Mermaids - new statement

[MsMcWoodle]

I can't find a thread that mentions this. Sorry if this has been covered but didn't want it to get lost:
Times Lucy has tried to question Mermaids again - but as usual, they won't be questioned and just put out a statement:
www.mermaidsuk.org.uk/tavistock-complaints-process.html

The line of questioning shows that journalists have unearthed worrying information about the kind of "support" that Mermaids provide.

There are no denials to the straight-foward questions. The responses show a lack of insight and are inappropriate for a charity.

They are so not interested in child welfare that they cannot even see the harm they are doing, and they are so convinced of their untouchability that any questioning of them is treated as contemptible gadflying.

And

Playing devil's advocate, I can see that their answers seem reasonable from their point of view.

As a support group they will share information as to how to achieve their objectives. It's just that we think they are completely wrong about what is a good outcome for a gender-non-conforming child.

The reason is Susie Green truly believes that toy preferences indicate a mental disorder that can only be fixed by having someone operate on your child.

She is a true believer. You can't shame her into anything, because she believes she is a pioneer. She squares it is, by absolutely fusing to countenance another point of view, and eliminating the people who hold those views from her physical space and mental space.

Sorry for typos.

Caro really does seem to have become the bogeyman.

Perhaps she is seen as a representative of the Christian Right, and it suits Mermaids and prominent TRAs to claim the same political dynamic that exists in the US. Or perhaps they have worked out that because of her different outlook on many other issues, she can be isolated from the traditional GC feminist groups in the UK.

Either way it looks like bullying. Perhaps they have underestimated the extent to which journalists see her as a fellow journalist and MNetters see her as another mother concerned about gender-bollocks.

Isn't that what happens in journalism, though? They often say we contacted so-and-so but they refused to comment.

Is this them 'contacting so and so '?

They are so certain of themselves they need to vet parents by speaking to them on the phone and checking their identities via utility bills or similar. Everything is hidden and locked down, nobody is seemingly allowed to say "but what if it is just a phase...?"

www.mermaidsuk.org.uk/parents-support-forum.html

Children are also called but otherwise it is a private area for 12-19 yo to run free with their fears. That doesn't sound concerning at all. No sirreee....

And they accuse other places of being an echo chamber?! Places that are open to anyone to read, join and post as they see fit?

Itsallgoingtobefine

'Killer explosive piece' - yes please! Fingers, toes and everything else crossed. It's so due

Or perhaps they have worked out that because of her different outlook on many other issues, she can be isolated from the traditional GC feminist groups in the UK.

This is it, I think. They pick on her, because they think her credibility can be undermined by her religious stance.

Unfortunately for them, firstly religion is a protected characteristic. And secondly, Caroline hasn't shut up.

Their ideology is built in a house of sand, whether it is someone with credibility calling it out, someone with no credibility, or someone who they think has no credibility.

Deciding that the only way they can counter what is said is by an ad hominem attack, still leaves the accusations hanging in the air. And Caroline keeps making them.

They can't deny or refute what she actually says. And it's becoming clearer and clearer.

And their attempts to shut her up are 100 percent bolstering her argument.

Isn’t there something interesting from a psychological perspective about which women become the bogeymen (bogeywomen?) to Mermaids? First Posie then Caroline. Both glamorous, blonde, feminine but then hugely strong and assertive as well. They represent the ideal of femininity that TRAs believe in but fail to achieve. Isn’t the personal nature of the vendetta a particular sign of the psychological pain this causes them?

Datun - or they have it both ways. GC groups support Caro, ergo they are in bed with the US Christian Right. (A bit like Posie and co gaining a platform in the US via the Heritage Foundation) or they don’t and Caro is isolated and destroyed.

An attempt at divide and rule. Except medical ethics are not a political issue.

for Caro on a bright Spring morning. Whilst the Times, rather than the Observer, as essential Sunday reading for the GC. I like the shift to issues rather than a group dynamic based on political leaning.

Many ordinary people, including me, had doubts about Kids Company years before it all came out.
It often takes a major disaster/ scandal or a very high profile person to uncover things before anything is recognised by public or government.
Look at Jimmy Saville. Classic case.
Mermaids is of exactly the same ilk.

the reasons why they have such strident security measures to join their forum is because they've had men infiltrate a supposed safe space for their own nefarious reasons under various different guises.

But, but, this never happens!

An attempt at divide and rule. Except medical ethics are not a political issue.

Exactly. And trying to shoehorn politics into it leaves people cold.

the reasons why they have such strident security measures to join their forum is because they've had men infiltrate a supposed safe space for their own nefarious reasons under various different guises.

"But, but, this never happens!"

I know right. The irony is making my head explode.

And of course, when it happens on mumsnet, and MN ban them, those same people go on Twitter and call mumsnet transphobic pieces of shit!

