Rod Liddle thinks Susie Green should be jailed

[ClingFilmApplications]

In today's Sunday Times, Rod Liddle states of Susie Green:
"My own view is that she should be in prison for child abuse and assault."

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/this-is-beyond-satire-woke-britain-look-out-or-youll-render-me-obsolete-6xff2xvb2

(don't know how to do share tokens, sorry)

Amoregentlemanlikemanner - by "safer" I take it you mean "financially safer" as in "less likely to be sued by disgruntled special interest group", where even if the attempt to sue was ultimately unsuccessful, it would be very expensive to defend.

(This is another case of the way in which the law may say one thing, but practical considerations, and money, pull in another. A structural engineer friend of mine got sued by a "client" - I say "client" because the guy had paid for a few calculations and a set of drawings for which he'd paid a couple of hundred quid. His builder then didn't do things properly and the roof collapsed. He sued both the architect and engineer arguing that his couple of hundred quid had bought him a complete design and project management including site supervision service. The architect's insurers settled out of court simply because that cost less than the legal fees. My friend, being a bolshy bastard, and more power to his elbow, represented himself in court and won.)

I suspect there's a lot of parallel type things going on re. trans issues - school A, confronted with the choice of upsetting girls or having a large, well-funded trans-rights organisation bring legal action, decides to avoid the legal action.

Hell, we ourselves do this every time we make calculations like "well, I could speak out, but what if I lost my job?" "What if the police decide to interview me overnight, and I'm a single parent, so my child then gets taken into care?"

Just the threat of legal action prevents a lot of things (there are posts pulled on MN, not because they are untrue, or because they misgender, or because they are sub judice, but simply because the person they allude to is known to be a litigious bastard).

I suspect there's a lot of parallel type things going on re. trans issues - school A, confronted with the choice of upsetting girls or having a large, well-funded trans-rights organisation bring legal action, decides to avoid the legal action.

This is how a school was lobbied.
This then sets a precedent as well as a warning?
www.transgendertrend.com/who-is-making-policy-for-schools/

He’s right.

Its worth starting a separate thread about Prof Olsen-Kennedy given she may influence UK healthcare and the treatment of children in this country.

Yes. Will start one.

Hi Fermat, yes.
It’s also safer for the firm of solicitors if Client requires advice about a potential court case brought by a transgender pupil then that is the advice we will give. That is the risk we will try to reduce .
For all sorts of reasons (Which would be better explained by an expert in the history of women’s rights or the lack of them) I think it is less likely we would be asked to advise on a risk of girls suing.

Sorry to go back earlier on the thread but it's moved fast.

circumvention tourism

The argument against restricting this will clearly be that a mother country will not always know best. We in Great Britain offer treatments not always available elsewhere - such as abortion. If effect we are saying GB knows better than the countries that ban it. So if the UK bans a treatment that is available elsewhere it would be hypocritical to claim that the UK is the only one that is right.

I'm sure someone can take that and explain better than I did - I'm too tired!

A mother country might not know what's best but it should be a subject of discussion and the child deserves to be protected. There should be proper discussions over life changing treatments for minors.

That doesn't restrict travel ultimately. What does is an inability to show that its in the best interest of that child to travel and not show appropriate consideration for how travelling and the medical procedure could cause harm.

It's about ensuring the right questions are posed first rather than naive and desparate parents being exploited or seduced into a treatment which is wholly unsuitable or just plain rot.

If evidence can be presented to demonstrate the effectiveness or to show that a proper evaluation of the pros v cons or that an experimental approach is the best course for that child then yes.

What is happening atm is parents are deliberately avoiding ethics which are there to prevent harm to a minor without any oversight at all. And agencies which should be safeguarding are not taking this seriously enough as an issue.

Parents can exercise their freedom to choose for their children, but only if it does no harm to their children. That's the case for everything else.

Not arguing Red, just preempting the arguments.

In terms of Liddle's arguments, he is being less charitable to Green than I would be - I think she thought this was the best option for her child. I doubt you would get too far with arguing criminal offences here either, because the child appeared on TV and was (and remains) very happy with it.

