacking because the cavet of what public interest meant was woolly. However this has changed somewhat in recent years and there have been a lot of effort made to make sure anyone who has concerns reports them and is obliged to report them.
Unfortunately individuals do lose their whistleblowing rights if they go to the media. But again there are caveats here too. The media can refuse to name a source. And the act of going to the press offers its own protections. A newspaper is unlikely to publish a whistleblowing story unless they feel it in the public interest to do so. Putting it on the front page kind of makes a big point too.
Normal whistleblowing procedure is to report within the system. The entire point with this story is that it has become impossible to do so. Like was the case with North Staffs.
It has to be stressed that the reason this is on the front page of the newspaper is because of the concern that normal whistleblowing protocols are not working and this in itself needs scrutiny.
So Mimmy can spontaneously combust all she bloody well likes. It's not a good look and all it does is serve to reinforce the point that the Mail is highlighting about there being a culture in which concerns can not be raised.