Change of CEO at mermaids…

[backaftera2yearbreak]

mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/susie-green-leaves-mermaids/

To be fair to SG, it was posted in July when she was still riding high. It'

Sorry, got cut off - it's still on her Instagram today, from what I can see.

The dog post isn't particularly strange in the context of owning a dog.

It's surprising SG should post it though, as it demonstrates that presumably she knows why domesticated male mammals are neutered and what effects it may have on them. But that her dog remains a 'he'.

Red, I have also saved that post.

More serious journalism is starting to happen here than anywhere in the public media. When you look at that list, it is undeniable. And we're witnessing the SNP entirely caught up in this to the point that they are righteously placing women in harms' way and justifying that their rapes and their removed access to places of safety when in danger of their lives (3 women killed a week) is the right thing to do in order to better serve this agenda.

But that her dog remains a 'he'.

How would she know?

mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/shaping-the-future-of-healthcare-why-reflecting-on-bell-v-tavistock-still-matters/
I'm not sure they have learned anything, they're still heading in the same direction they were under Susie Green.

so they recruited via their forums?
won't waste my time reading it then

can someone remind me what the current state of play is as they claim Bell judicial review was 'overturned'

So the main take away from the Bell case was nothing more than that it created sad and uncomfortable feelings, which renders it Bad and to be ignored, and it's unfortunate such a sad making thing was ever permitted.

They're unsalvageable.

Bell was overturned by appeal where it was found that courts were not the right place to make decisions about consent. That process was put back in the hands of clinicians and parents. But what it didn't undo was all the sunlight shone on the many aspects of the pathway that need to be understood in order to gain consent. It also didn't undo the fact that the correct process for redress for clients that felt they did not fully consent would be to sue individual clinicians. Together this put effective brakes on the process. NHS revised their guidance so puberty blockers are not billed as reversible and that actually a lot is unknown. So yeah, technically overturned, but practically a lot of impact.

It is easy to think young people exist in a vacuum. But they don’t. They have families and support networks who they rely on and who love them. This report is a clear reminder to cherish and value these young people and their support networks, because when the safety net of gender-affirming care is abruptly cut off, we will see not just one young person struggling – we’ll see their whole support network

wow. Is it really "easy to think young people exist in a vacuum"? Can't tell if pure cobblers or some kind of deranged projection re the social contagion argument. And "parents get sad when their kids can't access damaging and untested medical interventions with unspecified benefits" is not a compelling argument.

A few of us noticed the unsavory comparison years ago and that's depressing, to see it now come to fruition despite the warnings of us Cassandras...

Anyway as something of a side note to this thread, and to reflect on what's happening now and where things are going to head (let's see how this prediction pans out)

It's interesting to see domestic violence as an issue - specifically stating male violence - as an issue creeping up political agendas. Even to the point the Royals have been in on the act this week (as if its not a political issue) and the BBC did quite a significant piece on it yesterday.

All this trans day of rememberance and pointing out how many women have died in comparison, i think will pay off in the end though its not come without cost.

I think many women started to notice male violence and the number of women killed as a side consequence of these over blown claims of transactivists and started to contextualise things better.

I think the changing mood will end up with this new agenda objective eclipsing what's gone on, in part of out of an effort to hide the utter bollocks, that many have been jumping on the bandwagon of. There are some who need a feminist cause to now prove their credentials in order for them to full on reverse ferret on their support for Mermaids.

I also think it's a way for liberals who disliked the trans bandwagon but we're too afraid to speak out, to reframe the debate and claim it as their own without being tarred with the anti-trans moniker in the process. Being desperate to be the nice guys constantly but not taking responsibility for when they've been somewhat cowardly rather than holding power to account as they should.

Agenda shift is not a bad thing in the grand scheme of thing, it means progress will eventually probably come out of some of the groundwork laid by this type of activism. As Obama said, to those who despaired over politics with Trump, progress doesn't always come in a straight line. And with reality now slowly reclaiming the stage as fantasy is consigned to the unfashionable bin, it should all start to unravel in the right direction after all.

But this needs to be seen as only possible after the trans bubble has been burst by the weight of its own arrogance and by some women working to hold to account at personal cost to themselves. We need to learn lessons here.

I note I remember seeing that every piece of anti-vax misinformation could be traced back to just seven sources on social media worldwide. Thats the power of the influencer which we haven't properly understood - and arguably Green will be amongst the first generation of influencers ended up crashing and burning in spectacular fashion whilst society gets to grips with how it works. (Other examples include the downfall of Alex Jones, Trump and the Jan 6th rioters and arguably the bursting of Cypto currencies which are also happening in parallel at the same time. Its a trend not a coincidence in my mind).

I think this desire to change the subject, move on and give voice to others who've kept their powder dry to this point is what's happening at the Guardian atm. Hadley going opens to door for a fresh, well respected leftist to write about things in a different way and with new found moral authority without the baggage of being seen to 'win' the argument. I don't think you can ignore the 'embarrassment factor' that's going to come out and the need to ensure that the women who spoke out are 'kept in their place' and those who controlled them aren't held to account as they should be.