The issue with Green really comes with the massive confirmation bias-led campaign to normalise the same for others.

I would hold Green culpable for being a publicity hound, for Mermaids, and also Dr. Spack whom I believe is a monster.

Interesting - my DH is harsher on Susie G than I am.

I told Dh about the whole thing - he's totally with us GC people, and v pro women's rights - and then he watched Susie G's TED Talk with me. Well, to say he was gobsmacked is an understatement.

His opinion is that she completely pandered to her child - sort of "there there darling, of course you can be a girl if you want, and Mummy will do every in her power to make it happen". He actually thinks this transing children stuff is largely down to bad parents giving their kids anything and everything they want.

He's very against the 'snowflake generation' in general.

As a gender critical radical feminist, I'm not quite as harsh as that... I think it's more nuanced than that. But I think an awful lot of people would agree with him.

Just to be clear - when I say he's against the snowflake generation - I mean he believes in teaching kids resilience and fortitude - and he doesn't believe in pandering to his children's every whim. He believes that children should hear the word 'NO' now and again.

The impression I get from that TEDTalk is that the parents created a situation where their son desperately wanted to be a girl, and then had no choice but to pursue it.

In terms of Liddle's arguments, he is being less charitable to Green than I would be - I think she thought this was the best option for her child.

She probably did. Then again, parents who perform FGM think it's in the best interests of their children too. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Very interesting to read about circumvention tourism - thanks, Red. The authorities seem to have completely overlooked their responsibility to protect the best interests of the child in the Green case.

The thing that strikes me from both Dr Spack and Susie Green in the TedTalk and Beauty Pageant documentary is that it represents something akin to an advert for how effective Dr Spack's & Thai plastic surgeons medical interventions can be to create the appearance of a stereotypically 'beautiful'/ 'sexy' (?) young woman.

In theTedTalk, Susie Green uses a 'favourite' photograph of her child which is described as being valued for this reason.

I know the thread has moved on but I just wanted to say, cheers Rod Even assuming you have the Times legal team behind you, that was a gutsy thing to do. And it could make a real difference - I'm very interested to see what Susie Green does next.

It's not that long ago so I'd have been one of those going, Eww Rod Liddle! / Eww The Times! / Eww The Daily Mail! Why? Because I was being a knob, and a pretty stupid knob too.

This isn’t exactly the same , but I’ve seen parallels drawn with Jimmy Saville and the BBC cover up before. Well I just watched a Piers Morgan interview with Johnny Rotten, where an old previously unheard section of a BBC interview from 1978 has Johnny exposing Jimmy Saville and saying he’d want to kill him for what he’s doing etc . Piers and Johnny then discuss how the BBC turned a blind eye and Johnny got no airtime for a while.

At least The Times isn’t saying silent on this issue, on Susie Green... because we all know where that can lead..

extended important article by Hacsi Horváth
'The Theatre of the Body: A detransitioned epidemiologist examines suicidality, affirmation, and transgender identity'
(extract)
"I am an adjunct Lecturer in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). I’m an expert in clinical epidemiology, particularly in systematic review methods, epidemiologic bias and evidence quality assessment. As a researcher at UCSF, I managed the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Group for over a decade and on several occasions served as a consultant to the World Health Organization (WHO) in their HIV guideline development processes.

For about 13 years, I also masqueraded “as a woman,” taking medical measures which suggest, shall we say, that I was completely committed to that lifestyle. Most men would have recoiled from this, but in my estrogen-drug-soaked stupor it seemed like a good idea. In 2013 I stopped taking estrogen for health reasons and very rapidly came back to my senses. I ceased all effort to convey the impression that I was a woman and carried on with life." (continues)

"I don’t believe GD [gender dysphoria] reflects any kind of problem or glitch in the human body. Here’s what I suggest, in broad strokes, is going on with adolescents and adults:

