Mermaids response to piece in Mail tomorrow

[EweSurname]

Looking forward to seeing what drops

www.mermaidsuk.org.uk/press-enquiry-from-the-mail-on-sunday-25th-may-2019.html

We are very proud of the training we offer to schools and we have a proven record of helping teachers to support vulnerable children who simply want to get along with their lessons like any of their classmates.

We are disappointed to find that a school governor has made a covert recording of our training because our presentations are not held in secret and all of the scientific and legal information we offer is publicly available and well-tested.

We are surprised to see that a Church of England rector is complaining about our training when we are included in the CoE guidance on support for transgender people, which can be found here.

Part of the work of Mermaids is giving training talks to schools. These talks are well received and are an important part of how we promote an inclusive and informed approach to trans children and those who support them.

We have been contacted by the Mail on Sunday who are doing an article about one such talk. This post is our response, in accordance with our policy of posting our replies to media queries for the benefit of anyone interested in our activities.

X post

It’s a very good article.

Well the Daily Mail spend enough time on here is about time they started picking up things that actually matter

How can the staff of Mermaids look themselves in the mirror each day?

Their training is just so outrageously unfit for purpose, deliberately riddled with false claims, lies and inaccuracies.

I honestly don't know how they live with the fact they are actively damaging children every day.

I can't find the article? Does anyone have a link?

The DM have been forced to publish the article now because Mermaids press officers have gone against the widely-recognised, long-standing etiquette between journalists and press officers that if a reporter comes to you for comment on an exclusive story, you do not then try to destroy their scoop by putting the story out yourself before it’s published.

You comment publicly afterwards, not before.

It’s been this way forever. If Mermaids think this is going to win them any fans then they are wrong. Journalists are a loyal bunch. Other reporters will know what they have done.

Anyway, the training didn't happen in the end - still don't know why.

Who knows, Zebras. An interesting side-point is that the trans training juggernaut, in its haste, maybe forgot, or underestimated, that there are a lot of people on here and elsewhere who have connections to schools. Either through being parents, knowing parents, or being teachers.

Many sensible, rational conversations, backed by evidence, often away from social media, are happening right now.

Another reminder that, even if you feel powerless, you may be anonymous on here and elsewhere, that a single conversation in the 'real world' is action. You don't necessarily have to tweet about it, be well-known, etc. Everyone can make a difference.

frim that Daily Mail article:

"The Rev Tim Elbourne, director of education for the Diocese of Chelmsford, said: 'Church of England schools are inclusive environments which nurture pupils to respect diversity of all kinds.

'Our schools must comply with the legal requirements of the Equalities Act 2010. Additionally, the Church of England, through its policy Valuing All God's Children, gives guidance for Church of England schools.'"

It would help if Rev Tim Elbourne had actually read the entirety of the Equality Act 2010, especially Schedule 3, section 26, 27 and 28!

Further, he should read the GRA 2004 and learn that not one word of it applies to children [ie: those who have not attained the age of 18 years]!

He should also not that the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" applies to adults since children are unable to apply for or obtain a GRC. The protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" in EA 2010 links back to GRA 2004 and is specific to transsexuals only.

The Reverend should also note that the terms "transgender", "gender" and "gender identity" has absolutely no meaning in any UK law.

Good article.

Particularly at the end, getting experts in genetics, psychotherapy and law to refute the claims of Mermaids.

Wonder if we can get our hands on the recording.

Blimey, that is a cracking article by the Mail's Sanchez Manning.

I had hoped that the Mail would explore the legality of Mermaids advice and it does.

Again, from that Daily Mail article:

"A spokesman for the school said: 'We understand the concerns and convictions of the people on our governing body and we are very sorry he has left us.

'We respect that everyone will have their own opinions regarding transgender pupils and how a sensitive issue should be managed and communicated.

'We have embarked on a process of communication surrounding the rights of transgender pupils and input from outside the school has been carefully managed."

"Transgender" children have no rights in law because the term "transgender" has no meaning in any UK law.

If you want to learn about the rights of all children in law, see:

www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

Here you go:

from that Daily Mail article:

"On the legal front, the trainer claimed minors could 'self-identify' as they wished. However, barrister Amanda Jones, an expert on gender law, said the Gender Recognition Act did not apply to under-18s 'so young people cannot self-identify… for the purposes of the law'."

[I have been shouting about this often!]

I am so angry ... not what I need at this time of night!

It would help if Rev Tim Elbourne had actually read the entirety of the Equality Act 2010, especially Schedule 3, section 26, 27 and 28!

None of these people can even get the name of the act right, let alone its contents.

Good article, although the Mail could instantly increase its credibility by not having so many “vicar looking holy with sad face” photos embedded.

But [barrister Amanda] Jones said this was 'plain wrong', adding: 'Either they don't understand the law or they are twisting the truth.'

Hmmm...now which could it be?

For those struggling to find it it is within the article about the vicar resigning rather than a separate one.

I'm getting those annoying phishing pages (you've won a phone etc) coming up on there so don't want to venture back.

More from that Daily Mail article:

"Last night Mermaids said: 'We are very proud of the training we offer to schools. All of the scientific and legal information we offer is publicly available and well-tested.

'We are surprised to see that a Church of England rector is complaining about our training when we are included in the C of E guidance on support for transgender people.' "

Maybe the CoE should have done some due diligence to check what Mermaids was saying?

And maybe Mermaids should have taken objective legal advice about its "interpretation" of relevant UK law [that is, if anyone from Mermaids has even read any of that UK law! If they had, they would know that what they say is false!]

Sorry, everyone .. I am fuming here ... I should have avoided reading that article until tomorrow!

No comments are needed .. I am just venting .... grrrr!

You vent away jacky. Your knowledge is invaluable.

Thanks Datun!

I am incapable of going to my bed now in my current state of mind ... it would be pointless! I am seething with rage!

This is going to be covered more and more in the media I think. When children are involved it does stir the blood.

Hi "brighterf*

"Which documents apart from their birth certificate are they unable to change? I know they are able to get their "gender marker" changed on their passports, school records, exam authorities, NHS records, driving licences."

Children cannot change any of their legal documents. "Gender reassignment" only applies to adults, ie: those who have attained the age of 18 years and above.

The protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" is specific to transsexuals only; see section 7 of the Equality Act: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

It’s an extremely strong rebuttal to come out with so imagine the story is going to be dynamite unless it is watered down. Looking forward to it!

A child who would reliably fail a false belief test cannot possibly understand their own "gender identity". Young children use stereotypes in order to categorise objects and concepts, it's an evolutionary artefact from a time when knowing the difference between the shape of a predator and prey was life or death, even for small children. Kohlberg did some good work on this.

Sincere thanks to JackyHolyoake for patiently pointing out the law, as it stands.

And to all the lobby groups trying to overturn the safeguarding of children: this mother's answer is No.

No.

More from that Daily Mail article:

"Mr Parker was equally keen to receive assurances that other pupils and parents would be told about the student's transition so they could be prepared."

Key word in that statement is other ...

Yes, of course other pupils and parents should be informed since the situation impacts those pupils and their parents!

The alternative is to say that gaslighting pupils and their parents is a legitimate thing to do. It is not and never will be!

Anyone who approves of gaslighting [aka grooming] children [ie: those who have not attained the age of 18 years] is a child abuser with regard to the psychology of that child.