This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mermaids (charity) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Whether or not, we believe it should be controversial it seems uncontroversial to state, on the basis of a reliable source, that it is considered controversial. Even if some people do not consider it controversial. If enough people do consider it controversial, then it is a controversial charity. The revert is here [ [1]]. Other views are sought. Springnuts ( talk) 18:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight.Although only ‘an individual’ is mentioned, this surely applies in the same way to organisations. Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
a charity and advocacy organisation that supports gender variant and transgender youth.Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
How about [ [2]]. “ The transgender youth support charity has chosen not to comment on the move, which follows controversy about the distribution of chest binders”. Would editors be happy to say that there is controversy over some of the charity’s actions? Springnuts ( talk) 22:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
transgender youth support charity.
Its advice is controversial among medical experts;
Its effectiveness has proved controversial among former users of the service;
Its use of funds to pay for further fundraising has proved controversial among donors;
Its consultations with Members of Parliament has proved controversial among the electorate. But something of quite a different calibre to saying "the charity is controversial" is:
Its recognition of the existence of transgender youth has been widely criticised by right-wing news media. Of course, whatever we say needs a source that says precisely that thing. And unfortunately, news media are rarely interested in giving information about a controversy and much more interested in manufacturing one. — Bilorv ( talk) 17:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be appropriate to include a “Controversy” or a “Controversy and criticism” section in the article, as we do for eg Kidscape or the RSPCA. Springnuts ( talk) 20:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I saw on Twitter a couple of days ago that the judgement for charitable status appeal will be handed down tomorrow at around 10am UK time. Obviously we can't add the tweet to the article, but I just wanted to give a heads up for editors to keep an eye out for it and for a burst of attention to be drawn here tomorrow morning. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) regarding the use of suicide crisis telephone numbers (which this article doesn't include). The thread is Suicide hotlines. Thank you. TheSpacebook ( talk) 02:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I feel the paragraph regarding Mermaids' work with GIDS is poorly written, and should be altered. The quote regarding the prevalence of suicide among trans youth gives the impression that suicide is not a major issue among trans youth. While suicide is rare amongst virtually any demographic, suicide among trans youth is substantially higher than it is for the general population, and the paragraph should not imply otherwise. Moreover, the implication that Mermaids is scaring parents by exaggerating the prevalence of suicide is contested.
The paragraph centres the work of Susie Green when it would be more appropriate for this page to discuss the work of Mermaids as whole. It also describes the personal experiences of Susie Green which would be better placed within her page, rather than that of Mermaids
I do not believe that the use of "lobbying" is appropriate here, because the word connotes political activism for the purpose of financial or political advancement, which is not the case here. Generally when discussing the work of charities one would use words like "advocacy"
Finally, the only source provided is a link to an opinion piece by Janice Turner in The Times. Given the vocally conservative stance on LGBT issues from both The Times and Turner, I think it would be best to find a less biased source or to add another. HenrikHolen ( talk) 16:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems that ideology and feelings have been allowed to trump traditional medical evidence in the work of GIDS. And where ideology impacted GIDS so strongly was in the service’s inability to keep an appropriate distance from charities and support groups liked Gendered Intelligence and Mermaids. That the bosses of both organisations saw themselves as entitled to write to GIDS director Polly Carmichael directly and demand clinicians be reprimanded, or switched, or that the service go further and faster with physical interventions, is telling. …..It appeared from emails that Carmichael had responded sympathetically when [Susie] Green asked for changes to GIDS’s practices. … It was pressure, in part, from lobby groups that took the service initially down a path of providing physical interventions to younger children without a strong evidence base.Sweet6970 ( talk) 18:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
But demands for change grew more vociferous from the mid 2000s. Along with Mermaids, the Gender Identity Research and Education Society - GIRES - lobbied hard for GIDS to lower the age at which they'd consider treating children with puberty blockers.
Some at board level believed by the middle of 2019 that GIDS should not be engaging with Mermaids at all - including attending any of their events. Mermaids was a lobbying group, they believed, and it was vital for GIDS to have boundaries and retain its patient focus.
