Mermaids ‘stories’ - disturbing

[tabbycatstripy]

If you copy this link and you go on the Mermaids website, and look down at the story of an 11 year old child (“Jenny”), you will see it.

mermaidsuk.org.uk
/news/mermaids-tales/

What is going on there?

A male dressed as a young girl with another male dressed as a young girl. Hyper-sexualised expressions and poses.

It is all so scary.

It’s so blatantly a red flag in a high wind and that child is 11! What’s wrong with them? It’s not the child’s room either (look at the books on the shelves).

Read through thinking how much Starbucks is being used as a testing ground 🧐 and then saw that photo. Vile.

Imagine looking at that picture and thinking you were helping that child.

I'd boycott Starbucks except that I already do.

I am baffled that a huge corporation thinks this is a good look, but I suppose if [looking like] you have liberal values is what matters, you can ignore child safeguarding.

I don’t get what’s going on there or why Mermaids thinks that’s the sort of picture that’s going to make people think ‘Okay, they seem reasonable and child-centred.’

It makes them look exactly like what they keep saying they’re not.

Bloody hell! That's horrific. What are that child's parents thinking of?

I have no idea. But to me that’s a child at risk. And Mermaids think it makes a very touching story.

The pink bedroom picture is very odd. Jennie has drag queen makeup on, the book is full of pink teddy bears, there is a feather boa?? or something like that hanging from the coat rack and a piece which looks like pink lingerie or the baby doll kind? What are the wigs about? What is the context?

And why is this a picture Jennie would choose to publish?
I have no idea what is going on here.

Yes, I thought it was lingerie as well.

And why is this a picture Jennie would choose to publish?

At 11 years of age there is absolutely no way that Jennie could understand the implications, symbolism, and risks of having such a photo taken and then posted on the internet.

If I saw this photo of an 11 year old child on my FB feed of a friend or acquaintance I would consider reporting it as a safeguarding concern.

And the books seem to be about cats, so there might be a furry thing going on as well.

‘If I saw this photo of an 11 year old child on my FB feed of a friend or acquaintance I would consider reporting it as a safeguarding concern.’

Same.

I wouldn't even let my 11 year old have the coffee! Too young to drink coffee nevermind think they can change sex.

And yet Nancy Kelley is furious at the idea any grooming might be going on.

Incidentally, Mermaids might notice that people are clicking through from this thread so we might even get them coming on to give their side of the story.

‘And yet Nancy Kelley is furious at the idea any grooming might be going on.’

She’s disgusted by the word ‘groomer’.

I’m disgusted by grooming.

This reminds me of the Desmond is Amazing incident, which came just before rubberwankman booked Bergdorf. There was a lot in the public domain about Desmond, and yet it was all brushed aside in favour of glitter and rainbows and validation.

IMHO Mermaids is highly irresponsible with that page. Once you publish any story about yourself online, it's there forever. Highly, highly personal moments about children are now there forever and for everyone in the whole word to see, whether the child stays on that path or not. As we know, it's more than likely most children will not stay on that path.

Even if this child continued to feel more comfortable in a female identity, it doesn’t explain why Mermaids can’t recognise a CSA risk when they see one, or why they think it’s part of a nice story.

There was a previous thread on this (quite a while back) Maybe someone better than me at searching might be able to find it.

#inplainsight
#soopenmindedtheirbrainsfellout

Or it may well have been deleted for mentioning the S word.

I think at least part of it might be boiling frog syndrome. For Stonewall and Mermaids. I bet both Nancy Kelley and Susie Green would say that they’d never condone any form of child abuse & they’d mean it. But they’ve come so far that little boys in sexualised costumes dancing for men in gay bars, or posing cuddled up to men with both in drag, don’t pose any problem to them because it just seems normal. Just like a surgeon celebrating cutting girls’ breasts off is normal.

I wonder how many reports this post will get?

‘But they’ve come so far that little boys in sexualised costumes dancing for men in gay bars, or posing cuddled up to men with both in drag, don’t pose any problem to them because it just seems normal. Just like a surgeon celebrating cutting girls’ breasts off is normal.’

The argument would be that it’s dreadfully prejudiced to think there might be any risk of harm, as if the only issue one might have would be the pink clothing or the sex-incongruence, rather than the clear interest in young children on display next to a sexualised presentation.

I cannot actually view the pic , as the settings on my phone class it as restricted under the parental controls on it , they class it the same as porn sites 🤔

Infact , when try and access the mermaids site via other methods , it will not let me , states its an 18+ site only

That is shocking and reflects badly on funders, who often ask to see charities' safeguarding policies (or ask about them in the application - the National Lottery Community Fund asks about this in the second stage of the application) but perhaps treat it superficially and don't dig any further nor make it an ongoing process for subsequent years.