Susie Green and Keira Bell on Newsnight

[OldeMagick]

It's about halfway in

Emily Maitlis not giving an inch

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000pyyc/newsnight-01122020

Very good point Ova.
It's more wordy to say, for instance "children who present as GNC" although I also have a problem with the concept of children being "gender non confirming " since that is the crux of the problem - expectations of conformity in children who should just be free to be children.

The Dutch study wouldn't help that much anyway would it?

Regardless of the outcome surely the understanding or lack of, would remain the same?

And yes if they improved without treatment, was the difference so significant that it warrants all the negative side effects

Are there grounds for another report to the Charity Commission? Mermaids now moving from incompetent to actively dangerous.

Thank you for the link to YouTube. It was a very good piece from Kiera and the other one was completely feelz driven and with no regard for young people as a whole at all.

although I also have a problem with the concept of children being "gender non confirming "

True. Also a good point. It shows how we get caught up in language and how language used is a big driver behind it.

Are there grounds for another report to the Charity Commission? Mermaids now moving from incompetent to actively dangerous.

Definitely worth looking into.

I didn’t see it - shall try to catch up today. I hope that parents, schools, kids clubs, girl guides etc are watching closely. And lawyers - those buggers have been part of the business machine pushing and cheering this on...

Fanny, I was wondering this the other day - do those tweets mean the Dutch adolescent cohort who received biomedical transition/SRS were those with early childhood onset? In a way I don't know if that's any more reassuring...

I think EM could have pushed further but I enjoyed seeing SG getting huffy and agitated. GIDS have stopped referrals and Big Pharma stocks are down.

Keira, Mrs A, Susan and Marcus Evans and Stephanie D-A have done more for children that Mermaids ever did or ever could.

although I also have a problem with the concept of children being "gender non confirming

Yes, I agree. Also, kids tend to copy their parents and gender roles are less clear cut than in the past.

For example, I know a few stay at home dads. In my experience, cooking is shared pretty evenly among couples my age (thirties) whereas among my parents' generation, the women do about 90% of it. On the Tube I hear a lot more female train drivers making announcements than I used to.

So, if a little boy wants to wear a baby carrier with a doll in it (because his dad carries his baby sister that way) or play with a toy oven so he can make a casserole like his dad, or a little girl wants to be a train driver like the lady she heard on the Tube, do such activities still count as 'gender non-conforming?'

I was so relieved to see EM actually presenting the story in a competent manner. The reports on BBC 1 and ITV were hopeless and very biased against Keira.
EM has great courage and integrity.

Agree about the language, Ova. I read a thread recently about the need to interrogate the use of "dysphoria" as a catch-all term too

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0906jnr

Wrong link! This is the dysphoria thread!
twitter.com/AlexAlicit/status/1328079116151754757?s=19

@testing987654321

Mermaids and stonewall were given the chance to present evidence

Just to be clear, mermaids did not get to present evidence in court. They have no medical expertise or knowledge, as clearly demonstrated by SG in this interview.

It was the actual Tavistock who got to present their case, and they didn't have evidence. And unlike SG they do understand what evidence means.

I'm sure the refusal for them to take part is on here somewhere, but this is the first link I found.

https://christianconcern.com/comment/stonewall-and-mermaids-refused-permission-to-intervene-in-tavistock-case/

You are right they didn't get to present evidence to the court hearings but they did present evidence for permission to intervene in the case. They were denied permission to intervene because they didn't present anything new that was pertinent to the case.

TransgenderTrend, who are also not medical experts, did present new relevant information and were granted permission to intervene.

I think for SG the problem is that it is also deeply personal for her. She facilitated gender reassignment surgery for her then 16-year-old son in Thailand because it was illegal here.

Obviously she’s not going to support any measure to introduce an extra layer of safeguarding for children when she rode a coach and horses through the notion of safeguarding where her own child was concerned.

One question Susie Green asked was interesting. Is there any other treatment that children have to go to court to secure for themselves?

I don't know, but if not, maybe that's because clinicians wouldn't dream of using off-label drugs with no good evidence base for any other condition, especially one where there is no immediate danger to life and limb. This couldn't have happened in any other field of medicine, could it?

I watched it with DH.

He commented after that Green didn't refer to the children. She instead refered to the parents and how they were reacting.

He found this odd and revealing.

FamilyofAliens, When SG said "I've been involved in this for 21 years, BECAUSE..." and then changed course mid-sentence, it sounded like she thought better of saying "because I put my son on blockers acquired abroad at 12 and got him surgery on his 16th birthday".

I find it interesting that SG's argument is that this judgement treats children with GD differently to any other child needing/wanting medical treatment when it's actually the complete opposite, and is just applying the same (evidence based, widely used and respected) competency framework that's is used in all other areas.

I suppose the ruling now - and the change of law in Thailand (was it there)? Are following her around as what not to happen to kids. Must be rather unnerving...

@teawamutu

Are there grounds for another report to the Charity Commission? Mermaids now moving from incompetent to actively dangerous.

These are the grounds on which complaints could be made

forms.charitycommission.gov.uk/raising-concerns/

@SecondRow

FamilyofAliens, When SG said "I've been involved in this for 21 years, BECAUSE..." and then changed course mid-sentence, it sounded like she thought better of saying "because I put my son on blockers acquired abroad at 12 and got him surgery on his 16th birthday".

Yes I noticed that.

She didn’t want any sunlight on that issue because it shows how she ignored the UK’s safeguarding protocols when it came to her own child.

SecondRow I'm not a lawyer but it's my understanding that any experimental treatment for children (which this, as identified in the judgement, is) must be approved by the courts. I believe that doctors can appeal to the courts where a child is refusing life-saving treatement if there's any indication that the child is being influenced against their best interests by their family or community.

@SecondRow

One question Susie Green asked was interesting. Is there any other treatment that children have to go to court to secure for themselves?

I don't know, but if not, maybe that's because clinicians wouldn't dream of using off-label drugs with no good evidence base for any other condition, especially one where there is no immediate danger to life and limb. This couldn't have happened in any other field of medicine, could it?

As the court stated in its conclusion, GD is unique and difficult because it doesn't manifest in a physical way but the treatment is physical on an otherwise healthy body.

And we have all these moves to prevent it from being regarded as a mental health issue despite it apparently being something which is a feeling.

So its deeply problematic in terms of the principle of 'do no harm' which does apply to every area of medicine.

So far from GD being treated differently by the medical profession, the mermaids cheerleaders actually want it treated differently and for safeguarding and ethics to not apply because it doesn't suit their agenda.

How you frame this is important.

Whats going on when you frame treatment pathways as discriminatory when those same gatekeeping principles of safeguarding and ethics apply everywhere else in medicine?

Why would you advocate for children (and adults) who identify as trans to have less safeguarding and ethically practices than any other group in society when it comes to medicine?

It seems to me very telling that the Tavistock refused to put anyone up for interview. They know, deep down, that their position is indefensible. They were made to look like fools in the judges' ruling because they hadn't bothered to collect data on really basic stuff like what happened to the children who were put on puberty blockers or how many of the children they saw were autistic.

Susie Green, on the other hand, doesn't know that her position is indefensible. She believes in this nonsense wholeheartedly, and admitting that she'd made a mistake would be personally devastating. It's fascinating to behold, in a car crash kind of way.