Glimmer: do you think this is acceptable?

[SpryReader]

A 17 year old committed suicide and this is his response. Does this sit right with you?

Translation:

'She's making points that make some in the the gender critical movement look like they give cover to extremist sociopaths so don't listen..'

This is the argument TRAs are using to get the use of puberty blockers and ‘gender affirming surgery’ accepted for your gender confused children. G is making the point that TRAs claim if the boy had been able to have surgery at a young age he wouldn’t have died.
He has used shock tactics and it has had the impact intended - to expose the horrific arguments being spouted for the use of PBs.

Should we deny the truth because it might upset people? Maybe the truth being exposed will make other people sit up and take notice, thus preventing other children from going down this path.

• World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH): This is a leading authority that publishes the Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender-Diverse People, which provides evidence-based guidance for gender-affirming care and is cited by many international medical experts, notes Taylor & Francis Online.
• American Academy of Pediatrics and Endocrine Society: These organizations have guidelines or policies supporting early medical treatment for gender dysphoria in young people.
• National Health Bodies: Countries like Australia, New Zealand, and Finland have developed national clinical guidelines that explicitly support gender-affirming care, according to Equality Australia and BMC Medical Ethics.
• Professional Associations: Organizations such as the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa (PATHA) and LGBTIQ+ Health Australia (LHA) advocate for gender-affirming care as a life-saving and life-affirming treatment, as mentioned in Equality Australia and Equality Australia.
• Individual Experts: Many individual medical professionals, including pediatricians, endocrinologists, and surgeons, contribute to research and practice guidelines that support gender-affirming care, as seen in resources from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Are you implying that someone who campaigns for the safeguarding of children with mental illnesses is somehow a Nazi???

‘She’? Oh you’re back to pretending to be a woman again?

“Trans Activists agree with me”

🤣🤣🤣

You express the point well.

GLs choice of words though are completely devoid of humanity and compassion for the family, which utterly repulses me and so I don't want to engage further with him and the "point" he failed to make.

I speculate that this sort of post is why he doesn't get the endorsement he so desperately desires.

This. It’s clear he’s paraphrasing the Prick News article.

If you want to accuse anyone of being disgusting you should start with that shameful rag.

The poor child died by suicide, and the general narrative asserts he should have had more aggressive gender affirming treatment.

That’s appalling and I had the same shocked response as Glinner to the various news reports I saw. Young gay lad gets no support for his mental health, just encouraged to mutilate his own body. When that doesn’t happen fast enough, that is what’s blamed. It’s scandalous.

As I said on a separate thread about this case what I find repellent is everyone who has used this case for their own agenda and hasn't reflected the Samaritans guidance on suicide.

Pink news fails this. So does Glinner. So do many posters on this thread.

Do you really think that removing the genitals of a young man will alleviate his mental health problems?

There's this thing called a 'motte & bailey'…..

A 1% regret rate says it all….

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8099405/

Vile.

I don't think he's dismissing that someone lost a child, but rather pointing out the dangers of child mutilation - which this was - and the fact they were still male.

I don't agree with everything he says and writes though.

https://www.samaritans.org/about-samaritans/media-guidelines/media-guidelines-reporting-suicide/

https://www.samaritans.org/about-samaritans/media-guidelines/suicide-facts-journalists/

Suicide is complex and most of the time there isn’t one event or factor that leads someone to take their own life. It is usually a combination of lots of different factors interacting with each other to increase risk. A combination of individual, community, and societal factors contribute to the risk of suicide.

and

Only a third of people who die by suicide have been in contact with specialist mental health services in the year before their death.

Samaritans' media guidelines for reporting suicide

Our guidance offers practical advice and tips on how to safely cover the topic of suicide in the media. Download our media guidelines and read our best practice tips here.

https://www.samaritans.org/about-samaritans/media-guidelines/media-guidelines-reporting-suicide/

It is AGAINST good practice reporting guidelines to report suicide in a way that might weaponise it, lead to others copycatting or otherwise encourage it.

These are the Samaritans key points in their Suicide Media Reporting Guidelines

10 things to remember when reporting suicide
1 Avoid reporting methods of suicide in articles, such as describing someone as having died by hanging, particularly in headlines.

2 Include references to suicide being preventable and signpost sources of support, such as Samaritans’ helpline. This can encourage people to seek help, which could save lives. When life is difficult, Samaritans are here – day
or night, 365 days a year. You can call them for free on 116 123, email them at [email protected], or visit www.samaritans.org to find your nearest branch.

3 Avoid dramatic headlines and strong terms such as ‘suicide epidemic’. Never suggest that someone died instantly or that their death was quick, easy, painless, inevitable or a solution to their problems. Steer clear of language that sensationalises or glorifies suicide.

4 Don’t refer to a specific site or location as popular or known for suicides, for example, ‘notorious site’ or ‘hot spot’ and refrain from providing information, such as the height of a bridge or cliff.

5 Avoid dramatic, emotive or sensational pictures or video footage. Excessive imagery can glamourise a death and lead vulnerable individuals to over-identify with the deceased.

6 Avoid excessive amounts of coverage and overly prominent placement of stories, such as a front page splash or making it a lead story, and do not link to previous stories about suicide.

7 Treat social media with particular caution and avoid mentioning or linking to comments, or websites/forums that promote or glamourise suicide. Similarly, it is safer not to open comments sections on suicide stories and careful consideration should be given around the appropriateness of promoting stories through push notifications.

8 Including content from suicide notes or similar messages left by a person who has died should be avoided. They can increase the likelihood of people identifying with the deceased. It may also romanticise a suicide or cause distress to the bereaved family and friends.

9 Speculation about the ‘trigger’ or cause of a suicide can oversimplify the issue and should be avoided. Suicide is extremely complex and most of the time there is no single event or factor that leads someone to take their own life.

10 Young people are more susceptible to suicide contagion. When covering the death of a young person, do not give undue prominence to the story or repeat the use of photographs, including galleries. Don’t use emotive, romanticised language or images – a sensitive, factual approach is much safer. Coverage that reflects the wider issues around suicide, including that it is preventable, can help reduce the risk of suicidal behaviour. Include clear and direct references to resources and support organisations

Pink News fails this. Glinner fails this. Lots of posters here are failing this.

Stop it. You are actively causing harm on this thread in your own right.

I've just gone on a reporting spree on this thread for poster that fall foul of Samaritans guidance.

It's not ok.

The acceptable version of the tweet:

The death of a child is being exploited to compel parents into accepting that extreme experimental surgery is acceptable on children.

Anything said crudely is always crass hence we have the words "decorum" and "grace". So yes the tweet is crass.

What is unacceptable though is the OP stance that this child's death can be exploited to enhance the cause of "no debate".

No, I don't think this is ok

It's somewhat understandable in the context but that doesn't make it ok, it's not appropriate language here

This! Glinner is telling the truth about what Prick News are implying. Thank god for Glinner I say.

Ludicrous from Pink News. Very poor taste from Graham Linehan. The kind of stuff Stewart Lee or Frankie Boyle do. Best left unsaid.

WPATH's 'Standards of Care' version 8 includes a whole chapter on 'Eunuch' as a gender identity. This includes links to the Eunuch Archive, which contains extensive CSA literature. When it came to light that NHS Scotland had a copy of the WPATH SoC v8 on their website, it necessitated them reporting themselves to Police Scotland, as they'd hosted CSA literature on their own website. Links to news stories are freely available.