There's still some way to go, for the whole shit show to collapse (particularly abroad) but I think we will see a moving on in terms of the 'hot topic' for 'women and inclusivity'. The fashion is changing and with an economic crisis there will be a desire to connect with causes that resonant beyond the middle class 'woke' brigade. (see criticisms of the police evangelising and dealing with non crime).

Trans activism is stuck in its peak 2020 mindset, whilst the world is moving on and how it moves on is worth watching in its own right, separate to the car crash it leaves behind.

Don’t know if anyone mentioned they’ve gone to Prospectus to recruit, they’re a good sound senior level charity recruiter so hopefully will find someone credible

Its like saying

"we understand that cutting off your arm is bad, but we have a bunch of kids who built up their social network and identity on the basis that cutting off your arm was a good thing and that's what they wanted, therefore they should be allowed to still cut off their arms. If they aren't allowed to cut off their arms their mental health will be badly affected. We give no consideration to the impact on physical health from cutting off arms not to the mental health aspect of joining one armed club failing to live up to the expectations of an ideology which over promised its benefits"

Yes these kids need support. But that support needs to be from another party to remove this claptrap social contagion and people still advocating hormones and surgery.

They need support from appropriate mental health services - the very services there was an absence of and probably contributed to seeking out an alternative set of support in the first place.

Its catch 22, but once again it seems we have upside down thinking coming from Mermaids.

Its the classic management error of coming up with a solution before examining the actual problem, then framing the problem to suit the solution rather than examining the problem in detail and finding out what actually works.

I find it appalling that we're now at a point where we need a roll call of the women raped, assaulted, excluded from medical care, from safe escapes from danger, and harmed by this agenda and the prioritising of men's interests over women's actual bodily harm. There would be a hell of a lot more names on it of British women than are on the list for the other remembrance day.

That would be an interesting list to put together.

All in the name of trans day of rememberance. Let's do some ACTUAL remembering.

Its the classic management error of coming up with a solution before examining the actual problem, then framing the problem to suit the solution rather than examining the problem in detail and finding out what actually works.

Reminds me of a quotation:

" If I had only one hour to save the world, I would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and only 5 minutes finding the solution."

• Albert Einstein

I’m very interested in this since my brother and I were brought up and allowed to express our preferences very freely with no gender stereotype pressure. He played with girly toys, wore girls clothes and even make etc. Never did anyone suggest he was anything at all. He is now a happily married hero sexual man. Likewise my sons are what could be called gender nonconforming (I prefer gender stereotype non conforming). They could turn out to be gay but I have no reason to think that so far.

Is it not more likely that gay men are asked if they played with ‘girly toys’ (in hindsight) and straight men just aren’t asked this question. I’d imagine many straight men who were allowed as kids to play freely (particularly if they had sisters) played with ‘girls’ toys.

I suspect there is a self-selecting / pre-selected thing going on here, where no one asks the same question to adults who are straight / gender conforming. So the data is biased before the research is actually done.

This whole problematization of boys playing with dolls that is happening across much of society is really something.

Let me just say this: My late uncle had a doll that his mother had sewn for him. He loved it and carried it around all the time. He went everywhere with it. And nobody cared or commented. In the 1940‘s. In f‘ing NAZI GERMANY.

Since when is the choice of toy an indication of anything?

I suspect there is a self-selecting / pre-selected thing going on here, where no one asks the same question to adults who are straight / gender conforming. So the data is biased before the research is actually done.

The research I’ve seen referenced to back up this claim is based on follow ups of kids who were referred to gender clinics (back in the days when that group was mostly boys.) They mostly grew up gay.

I think the key might be that the kids in those studies actually had to have expressed unhappiness with their sex - that’s presumably more likely for a future gay kid in a homophobic society than for a boy who just happens to have some stereotypically “feminine” traits or preferences.

The Gender: A Wider Lens podcast episode with Paul L Vasey (#57) is really excellent at exploring this. By contrasting his research in non-western cultures like Samoan Fa’fafine, they get really stuck into how femininity and masculinity are expressed in childhood and the meaning placed on social roles in different cultures. It was a fascinating discussion and I had few “a ha!” realisations as I listened. Highly recommended.

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Good riddance.

I agree @Managinggenzoclock . I have a similar experience to you re: my up-bringing and my children's up-bringing but I made the same point re: toys a few pages back and was roundly disagreed with for some reason.

Maybe this has already been posted, but it also addresses the issue of gender non-conforming kids going on to be gay.

www.realityslaststand.com/p/the-transgender-umbrella-casts-its

journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1529100616637616

I don't think the studies, as reviewed in the paper above, make any claim that simply playing with certain toys is likely to point to a boy being gay later on. Since gay men are only about 4% of the population or less, that's not surprising.

If anyone is interested, under the heading "Childhood Gender Nonconfority" in this paper there is a short section describing the types of studies used and their methodology,