Another Mermaid statement: about Good Morning Britain and Caroline Farrow

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Apparently Farrow will be on GMB tomorrow.

There are some interesting bits in this statement:

Jackie is, of course, deeply upset by the reference to her as being mutilated, castrated and sterilised.

Jackie is also distressed at the assertion that this was something that was somehow done ‘to her’. The only people deliberately doing anything 'to her' are the online trolls using the most abusive language about her. She would like the online abuse to stop.

At 16, she undertook extensive psychological assessment from independent experts before she was cleared for, and undertook, gender reassignment surgery. Her competency and full knowledge of all the implications was clear.

At 25 she still considers that surgery, for her, was lifesaving, and is distressed at the implication that she was not capable and mature enough to make this decision.

Susie Green looked all around the world for a doctor who would do this operation on a 16 year old child, stands to reason she used the same approach to find an independent expert.

The wording has been changed to read 'By' rather than "At 16"

^"by 16"

Her there are quite a few interesting 'pre-Mermaid-wash' coments from that interesting Yorkshire Post article too:

“Oh good God yes,” she says. “I’ll be quite honest, if I could have had a choice I would have liked to have had a son who was completely heterosexual (I'm not sure how that's linked to being trans as surely it's bodily identity not sexual orientation that Jack/Jackie had a problem with - how had sexual orientation crept in, other than worrying about 'girly boys' at a very young age?) Because I feared for her future. I wasn’t horrified by the prospect of her being a girl

When she was such a girly boy from such an early age I even started hoping she might grow out of it and it might turn out that I had a gay son. I think I must have been one of the few parents who was actually praying I had a gay son. But you could see from about the age of three it wasn’t just the toys she played with it was as much as the way she played with them. Ah, yes, because your sex is to do with the way you play with toys?

Jackie was displaying classic symptoms of gender dysphoria both in terms of the timeline of change and the nature of the changes. Tellingly, research has shown that males are five times more likely to be diagnosed with GD than females. Huh? "Tellingly"? Eh?

Whilst I have huge empathy for Jack/Jackie for feeling out of sorts with their body, I also have huge empathy for Jackie for having a mother so confused in what was 'right' that Jackie got fast-tracked onto 'fixing' the problem Jackie's mother had decided Jackie had.

Wheels are coming off.

Do they honestly think that drawing more attention to Caroline’s tweets helps their cause? Batshit insane.

The wording has been changed to read 'By' rather than "At 16"

Interesting. Current (at time of posting) version archived here just in case it changes again:

archive.li/4mdyC

I thought some of the stuff in the statement seemed to be answering specific criticisms made here, looks like it's confirmed that we are being closely watched

Archived link to that tweet

web.archive.org/web/20190324213834/https:/twitter.com/green_susie100/status/1059817455395237888

I know a few women who wanted to be sterilised after having children. All were told it was not an option until they were over 30.

Agree with RedShoeBlueShoe. Plus, I have also read interviews with women who felt very sure they did not want children and wanted to be sterilised but faced an uphill battle to achieve this, although I don't know anyone in this position personally.

I feel so much for Jackie Green. I want her to have a happy life. If I were her, I wonder whether I would prefer to know there were few tweets about me that were only seen by very few people (who then probably forgot them) than to be constantly pushed into the limelight.

While transition at this very young age may indeed have been the best decision in the circumstances but it is an impossibility to make everyone agree. Dissent will always exist, even if it is driven underground.

This whole thread needs archiving but I don't have the ability to do it at the moment - if anyone fancies having a go, please do!

twitter.com/mrkhtake2/status/1075052199921807360

I've archived the thread but I think each individual tweet might need to be archived? Freely admitting that I'm utterly baffled by archiving

web.archive.org/web/20190324214646/https:/twitter.com/mrkhtake2/status/1075052199921807360

Whatever she says tomorrow, it will be scrutinised afterwards.

The woman is just digging herself in ever deeper.

and is distressed at the implication that she was not capable and mature enough to make this decision.

Jackie's distress, whilst unfortunate, is irrelevant. According to the latest research she would have made that decision with a possible drop of 8 IQ points. Which she may not have recovered.

Can the discussion about trans children please now become less toxic and abusive"

It's about the parents, making the wrong decisions for the children.

And it might be less toxic and abusive if you didn't try and keep getting everyone arrested for disagreeing with you.

Strewth. This woman needs to stop.

Who keeps going at this rate of knots when every step they take is making them look worse ?!

and is distressed at the implication that she was not capable and mature enough to make this decision

It’s not an implication, it’s fact. It’s why here in this country it is illegal. Jackies distress is entirely on Susie and the doctors who allowed this type of treatment for a child.