Heterosexual males (the vast majority of men with GD) have autogynephilia.
Homosexual males with GD enjoy “femininity” and mistakenly believe this means they are “trans” or even women.
Females with GD have internalized misogyny and/or internalized homophobia.
In my opinion—which is based upon extensive research, as well as my own 13-year-long experience in pretending to be a woman–GD is only superficially concerned with one’s sex. It’s more a disturbance of identity, of mistaking the signifier for the signified. Patients have whatever mental illnesses they may have, or that develop while in the ruminations and hypomanic states that typically precede “coming out as trans.” I propose that GD is a moody, brooding syndrome that accompanies these mental illnesses. People with GD have cultivated an idealized vision of themselves as the opposite sex. At a critical point of rumination, after the patient has sufficiently disparaged his or her actual life and idealized life as the opposite sex, he or she realizes that body parts of the opposite sex may be obtained through the services of doctors (Raymond 1979, Billings 1982). Actually transforming into the opposite sex starts to seem feasible. The self-conception “splits” in two, and idealization becomes identity. Having negated any value in their actual male or female presence in the world, and now feeling themselves to actually be the self-generated persona, patients perseveratively ask themselves, “what’s stopping me?” “Feasibility” seems to trigger the split. Here begins the acute phase of GD." (continues)

"Virtually no research has been done in psychotherapeutic methods to alleviate the symptoms of gender dysphoria, prevent it, or get rid of it altogether. The entire literature comprises a couple of dozen case reports and small case series, some promising, nearly all from before 1990, and all using archaic methods. Based primarily on the pronouncement of Harry Benjamin, the “godfather” of transsexualism, that psychotherapy with these patients was a waste of time, the medical profession increasingly found ways to justify surgical and hormonal transition as the standard of care (Billings 1982)"
4thwavenow.com/2018/12/19/the-theatre-of-the-body-a-detransitioned-epidemiologist-examines-suicidality-affirmation-and-transgender-identity/

Weren't women's rights disregarded from the start when the male doctors required males who wanted to change their sex 'live in role' for two years?

The doctors who may be seen as 'gatekeeping' surgical and medical interventions for their patients effectively granted some men permission and requirement to access female spaces.

To what extent are these 'ground breaking gender doctors driven by God complex / male entitlement/ sexist & homphobic atitudes?

R0wantrees

Thank you for that, very important this gets seen and heard

I agree - surely taking a child abroad for genital mutilation is a crime?

This is a good thread that covers a lot of issues now being discussed here.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3541908-Regulatory-capture

Thank you for that, very important this gets seen and heard

Hacsi Horváth was one of the panelists at the recent event in Washington
January 28, 2019
'The Inequality of the Equality Act: Concerns from the Left'

www.heritage.org/event/the-inequality-the-equality-act-concerns-the-left

GrinitchSpinach live commentary:
(extract)
Hacsi Horvath up now
HH:
-"It's spin. There are enormous gaps [in trans medial research]. Pretty much all the science is an exercise in confirmation bias and selection bias."
-Dutch doctors were the first to push puberty blockers and early hormones. American doctors have taken it even further/earlier.
-It's one way trip. You don't go off these things. (blockers)
-Small children who play with the "wrong" toys being rushed to pediatric gender clinics funded by multimillionaires. Again it's a one way trip.

-ROGD: a mass craze, predominantly girls. Gender identity is the new eating disorder.
-Nobody wants to be a bigot.
-Young girls have internalized misogyny, internalized homophobia, and often have experienced trauma.
-Young boys may have the beginnings of AGP fueled by pervasive porn.

-Blockers stop children from growing physically, but also blocks the mental and emotional maturation of puberty.
-Huge loss of follow up in studies: 30-40%. Where are these patients?If this were an HIV study, that would be considered an emergency level of loss to follow up.
-Happening mainly in English speaking countries
-Oregon will allow 15 year olds surgery without parental consent
-Johanna Olson Kennedy in LA will refer 13 year olds for radical mastectomy
-The barn doors are wide open.
-Society is indoctrinated to say "this is human rights. I don't want to say the wrong thing."

-Doctors are not considering differential diagnoses.
-The science is complete junk.
-We have to stop it. Thousands and thousands and thousands of children now are going through this.

