Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Police interviewing Caroline Farrow under caution and threatening to arrest her for "misgendering"

999 replies

Pimmsnlemonade · 19/03/2019 00:11

twitter.com/CF_Farrow/status/1107787009614065664

And, as she says in the thread:

"Meanwhile a group of people have terrified and harassed my family. Doxed my children, made violent and sexual threats, signed me up to porn accounts, did the same to my husband, threatened to visit here. And tumbleweed..."

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
AstonishedFemalePersonator · 20/03/2019 15:24

OK - truthfully - if I read the gruniard article - will my blood pressure go up?

No. It was pretty anodyne.

MhairiV · 20/03/2019 15:25

I think the quick pick-up can probably be explained by a good number of journalists paying more attention in recent weeks, meaning they've probably done the basic digging about and might feel more comfortable writing about the issues from a reasonably informed(ish) position. Appearances on mainstream daytime TV, radio etc. There's been a relatively steady stream of stories popping up. I think it's just a case of more people now having a watching brief.

R0wantrees · 20/03/2019 15:29

I'm really confused by that statement - it seems to be suggesting that SG didn't take her child abroad and have them castrated (in the words of the tweet)?

IMO the statement is saying that reports that the issue is about 'misgendering' are untrue. which is the case

That the actual tweets represent something else:

from the statement:
You will see the tweets are a lot more serious than about misgendering. They were allegations of serious misconduct and vile and spiteful personal attacks. The content was not about misgendering and it is unfortunate that so much of the media has fallen for the incorrect claim that they were.

Which is now a matter for evaluation?

Popchyk · 20/03/2019 15:30

Also, journalists don't like people going after other journalists.

For reasons of self-interest as well as a noble dedication to free speech.

JessicaWakefieldSVH · 20/03/2019 15:38

I’ve just seen a tweet on Mermaids & SG’s twitter that I think breaks the guidelines on discussing or reporting on suicide. Is it only media that have to abide by those guidelines? Is a charity allowed to use false stats etc ?

Datun · 20/03/2019 15:38

If Susie Green is complaining that Caroline Farrow has invoked the Samaritans in terms of her suicide statistics, all this is doing is drawing attention to it.

She's actually going out of her way to highlight the debunked statistics, herself!

Datun · 20/03/2019 15:39

Almost a cross post there, Jessica 😊

hackmum · 20/03/2019 15:41

The Guardian article is rather out of date. It is still pursuing the misgendering line rather than what SG says was the real cause of her complaint, namely the accusations of child abuse and so on. Still, it's a step up for the Guardian.

Datun · 20/03/2019 15:44

I imagine Susie read quite a few below the line comments of people highly fucked off with her calling the police over misgendering. So thought the tweets would justify it.

Foolish woman.

ChattyLion · 20/03/2019 15:44

I’m not sure ‘castration’ is quite the right descriptor for SRS. Actually it’s an understatement. Castrations usually involve ‘only’ the removal of both testicles. You don’t surgically alter the penis as part of a castration procedure.

jay55 · 20/03/2019 15:51

I really hope Mermaids parents start asking questions on the back of this.

The statement reads angry, aggressive and reactionary.

R0wantrees · 20/03/2019 15:51

I’ve just seen a tweet on Mermaids & SG’s twitter that I think breaks the guidelines on discussing or reporting on suicide. Is it only media that have to abide by those guidelines? Is a charity allowed to use false stats etc ?

Samaritans' guidance is good practice rather than 'legislative'. Any adult, charity, organisation would do well to read, understnd and follow their guidance especially those who have contact or influence on vulnerable children & young people.
Professionals working with children and young people follow the guidance, not because it comes from The Samaritans but because it is well-established good Safeguarding practice.

Susie Green, Mermaids as with many prominant trans activists do not understand Safeguarding.
This is one important illustration.

cf Stephen Whittle (Press For Change / Government advisor) / Helen Belcher (Trans Media Watch / Lib Dems)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397127-Stephen-Whittle-Press-for-Change-irresponsible-use-of-likely-suicides-follows-Helen-Belchers-Trans-Media-Watch

October 17th 2018 Stephen Whittle joined discussion of his irresponsible comments in GUardian article about 'likely suicides'. He considered the comments by MN posters and the next day requested Guardian edit his piece with this in mind.

1955stephen Thu 18-Oct-18 10:30:40
"In response to some of the considered comments on here, and after thinking carefully so as not to compound the situation and bring more attention to the remark, , last night I wrote the following email to the Society Editor, the Readers Editor and David Batty of the Guardian.

Dear Sirs
You printed a comment by myself in the article by David Batty “Transgender law reform has overlooked women’s rights, say MPs“ at www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/17/transgender-law-reform-has-overlooked-womens-rights-say-mps

The comment I made includes an inappropriate reference about the prospect of possible suicides and attempts:
Prof Stephen Whittle, the founder of trans rights group Press for Change, warned that many trans people would “become depressed and dejected” if reform was delayed. He said: “ I am sure there will be a flurry of attempts and suicides. But in the end we will pull ourselves together and continue the campaigning. We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected.”

The original question from David was: “2. What do you think (fear?) will happen if the reforms are derailed, or kicked into the long grass, perhaps as a result of the toxic debate? In other words, what difficulties will this create for trans people?”

I answered the question thinking about “if the reforms were derailed” completely, not just delayed, and even then did not think carefully enough about what my words should be in reply to that question. .

