Suzie Green issues statement and accuses daily mail of anti -trans witch hunt.

[CreateaUsername27]

I don't think that the Daily Mail have published the piece yet that she has been asked to comment on, but it seemes to be critical of her links to the Tavistock:

• Her practice of referring children to the Tavistock against the wishes of their GP and overstepping her role.

-Not allowing staff to have opposing views on allowing transwomen in sport. -Recommending Gender GP to children in her care. -not allowing children to explore the possibility that they might be transitioning to escape being gay-'gay conversion therapy'.

Obviously she justifies it by saying the press are transphobic and refutes everything but interesting to contrast it with a few years ago when she was untouchable.

https://medium.com/@segreen100/daily-mail-anti-trans-witch-hunt-episode-7-692-b3eef8ab5b95

To be honest a wide range of people read the mail - claiming that all readers are right wing nutters is just crap. I am a moderate lefty that used to spurn it but I know so many who read it that I gave that up. It’s no worse than the guardian on bias (just obviously biased differently) and on this particular issue it’s much better.

She took her under age child to Thailand for life changing surgery (don’t delete me, this is fact) so I’m not interested in anything she has to say.

According to Susie Green (from the link in the OP): "the Tavistock is a provider of therapeutic support, and do not provide medical interventions."

Is this the line GIDS are going to take now? That the endocrinologists who prescribed puberty blockers are responsible for any negative outcomes, not the GIDS staff who recommended them?

OldCrone I think that is very much the line the Tavi does take. I did an FOI ages ago (2+ years ago maybe?) and in their response they stressed that while they were sending me the documents I requested, really the documents (to do with PBs/CSHs) were nothing to do with them because they were just an assessment/referral centre.

Can't wait for this article

I think because it's an area where there is literally no science, no knowledge, no expertise, no genuine best practice people feel out of their depth and defer to people like Green who claim that they doknow

Yes exactly

She's managed to make everyone overlook her own lack of expertise.

She's got nothing. No medical knowledge, no child psychology, no safeguarding.

Her professional background is in IT.

The fact that she's hoodwinked us all is a colossal scandal.

She didn't hoodwink us all-only a bunch of health and medical professionals who forgot to ask-"Who the fuck are you? What credentials do you have?"

She didn't hoodwink us all-only a bunch of health and medical professionals who forgot to ask-"Who the fuck are you? What credentials do you have?"

Which brings us back the question I asked before - why are intelligent trained professionals so gullible and easy hoodwinked? hundreds of them. NHS, police, teaching, why have they all fallen for this stuff and are so enthusiastic about it? I mean, I can see that hive mind and not wanting to commit professional suicide once this ideology took root, but WHY did it? it's like the Satanic abuse scandal of the 1990s all over again.

She didn't hoodwink us all-only a bunch of health and medical professionals who forgot to ask-"Who the fuck are you? What credentials do you have?"

Sure. I'm talking more about society at large.

What did anyone think would happen if you stopped a key part of everyone's development? We all need to go through puberty. Everyone knows this.

It's obvious that there's no way to design and carry out an ethical test on what happens if you block puberty.

The only reason this happened is ideology, and the fact that children's best interests are never at the forefront of policy and practice. There's no best practice here. No one ever looks for and tries to understand bad practice, which is what this is - to put it mildly.

The ideology allowed those who do care about children to be silenced.

Susie is being held to account at the moment - Telegraph last week and now the Mail.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0E2Ekh1RdSCTguFsKvo8B3QXmSmkEcjJ9EWZNbQtck15f2Go39re32nrRHzE9DKzFl&id=1584620955

Good. Not before time.

my guess (and its no more than that) is that trans acceptance looks like an extension of gay rights, if you're not paying to much attention. It's only when the ramifications in sport, medical intervention, prisons etc are revealed by about five minutes thought that it is shown for the utter nonsense it always was. The whole shit show depends on the foundational belief that people can change sex. How many people actually believe that? 2% max would be my guess.

There's a reply under that Facebook post from Sophie Quilley (a new name for me). She says she got an FOI too. She seems to have been instrumental in setting up the Welsh equivalent of the Tavistock.

https://gender.wales/meet-the-team/

I always wonder how different things would be if she had been prosecuted for taking a minor to be castrated.

The whole shit show depends on the foundational belief that people can change sex. How many people actually believe that? 2% max would be my guess

And of course once you're in, there's no way out. Unless you fancy being treated like Dr Stock. It takes an awful lot of courage to stand up and do that and see everything you'v worked for taken away.

And therein lies our way off planet bonkers-virtually no one really believes this fucking nonsense, so telling these tin foil hat nutters to get stuffed should hopefully soon be without consequence.

I think it comes down to how overworked so many of these professionals are.

They didn't have the time to look closely into the credentials of a very well funded group that claimed expertise and representation for so many of the children and young people who were suddenly being referred to them.

What needs to happen in future is an official, stringent inspection and accreditation process for these groups. Why Ofsted doesn't inspect them, I don't know. They really should before they're allowed into schools to present their agendas.

Apologies, the name is Sophie Quinney.

They didn't have the time to look closely into the credentials of a very well funded group that claimed expertise and representation for so many of the children and young people who were suddenly being referred to them

I don't buy this. How long does it take to look up a website and clock that no relevant qualifications are on display? It's not like everyone had to do this, just the people taking the decision whose advice to follow.

They were blindsided by Green's confidence and presentation. But they shouldn't have been.

my guess (and its no more than that) is that trans acceptance looks like an extension of gay rights, if you're not paying to much attention

Agreed. And most people aren't paying too much attention.

But for those taking decisions in children's services in the nhs, that's an unforgivable oversight.

Mermaids only became well funded after they’d made strong inroads into government, the police, NHS & civil service.

Greene had some very powerful people opening doors for her - question as always is, why?

And: who?

She gives herself away in this post.

"To be clear, the Tavistock is a provider of therapeutic support, and do not provide medical interventions." That's simply not right. It was the biggest shock (of many) for me in Hannah Barnes book - GIDS were commissioned to provide an assessment service for referral to endocrinology and did not offer therapeutic support. CAMHS were meant to be doing that in parallel, and were in the vast majority of cases not doing so, pleased to get children off their waiting lists and onto GIDS'.

Then further down:

"Young people should be listened to and allowed to explore their gender identity, whatever the outcome. The only route for young people to do this was through the Tavistock service as part of their assesment [sic] process, therefore that is where we directed them."

So, according to Green, the only way for 'young people' (children) to explore their gender identity is to go through a process of being assessed for puberty blockers? Which is all GIDS had to offer.

After all the increase of females at GIDS and the Bell case, it's now males taking the Tavi to court.

Dr Harold Shipman isn't alone, there must be many without criminal records in Education and health. There has always been an Eugenics movement in the UK, these people will be clapping on assistance suicide too.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow Great post. I see the same thing happening in the charity sector - the worshipping of 'lived experience' over any other kind of information, meaning evidence or expertise are all trumped by the voices of people most willing and able to wield this new kind of power.