How is it encyclopedically significant that a notoriously transphobic org made a big fuss about a non-issue that a non-transphobe wouldn't be alarmed about in order to attempt and get a bunch of transphobes riled up about a charity that provides health care support for trans people? Simonm223 ( talk) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mermaids (charity) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Whether or not, we believe it should be controversial it seems uncontroversial to state, on the basis of a reliable source, that it is considered controversial. Even if some people do not consider it controversial. If enough people do consider it controversial, then it is a controversial charity. The revert is here [ [1]]. Other views are sought. Springnuts ( talk) 18:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight.Although only ‘an individual’ is mentioned, this surely applies in the same way to organisations. Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
a charity and advocacy organisation that supports gender variant and transgender youth.Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
How about [ [2]]. “ The transgender youth support charity has chosen not to comment on the move, which follows controversy about the distribution of chest binders”. Would editors be happy to say that there is controversy over some of the charity’s actions? Springnuts ( talk) 22:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
transgender youth support charity.
Its advice is controversial among medical experts;
Its effectiveness has proved controversial among former users of the service;
Its use of funds to pay for further fundraising has proved controversial among donors;
Its consultations with Members of Parliament has proved controversial among the electorate. But something of quite a different calibre to saying "the charity is controversial" is:
Its recognition of the existence of transgender youth has been widely criticised by right-wing news media. Of course, whatever we say needs a source that says precisely that thing. And unfortunately, news media are rarely interested in giving information about a controversy and much more interested in manufacturing one. — Bilorv ( talk) 17:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be appropriate to include a “Controversy” or a “Controversy and criticism” section in the article, as we do for eg Kidscape or the RSPCA. Springnuts ( talk) 20:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I saw on Twitter a couple of days ago that the judgement for charitable status appeal will be handed down tomorrow at around 10am UK time. Obviously we can't add the tweet to the article, but I just wanted to give a heads up for editors to keep an eye out for it and for a burst of attention to be drawn here tomorrow morning. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) regarding the use of suicide crisis telephone numbers (which this article doesn't include). The thread is Suicide hotlines. Thank you. TheSpacebook ( talk) 02:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I feel the paragraph regarding Mermaids' work with GIDS is poorly written, and should be altered. The quote regarding the prevalence of suicide among trans youth gives the impression that suicide is not a major issue among trans youth. While suicide is rare amongst virtually any demographic, suicide among trans youth is substantially higher than it is for the general population, and the paragraph should not imply otherwise. Moreover, the implication that Mermaids is scaring parents by exaggerating the prevalence of suicide is contested.
The paragraph centres the work of Susie Green when it would be more appropriate for this page to discuss the work of Mermaids as whole. It also describes the personal experiences of Susie Green which would be better placed within her page, rather than that of Mermaids
I do not believe that the use of "lobbying" is appropriate here, because the word connotes political activism for the purpose of financial or political advancement, which is not the case here. Generally when discussing the work of charities one would use words like "advocacy"
Finally, the only source provided is a link to an opinion piece by Janice Turner in The Times. Given the vocally conservative stance on LGBT issues from both The Times and Turner, I think it would be best to find a less biased source or to add another. HenrikHolen ( talk) 16:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems that ideology and feelings have been allowed to trump traditional medical evidence in the work of GIDS. And where ideology impacted GIDS so strongly was in the service’s inability to keep an appropriate distance from charities and support groups liked Gendered Intelligence and Mermaids. That the bosses of both organisations saw themselves as entitled to write to GIDS director Polly Carmichael directly and demand clinicians be reprimanded, or switched, or that the service go further and faster with physical interventions, is telling. …..It appeared from emails that Carmichael had responded sympathetically when [Susie] Green asked for changes to GIDS’s practices. … It was pressure, in part, from lobby groups that took the service initially down a path of providing physical interventions to younger children without a strong evidence base.Sweet6970 ( talk) 18:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
But demands for change grew more vociferous from the mid 2000s. Along with Mermaids, the Gender Identity Research and Education Society - GIRES - lobbied hard for GIDS to lower the age at which they'd consider treating children with puberty blockers.
Some at board level believed by the middle of 2019 that GIDS should not be engaging with Mermaids at all - including attending any of their events. Mermaids was a lobbying group, they believed, and it was vital for GIDS to have boundaries and retain its patient focus.
How is it encyclopedically significant that a notoriously transphobic org made a big fuss about a non-issue that a non-transphobe wouldn't be alarmed about in order to attempt and get a bunch of transphobes riled up about a charity that provides health care support for trans people? Simonm223 ( talk) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)