[I like HH's voice! it is soothing.] (continues)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3490776-Women-Stand-Up-in-Washington-D-C?pg=3

it is worth comparing the considerable unquestioned platform accorded to Susie Green whose male child was 'transitioned' by US / Thai doctors so successfully with the experiences of mothers of female children who have been prevented from speaking out about the considerable harm done to their children by medical affirmation protocols & policies

I don't know that it's a direct crime as such from what I have read. There seems to be a legal discussion about this grey area that is recent and ongoing. This discussion does also suggest that it certainly may not be legal either and it call fall under the remit of other crimes relating to child welfare. The point being that there are people pointing to the fact there should be a specific law which relates to this exact situation.

This discussion does also suggest that it certainly may not be legal either and it call fall under the remit of other crimes relating to child welfare. The point being that there are people pointing to the fact there should be a specific law which relates to this exact situation.

It may be that as part of the ongoing review of alleged Safeguarding failures at Tavistock GIDS (made by professionals) the failure of duty of care to children who were known to the NHS service and not protected from private medical interventions which had been assessed as inappropriate /unethical.

THe GMC has been considering both Drs Webberley's sanctions/suspensions for some time.

Gender GP has detailed cases of children who were treated at their private clinic contrary to the assessments by Tavistock GIDS.

Heterosexual males (the vast majority of men with GD) have autogynephilia.
Homosexual males with GD enjoy “femininity” and mistakenly believe this means they are “trans” or even women.
Females with GD have internalized misogyny and/or internalized homophobia.

Absolutely, clear as day.

And the 'feasibility' - exactly what Mermaids are pushing on younger and younger people.

Interesting what he says about his "estrogen-soaked stupor" too. We know puberty blockers have an effect on cognitive function - and yet they're giving them out to kids as young as 12 - makes you wonder what chance they have to reconsider this life-long medical pathway they are being set upon. And how easy it would be for the patient to say they want to stop - teenagers not being known for their ability to admit they've made a mistake.

Interesting what he says about his "estrogen-soaked stupor" too. We know puberty blockers have an effect on cognitive function - and yet they're giving them out to kids as young as 12 - makes you wonder what chance they have to reconsider this life-long medical pathway they are being set upon. And how easy it would be for the patient to say they want to stop - teenagers not being known for their ability to admit they've made a mistake.

See also recent Dutch study of increased cardiovascular risks.
Medical News Today

Gender transition drugs could be bad for the heart
Monday 18 February 2019 By Ana Sandoiu Fact checked by Jasmin Collier

(extract)
"However, how does hormone therapy affect people who are gender transitioning? So far, scientists have not addressed this question fully, so a new study aimed to fill this gap in research.

Dr. Nienke Nota — a researcher in the Department of Endocrinology at the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands — and her team examined the medical records of 3,875 Dutch transgender people who had hormone therapy between 1972 and 2015.

Trans women twice as likely to have a stroke
Their study examined 2,517 transgender women and 1,358 transgender men. The women were 30 years old, on average, and they had received estrogen either alone or in combination with androgen suppressors.

The men were 23 years old, on average, and they received testosterone therapy as a part of their gender transition.

Dr. Nota and her colleagues clinically followed the trans women for an average period of 9 years and the trans men for an average of 8 years after they started hormone therapy.

Transgender surgery can improve life for most, study confirms
Transgender surgery can improve life for most, study confirms
The researchers inquired about psychosocial well-being and quality of life, as well as "functional contendedness" with the surgery.
READ NOW
The researchers examined the incidence of cardiovascular problems such as heart attacks, strokes, and blood clots among transgender people and compared it with the incidence of such events in cis men and cis women.

Cis people are those whose gender identity matches the biological sex assigned to them at birth.

The study found that trans women were more than twice as likely to have a stroke as cis women and almost twice as likely to have a stroke as cis men.

Trans women were also five times and 4.5 times more likely to develop blood clots than cis women and cis men, respectively." (continues)

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324482.php

I have not redacted the use of term cis to preserve the clarity of the article