3.The clinicians also claim that individual staff members are rated and discussed on online forums, and that Mermaids' supporters advise each other on preferred who are more likely to make referrals quickly, and which clinicians are to be avoided because they favour a more cautious approach.
What could they be referring to?

Mermaids response to 3.

Parents and young people are entitled to share experiences and that includes their clinical experiences. That is what a peer group is for.

Mermaids does not interfere with peer discussions unless our rules of conduct and respect towards one another are broken, or a safeguarding concern is noted.

I have spent time on adult patient peer support forums.
There have always been both forum & peer-to peer 'soft' restrictions & caution about the extent of personal clinical information & discussion about individual HCPs etc. The intention being to create a supportive & responsible space

Mermaids/Susie Green have repeatedly demonstrated that they do not understand Safeguarding so how would a 'safeguarding concern' be identified and why is the respnse to 'note' it?

endoftheline I'm fascinated with the Kid Company thing, how it all can tumbling down so fast in the end and it was presented as a complete surprise when clearly there must have been signs all along.

I wasn't really familiar with the charity at all before it hit the news so didn't have any background.

Do you mind sharing a bit more about what signs you saw before. What concerned you and do you think the problems should have been clear to the authorities before the end?

The parallels here are really interesting and we have documented so much evidence about the concerns on here, raised them with funders etc I feel it will be much harder for people to deny all knowledge when it all falls apart, but maybe I'm being naive?

I’m not reading it because I can’t risk having a stroke (just reading the Caroline thread).

That and the recent recording by the illustrious Dr Wong highlighted on twitter where they are heard to recommend (to parents and kids) suicide threats as a way to get what you want (trans-wise).

Many ordinary people, including me, had doubts about Kids Company years before it all came out.
It often takes a major disaster/ scandal or a very high profile person to uncover things before anything is recognised by public or government.
Look at Jimmy Saville. Classic case.
Mermaids is of exactly the same ilk.

I had very serious concerns about Kids Company also. Most people I attempted to raise my concerns with accused me of attacking a good woman who was doing far more than I could ever dream of at making a difference.

Batmanghelidjh is also a promoter of satanic ritual abuse conspiracy theories and an associate of notorious SRA promoting quack Valerie Sinason. Sinason penned an enthusiastic endorsement of Batmanghelidjh on the back cover of Batmanghelidjh's fictional book, published as fact Shattered Lives.

Reading the Mermaid's squirmy, avoidant responses to these important questions reminds me of this

short clip

over 3 hours of question dodging here

also, via the Mermaids site I found some interesting links that some may find useful.

via the WayBack machine:

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190406095837/www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/SOC%20v7/Standards%20of%20Care_V7%20Full%20Book_English.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20190406095837/www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/SOC%20v7/Standards%20of%20Care_V7%20Full%20Book_English.pdf

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20181004225823/www.wpath.org/about/EC-BOD" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20181004225823/www.wpath.org/about/EC-BOD

Kids Company - yes that was another ‘emperors new clothes’. I knew a few people who worked there and schools were raising funds.

From what I read it was ‘amateur hour’ by an over sentimental, although very well meaning, woman who was unrealistic and had only a simplistic grasp of real life.

Those who worked there could see no wrong and every child through the door was a poor wee victim and just needed a cuddle and some cash (I simplify here).

Very much sticking a shiny plaster for broken legs. No doubt they did do good but it seemed easy very short term fixes.

It’s a shame because people were motivated to do good. This just wasn’t the right way of doing it.

The personality of the "leader".
Lots of "Look at me, me, me". - Typical of cults that were prevalent in the 70s (personal experience).
The fact that public airing of success stories/examples were always limited to the same 2 or 3 people.
The staff. One staff member was employed to make her clothes, if i remember correctly.
Lots of little things that add up if you have seen them before.

I know right. The irony is making my head explode. And of course, when it happens on mumsnet, and MN ban them, those same people go on Twitter and call mumsnet transphobic pieces of shit!

It’s not just the irony, it’s the raging disingenuousness of it. They know men will do whatever they can to infiltrate safe spaces, they’ve experienced it and they’ve stated as such on their own fucking website, but they will sneer and condemn anyone who raises concerns about men infiltrating safe spaces for their own gains. In fact it’s not just disingenuous, it’s dangerous and proof that safeguarding is something they give so little regard.

Basically they admit to every accusation

From my recollection Kids company was another example of money being thrown at an organisation without due diligence. Due diligence would’ve revealed they had insufficient understanding of safeguarding or financial matters.

I have done lots of voluntary work and worked with a number of charities. Sadly, I have seen a lot of abuse and feathering of own nests.
Some of what I have seen I could never prove, but I am very cynical these days.
I am also aware of how ridiculously easy it is to brainwash humans. Even intelligent ones.
Look at any MLM scheme. Once you have seen it and recognise it, you can't unsee it.
Tis all of a piece.

MLM?