Mermaids - Charity Commission finally finished...I think

[lcakethereforeIam]

Just read it very quickly in the Times

https://archive.ph/1983h bypass the paywall

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/society/article/trans-charity-mermaids-chest-binders-children-5rfkj35qp

It seems Mermaids feels completely vindicated!

Eta link and comment

Also the LSE should have been named. It’s no longer a prestigious educational institution after it provided a platform for a man whose research anyone could see was deeply worryingly sexual in nature.

The Times piece does - they were the ones who exposed him originally I think.

www.thetimes.com/article/039a5a34-d863-41bd-ae8c-c531327b9bc3?shareToken=81315a19023c068272de98232cf45279

To echo what teawamutu says upthread, it will be interesting to see if Mermaids still has the same cachet for celebs and corporate sponsors. I'm sure David Tennant thinks they have been vindicated, but anyone with half a brain cell who hasn't followed closely might be more wary now.

The Charity Commission report is frustratingly weak, but it does at least say in black and white what we have all been saying for years. I would now feel more confident to push back on a friend, business or employer IRL who wanted me to support Mermaids.

I think it's a big win in terms of telling Mermaids they need to abide by Cass, but I'm dismayed by the lack of emphasis on safeguarding.

There is a new children's and young peoples LGBTQ+ group about 30 miles from me fronted by a woman but with with two very dodgy men behind the venture. They're applying for charitable status and although there's quite a campaign brewing against it, I get the impression from this CC response that they're unlikely to say no. I wish the CC had more courage and sharper teeth.

Blimey!!

I honestly think being told to follow Cass and to tighten up recruitment practices are wins.

Yes, they are still a Charity but they need to do a lot of work to change their recruitment practices, make sure they obtainparental consent, befactually accurate about the efficacy of puberty blockers etc.,not affirming etc.

This has the key impacts:

1. Other organisations, be they charities or not, should realise that following Cass is not up for debate.
2. Parents should see the advice change to reflect Cass.

WRT recruitment practices and professional regulatory bodies if you add this to Ros Adam’s vs ERCC and Rachel Meade vs WCC & SWE judgements and remedies a consistent message is being sent.

I think the next big scandal is - or ought to be - the huge number of LGBT youth groups that bring together young people of vastly different ages (eg 12 to 21) and are run by people who have a history of posting highly sexual content online. It amazes me that these groups haven't yet been exposed.

Presumably the will have to read the Cass Report first.

What does it implementing Cass mean for a charity like Mermaids though?

Being cautious about social transition?
Not promoting puberty blockers?

I guess they'd have to move away from affirmation to more general open support?
They can suggest seeking referral to one of the clinics, but shouldn't be presuming a treatment option?

I cannot see them doing this. Especially the social transition. It'll be dressed up as child voice/ diversity type support.
They'll need careful monitoring to see what they do advise parents and children.

And of course if the clinics are putting everyone on the trial the outcome is the same anyway. Everyone seeking 'affirmation' gets it.
It's just mermaids will need to look more neutral on the surface.

Until the ideologues in the nhs are removed and replaced by clinians who support Cass this is all just tinkering.

I don't think they have been told to 'implement Cass'. Just to remove some specific information from their website that the Cass report has shown to be misguided/potentially harmful.

There is a danger in reacting to these commission findings (or any similar developments) that we view them all through the prisms of intensely dramatic online discussions, as the fox guy evidently has. The realities are bound to be more prosaic, focused, piecemeal.

Until the ideologues in the nhs are removed and replaced by clinians who support Cass this is all just tinkering.

Cass is the one who is recommending unlimited trials of puberty blockers.

Complaints received from the public by the Commission included the provision of binders to young persons under the age of 18 without parental knowledge and/or consent. The inquiry has therefore considered this issue further. It has not considered the provision of binders to parents and carers who requested them on behalf of their children or those in their care. In a statement dated 27 September 2022, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that supplying a binder to a young person was not a criminal offence.

This is the Met Police page about breast ironing:

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/caa/child-abuse/breast-ironing-flattening/

Breast ironing (also called breast flattening) is when young girls' breasts are damaged over time to flatten them and delay their development. Sometimes, an elastic belt, or binder, is used to stop them from growing.

Although there's no specific law within the UK around breast ironing, it's a form of child abuse

So it's not a criminal offence, but it is considered to be child abuse. Also, the Met Police page is clear that parents or other relatives are involved in administering this abuse, so why is it not considered abusive when a parent is involved with obtaining these devices from Mermaids?

Susie Green is going to carry on with her online drug selling. So while the charity she damaged so much now has to operate in line with Cass, Green is just going to carry on doing whatever she wants.

https://x.com/FeministRoar/status/1849343672359194680

The Government need to address these types of operations, I think Green will only stop if she is forced to by law and possibly prison.