It has been brought to my attention that my response conflicts with the IPSO/Samaritans Guidance on reporting about Suicide, which say at
Point 2:
“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.”
And at point 3:
Over-simplification of the causes or perceived ‘triggers’ for a suicide can be misleading and is unlikely to reflect accurately the complexity
of suicide.
For example, avoid the suggestion that a single incident, such as loss of a job, relationship breakdown or bereavement, was the cause.
And at point 5:
“Be careful not to promote the idea that suicide achieves results.”

It is clear in retrospect that my comment was ‘ill thought out’ and completely inappropriate, as it could lead vulnerable and/or young trans people to consider taking their own lives, and clearly nothing could be further from my wishes. It should not have been printed.

To ensure that my comments, and your publication, meets with the IPSO/Samaritans guidance, I would be very grateful if you would amend the online comment, removing any reference to attempts or suicide, so that it now reads:
Prof Stephen Whittle, the founder of trans rights group Press for Change, warned that many trans people would 'become depressed and dejected' if reform was delayed. He said: “In the end we will pull ourselves together and continue the campaigning. We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected.”

Please confirm your response.
All the best
Stephen"

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397010-Guardian-article-on-MPs-concern-with-GRA

R0wantrees Thu 18-Oct-18 10:44:15
Thank you Stephen I wonder if you could as an urgent priority speak with Susie Green CEO of Mermaids (a charity supporting vunerable children, young people and their families) as she also seems unaware of the guidance.
I trust you will appreciate how important this is in order to safeguard.

BelleHathor · 20/03/2019 15:51

I love it when a bully gets just desserts, to Susie Green in the illustrious words of Nelson from the Simpsons : Ha Ha!Smile

ThePurportedDoctoress · 20/03/2019 15:55

Is SG really the best person to lead Mermaids?
It is a fact that she took her underage son abroad to be castrated. As the CEO of Mermaids, she needs to be able to face up to that fact. It's not a minor personal detail, and it's not healthy for a charity to be so averse to scrutiny.

R0wantrees · 20/03/2019 16:02

Is SG really the best person to lead Mermaids?
It is a fact that she took her underage son abroad to be castrated. As the CEO of Mermaids, she needs to be able to face up to that fact. It's not a minor personal detail, and it's not healthy for a charity to be so averse to scrutiny.

Tavistock GIDS (which itself is under scutiny for Safeguarding concerns raised by medical & safeguarding professionals) have identified issues with Susie Green.

James Kirkup, Spectator May 2018
Why are some MPs trying to shut down the transgender debate?
(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.

[Stephen Doughty MP], meanwhile, describes as “extreme” and “hate material” an article which observes that some people lobbying for changes in the name of transgender people are advocating things that might not be in the best interests of children." (continues)

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

Carowiththegoodhair · 20/03/2019 16:04

Grin Wine Flowers

GinGin

HaloHalo

LizzieSiddal · 20/03/2019 16:07

Hi Caro, are you ok? Grin

LizzieSiddal · 20/03/2019 16:09

From The Mermaids statement- But the complaints were not about misgendering. None of those in the media commenting on this matter have asked to see the tweets. No media outlet has published them. The tweeter herself had deleted the tweets.

Mermaids are being extremely disingenuous here, at the time the media were reporting, these Tweets were subject to a Police investigation, so the media wouldn't be allowed to print them.

Carowiththegoodhair · 20/03/2019 16:15

To clarify. I was told on Monday night that I would be interviewed under caution for “some tweets you sent misgendering Susie Green’s daughter.”

The first time I saw the tweets under investigation was via the Daily Mail report on Vic Derbyshire.

I shall assume that I am still under investigation by Surrey police until I am officially informed otherwise.

NameChangeForTheNewYear · 20/03/2019 16:15

I'm confused. If someone says, x, y, z is child abuse, and it very definitely isn't, you say no it's not, thanks for your concern and walk away. Why so defensive? Is the angle that the comment is libellous, as in her reputation will be ruined by the comment? Which of course it will, but then she will surely have to prove they a) she didn't have her son castrated (which she did, its physically possible to castrate a female but I'm guessing folks at Mermaids will have lost sight of basic biology, hence the indignation); and b) that cutting the "bits" off a child is not somehow abusive. Withdrawing the complaint is all she can do. Good luck with that, SG.

terfsandwich · 20/03/2019 16:20

I can't stand this modern social media language where your political opponent is a "troll".

GCAcademic · 20/03/2019 16:22

Is the angle that the comment is libellous, as in her reputation will be ruined by the comment?

But that would not be a police matter. Defamation is a civil offence, not a criminal one. (And, as you say, it only applies if what is being said is untrue).

LizzieSiddal · 20/03/2019 16:23

I shall assume that I am still under investigation by Surrey police until I am officially informed otherwise.

That is a very wise position. Victoria Derbyshire and Mermaids would know you could not discuss this as you were under investigation. Their behaviour today has been outrageous, but not surprising.

HellAndDegenerates · 20/03/2019 16:23

I've read the supposedly illegal tweets repeatedly now.

Everything mentioned can be proven as fact so I reading get why the police are involved.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 20/03/2019 16:27

Anyone else think it's pretty outrageous that Caroline herself only found out which tweets they were through seeing them in the media? Surely she would have a right to be told first?