Suzie Green promotion in the Independent

[Gncq]

Why are "reputable" news outlets still allowing Mermaids propaganda?

Tavistock Vs Bell is done.
We don't wish to hear more promotion for the horrendous medical treatment pushed onto gender non conforming children.

Article is full of SG's opinion stated as fact and upside down ideology stated as though it were right way round.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/puberty-blockers-transgender-dysphoria-b1781476.html?amp

Plus the "lifesaving" nature of puberty blockers for her child, so for suicide not mentioned for once, but definitely implied.

Why are "reputable" news outlets still allowing Mermaids propaganda?

As per use of italics. The independent hasn’t been ‘reputable’ for a long time.

I haven’t read it since their sports writer sermonised that wanting women’s sports based on sex was bigoted and ignorant. Safety, equity of access, fairness in competition and women/girls, - all utterly irrelevant to someone who is paid to care about sport.

No other medical care for young people has been subject to this kind of scrutiny.

Of course it has, Susie. All medical care required scrutiny, it’s the lack of scrutiny that put the Tavistock in court trying to defend itself.
Look at the level of scrutiny the Covid vaccines are going through. The woman is deluded.

Your quote marks are working very hard there, Gncq.

Yes I saw that! How awful. They really ought to have a piece explaining her actual background and actions... but hey, it the independent and they have form.

I continue to be astonished at the level of support & media exposure mermaids command. They appear to be made of Teflon. No other charity I know would survive the level of fuck up & reverse ferreting they’ve done & yet here they are still being given space to pontificate in the MSM

Mermaids, in partnership with Goldsmiths university, Gendered Intelligence, and the LGBT Foundation, surveyed the families we work with to see whether the Bell v Tavistock ruling has impacted them. We received responses from 206 carers and parents in total

Of these, 7 out of 10 (144) parents asked reported a negative change to their children’s mental health after the ruling.

Given the publicity surrounding this case, it would seem that that a survey of the combined contact list of Mermaids, GI, the LGBT Foundation and Goldsmith’s only generating 206 responses is fairly low.

So could that be a positive in that the numbers of children reporting negative impacts on their mental health from this ruling are relatively low? Are there some sighs of relief from people caught up in something they can’t get out of without help from the grown ups?

That bucket of deplorables?

Charities who immediately & repeatedly pumped out ever more loudly & shrilly the message that children’s mental health would definitely 100% be damaged by the Bell ruling carry out research with ppl they’re in close contact who consume their messages on a regular basis and find that those ppl agree with them

Well colour me fucking shocked!!!

Journalism = reminding readers what Susie Green previously said of her child, except it never happens:

"Jack's favorite outfits were the tutu and Snow White costume. And again, that was fine. But not for Dad. So, Jackie's dad struggled, and he blamed me. His thoughts were that because I allowed the Polly Pocket and the My Little Pony, that I was facilitating and encouraging. And I disagreed. And it caused tensions. What I had come to the conclusion with, over the sort of years until she was about two, was that I had a very sensitive, quite effeminate little boy who was probably gay.

"But Jack's dad did not approve of our child's effeminate behavior, and it created such tensions that we ended up in couple's counseling. We went to couple's counseling, and what they said to us as parents that we had to agree, no matter what it was that we agreed upon we had to agree. At that point, Tim decided that I must agree with him, apparently, and then all the "girl toys" or "girly toys" as such were taken away and put away, and Jack was made aware that this was not appropriate. And suddenly, a confident, happy little boy became quite quiet, withdrawn, very clingy, and tearful. I didn't like it, and I didn't think it was right."

New pivot! "labelled at birth" Have they finally accepted that appropriating the term "assigned [sex] at birth", used for DSD children, is not on? Just as Mermaids tried to

Ugh re-reading Jack's story is so upsetting.
What those parents did to that poor innocent lovely little child.

Well "labelled at birth" is better but still a total crock, because it implies some sort of random description based on unobserved, unreasoned decision making on part of the midwives (or "birthing people" ).

What I had come to the conclusion with, over the sort of years until she was about two, was that I had a very sensitive, quite effeminate little boy who was probably gay.