This is yet another positive small step. But as others have pointed out, until breast binding is treated as seriously as other forms of abuse like breast ironing, until lying to children that their bodies can be wrong but fixed with a sex change is seen as emotional abuse, all these steps will be painfully slow.

Not so long ago the trans captured NHS were merrily promoting puberty blockers as "reversible" but no longer. I'm not sure that the queer theory lobbyists or the useful idiots in the NHS who unthinkingly signed up their demands for sex change for children will ever be properly held to account. But it is becoming increasingly challenging for them to continue as they were, as the vulnerabilities of the children and young people who get caught up in this ideology are increasingly exposed.

Maybe these findings will force Mermaids to become child centred rather than queer theory / porn advocate / adult activist centred?

Well I am guessing we, literally us here, will be holding them to account?

There seems to be some confusion about why breast binding is legal and breast ironing is regarded as child abuse despite using exactly the same methods.

Breast ironing is done in ethnic communities.

Breast binding is done by liberal progressives.

This isn't racist. If you think this is wrong you are a hateful bigot.

Clear now?

The language used in the BBC article is refreshing.

Firstly emphasising that "trans" is just a self-assigned identity:

Mermaids was set up in 1999 to provide advice and support to trans-identifying young people and their families. The charity says it now works with 10,000 people a year.

Secondly, and most unusually for the BBC, not referring to trans-identifying girls and women as boys and men:

Chest binders are used by some girls and women to wrap their breasts tightly and hide them.

Re NHS

https://change.nhs.uk/

I used the survey to add my views on what I see as wasted money and resources on ideology. I also used the section at the end, where they ask about sex (and claim this can be different than it is on your birth certificate - ludicrous), and then gender, and there's a drop down in gender to write in (presumably in case you're on of the, sorry how many, 41?, genders as dictated by, sorry, described by the SNP), and in that write in I told them this is exactly a perfect illustration of the waste. The NHS needs to know a person's sex for medical treatments. Full stop. Then in some very specific areas, gender incongruence clinics or mental health services, "gender identity" may be relevant. But it is certainly not relevant when doing an X-ray for a broken arm!

Gender identity may well be relevant to an X-ray for a broken arm. Taking wrong sex hormones can damage the bone health of both men and women. So if we are serious about following up on the long term health effects of “ gender affirming” trans health care, the question may need to be asked. Doesn’t mean it’s ok that the NHS keeps asking my 67 year old relative who has prostate cancer if he might be pregnant though!

Source: LGBAlliance?

I'd need to hear it from the charity commission themselves.

Here you go:

Orlando Fraser, KC, Chair of the Charity Commission said:
“The provision of services to children affected by gender identity issues is a highly challenging area that requires great care and sensitivity. This is especially so for charities, given the authority that registered status will likely carry with children and their families.
“We have carefully scrutinised Mermaids’ activities through a statutory inquiry and have found mismanagement in a number of areas. Mermaids cooperated with our investigation and has been actively addressing the various concerns raised.
“Additionally, following the Cass Review, we have required Mermaids to present a more accurate picture on its website as to the risks involved in the use of puberty blockers, and to follow Cass Review findings on the involvement of parents in social transitioning as regards any future provision of chest binders to children.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/poor-governance-at-mermaids-amounted-to-mismanagement-inquiry-reveals

HTH

"and to follow Cass Review findings on the involvement of parents in social transitioning as regards any future provision of chest binders to children.”

So on one point only, which according to a BBC article has now been done. Not quite the "Mermaids must became a TERF org now!" the LGBA were trying to claim.

Also this which the LGBA didn't mention:

"The Charity Commission found no evidence that Mermaids:

• provided medical advice, which would have been outside its charitable purposes
• made medical referrals for young people without the approval of a parent or carer
• held inappropriate influence or ties to GIDS at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust or to private medical practices
• failed to have appropriate safeguarding policies in place."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c154glwppwxo

"The Charity Commission found no evidence that Mermaids:

• provided medical advice, which would have been outside its charitable purposes
• made medical referrals for young people without the approval of a parent or carer
• ^held inappropriate influence or ties to GIDS at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust or to private medical practices*
• failed to have appropriate safeguarding policies in place."

LOL, where exactly did they look? Not very far!

"LOL, where exactly did they look? Not very far!"

I'll take the Charity Commission's word for it over JK Rowling and the LGBAlliance.

Now that the recommendations have been addressed and there is no evidence for the other accusations, that means the relentless attacks and accusations against Mermaids can now come to an end.

I think the charity commission was doing what was in its remit to do. That doesn't mean that others issues with the organisation should not be highlighted by others.

I wonder of the families whose daughters were sent the breast binders without their parents knowledge have grounds to sue?