It’s a really pathetic attempt at emotional manipulation to use her child to try and get others to shut up about safeguarding children and Susie’s role as head of a children’s charity. It’s not going to work Susie, stop hiding behind your child. Nobody is attacking or abusing your child by exposing the illegal things you did, and the dangerous messages you and your charity are promoting.

As an aside, the statement seems to be trying to take a 'don't name them' approach to the person they're setting up as the agressor.

Until recently, the tweeter had maintained the issue was about...

Tweets such as those sent by the tweeter...

Susie:
a) This isn't a NZ situation, 'the tweeter' is a woman called Caroline Farrow, who used uncomfortable but factual language about your actions. And then posited an uncomfortable opinion about decisions and actions that you took on behalf of your then minor-aged child that would have been illegal if you'd actioned them in the UK. Your linguistic-device of trying to frame this person as 'the tweeter' is awkwardly obvious and a bit crass.

b) You've already named 'the tweeter' by showing us those tweets yet again in your statement. You do know the Streisand effect, don't you? Has noone in your inner circle mentioned it to you, given recent events?

Oh dear. It's all going a bit tits up for Susie isn't it?

As a general point - I'm not an expert on child safeguarding or dealing with abused children so please correct me if I'm wrong -

The statement is all about Jackie's distress, Jackie's feelings of being deeply upset. I don't for a moment dismiss those feelings, but I don't believe they have much bearing on whether abuse has happened or not. I believe it's quite common for children (and adults) to rationalise their abuse because to face the fact that someone they love has abused them is just too painful.

When deciding whether abuse has happened or not, surely it's the actions of the responsible adults that should be examined.

Your linguistic-device of trying to frame this person as 'the tweeter' is awkwardly obvious and a bit crass

Good point.

This woman is seriously disturbed on so many levels.

When deciding whether abuse has happened or not, surely it's the actions of the responsible adults that should be examined.

Yes, absolutely. I can think of a very high profile child abuser who this comment would also be relevant to. It’s an important point when safeguarding children.

Let’s not ever forget, while Susie is busy trying to deflect, she put this information in the public domain and made an entire career out of the illegal actions she took with regards to her child.

Why is Susie so surprised that most people are horrified by her parenting decisions?

We welcome respectful and intelligent discussion about many topics involving transgender people, but the use of ‘child abuse’ ‘mutilation’ and ‘castration’ cannot, in any reasonable persons view, be considered to be acceptable.

This is an interesting paragraph from the statement, and I agree that child abuse, mutilation and castration are wholly unacceptable. Since you think that too, Susie, why did you inflict such things on your child?

When deciding whether abuse has happened or not, surely it's the actions of the responsible adults that should be examined.

Yes, whilst also recognising, respecting and supporting the deeply held feelings of the child/vulnerable adult.

Dw PencilsinSpace you have a better grasp of safeguarding than some people who actually work in fucking safeguarding

Why is Susie so surprised that most people are horrified by her parenting decisions

Because at the time she was certain she was doing the right thing. Now she cannot afford to consider whether she was correct in her certainty.

" It’s why here in this country it is illegal"

thus those independent experts are unregulated experts.

The reasons that the use of the words 'castration' and 'mutilation' of a child are unpalatable is because those actions are unacceptable.

This is all very interesting.

From the age of THREE, your mum is noticing the way you play with so-called 'girls toys'.

Your mum splits from your dad (we don't know why, but the narrative from TED talks from Susie and other interviews implies the tension from Jack/Jackie's presentation was a contributing factor)

At the age of six your mum either
a) tells you there's an operation you can have to 'change your sex' but you'll have to wait till you're an adult
b) you somehow know about this operation, but your mum tells you you'll have to wait till you're an adult.

Your mum ( likely at substantial cost) flies you out multiple times to the US to see a 'specialist' from the age of 12.

Your dad contributes to, and your mum remortgages her house to fund, surgery for you.

Your mum has gone on national TV with you to talk about your operations and living as a woman.

Your mum's current job and her reputation is now fundamentally linked to the medication and surgery you had throughout your childhood and puberty.

Stockholm Syndrome comes to mine - I know it's contested as a theory, but it really hits home here. Actions and attitudes similar to those suffering from Stockholm syndrome have also been found in victims of sexual abuse, human trafficking, discrimination, terror, and political and religious oppression

I too really hope Jackie is happy, at ease with themselves, and living a great life.

It would also be very difficult for Jackie to speak out, given the factors above.

Which, if this was a one-off, individual case, I'm sure most would feel empathy and recognise the difficulties.

But this is linked to a CEO and an organisation on a mission to affirm a pathway that is not necessarily the right one for most children.