Two. TWO! Poor kid had parents so infatuated with stereotypes that they thought he was acting wrong by two years old.

And deciding on his likely sexuality at 2.

I mean, really, who is thinking about their kid's sexuality at that age?!

I haven’t read [The Independent] since their sports writer sermonised that wanting women’s sports based on sex was bigoted and ignorant.

That sports writer works for The Guardian now. He's awful, so I think we can guess what qualification they were looking for.

It wouldn't matter if she was speculating about her kid's sexuality if she thought being gay was OK.

Suppose she had told the dad 'He might be gay. He might not. Its OK either way'.

'Let's wait and see. Meanwhile, stop being a dick.'

Sad to say, the Independent is as captured as the Guardian. Not a shred of, er, independent thought, analysis or fact-checking. Just carrying on praising the emperor's new clothes that are starting to look exceedingly threadbare, and indeed transparent ....

@HecatesCats

Journalism = reminding readers what Susie Green previously said of her child, except it never happens:

"Jack's favorite outfits were the tutu and Snow White costume. And again, that was fine. But not for Dad. So, Jackie's dad struggled, and he blamed me. His thoughts were that because I allowed the Polly Pocket and the My Little Pony, that I was facilitating and encouraging. And I disagreed. And it caused tensions. What I had come to the conclusion with, over the sort of years until she was about two, was that I had a very sensitive, quite effeminate little boy who was probably gay.

"But Jack's dad did not approve of our child's effeminate behavior, and it created such tensions that we ended up in couple's counseling. We went to couple's counseling, and what they said to us as parents that we had to agree, no matter what it was that we agreed upon we had to agree. At that point, Tim decided that I must agree with him, apparently, and then all the "girl toys" or "girly toys" as such were taken away and put away, and Jack was made aware that this was not appropriate. And suddenly, a confident, happy little boy became quite quiet, withdrawn, very clingy, and tearful. I didn't like it, and I didn't think it was right."

I continue to be gobsmacked how she fails to see the obvious.

“The Independent employs over 100 journalists around the world to bring you news you can trust.”

News you can trust

Yep, no homophobia in the trans agenda at all, no siree. Anyone with a functioning brain cell can see why the LGB alliance was necessary.

@Gncq

Well "labelled at birth" is better but still a total crock, because it implies some sort of random description based on unobserved, unreasoned decision making on part of the midwives (or "birthing people" ).

Of course it's still rubbish, but hiven how... er... resistant to reality the use of "assigned ... at birth" has been, it's intriguing to see this break with the dogmatic vocab. Wasn't it Mermaids which did a reverse-ferret on "born in the wrong body"?

@mintkoala

It wouldn't matter if she was speculating about her kid's sexuality if she thought being gay was OK.

Suppose she had told the dad 'He might be gay. He might not. Its OK either way'.

I do agree that homophobia is behind Jackie Green's transition. However, I think that saying 'he might be gay, he might not be' is one thing.

I think looking at a 2-year-old and saying 'yes, he's probably gay' is just weird. Even if you were the most supportive person in the world, why on earth would you draw such conclusions about a child's sexuality? I wouldn't assume that a two-year-old who liked Fireman Sam would grow up to be a firefighter. If a 12-year-old was still passionate about fire engines and the like, I'd start to think that a career as a firefighter might be on the cards.

But to go 'oh, my 2-year-old son likes dressing up in a dress. He'll almost certainly want to shag men rather than women when he's older' just strikes me as weird. 2-year-olds are still babies! I know a man who used to dress up as a princess when he was little (I think he was quite taken with Princess Diana). He later outgrew the phase. He's now married to a woman, works in the City and has kids of his own. It would have been just silly if his parents had looked at him in a princess dress when he was 2 or 3 and decided that he was 'probably' gay.

It's the first time I've seen 'labelled' at birth. I still don't like it - it implies the midwife slapped an arbitrary label on the baby, but it's marginally better than 'assigned'.

I've seen the more neutral phrase 'registered at birth' used. I prefer that, as it's at least factual.