Overview

Mermaids is a UK charity that supports "trans, non-binary and gender-diverse" children and young people and their families. It began in 1995 as a parents' support group and grew into one of the most influential voices on youth gender identity in Britain. It ran a helpline, online forums and family events, and trained schools, NHS staff, police forces and companies.

Between 2022 and 2024 the charity faced a run of controversies. In September 2022 The Telegraph reported that Mermaids had offered chest binders to children whose parents had not agreed, and that its online help centre had described puberty blockers as safe and reversible. Within weeks a newly appointed trustee resigned over a 2011 conference appearance, and the chief executive left. In November 2022 the Charity Commission, which regulates charities in England and Wales, opened a statutory inquiry, the regulator's most serious form of investigation.

The inquiry reported on 24 October 2024. It found mismanagement by the trustees in post at the relevant times. It made no finding of misconduct, and found no evidence that Mermaids gave medical advice or had inappropriate ties to the Tavistock gender clinic or to private prescribers. It also confirmed that the charity issued 125 binders between January 2021 and September 2022, 24 of them to young people it judged to be "unsupported" at home. The Commission required Mermaids to remove its claim that puberty blockers are reversible, and said any future binder service must reflect the Cass Review (England's independent 2024 review of youth gender services) on involving parents (Charity Commission 2024).

This page is part of a series on medical transition scandals.

Background

From parents' group to national charity

Mermaids describes its origins as a "group of concerned parents". It was an unincorporated charity from 1999 and registered as a charitable incorporated organisation in 2015. Its legal objects are to relieve the "mental and emotional stress" of people aged 19 and under "affected by gender identity issues", and their families, and to "advance public education" on the subject (Charity Commission 2024).

The charity grew quickly. Its income rose from £83,775 in 2015–16 to £2,294,682 in 2022–23. By the time of the inquiry it had 37 staff and about 107 volunteers and said it supported "over 10,000 individuals every year". The Commission recorded 41 trustees since 2015, a turnover the charity put down partly to the "socio-political context" in which it worked (Charity Commission 2024). Its long-serving chief executive was its first paid employee. The Commission dates her appointment to around January 2015, while press reports of her departure describe "six years" in post (Guardian 2022).

Influence: training, schools and the NHS

Mermaids' reach went well beyond its own service users. The Telegraph's first report said it "runs training for schools and the NHS". The Guardian described an organisation funded "mostly by donations" but also by grants and training fees (Guardian 2022). Gender-critical groups such as Transgender Trend and Safe Schools Alliance UK (both advocacy organisations) campaigned against schools using Mermaids material. They argued that it presented contested beliefs about gender identity as fact (see schools and parents).

Mermaids' relationship with the NHS Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) at the Tavistock was a recurring concern among complainants. The inquiry found that the former chief executive had acted as a stakeholder when GIDS did research in 2015 and when it redrafted its service specification, which took effect in 2016. Between 2016 and 2021 the charity made 22 referrals to GIDS. The inquiry found "no evidence" of "inappropriate influence or ties to GIDS", and no evidence that referrals were made without a parent's or carer's knowledge (Charity Commission 2024). Some critics and former clinicians have described Mermaids as a pressure group that pushed GIDS towards a more affirmative approach. The Commission's remit did not cover that question. For the clinic's own story, see Tavistock GIDS.

The charity also had a past link to private prescribing. The inquiry found that Dr Helen Webberley of GenderGP had attended several Mermaids residential weekends. Mermaids removed its GenderGP link in May 2019, after the General Medical Council suspended her, and has since given families information about NHS services only (Charity Commission 2024). See GenderGP.

The 2018–19 National Lottery grant

In December 2018 the National Lottery Community Fund (then the Big Lottery Fund) awarded Mermaids £500,000 to build a network of local support groups. A Sunday Times article criticised the grant, and the fund received about 800 letters for and against it. It opened a review of seven allegations. In February 2019 it said the review "did not find any grounds to withhold funding", and the grant went ahead (National Lottery Community Fund 2019; Civil Society 2019). In October 2022, after the Charity Commission opened its case, the fund paused further payments (Third Sector 2022). In February 2025 The Telegraph reported that Mermaids had received almost £400,000 from foundations that are partly funded by government (Telegraph 2025).

What was alleged

The Telegraph investigation (September 2022)

On 25 September 2022 The Telegraph reported that Mermaids had "offered to send a breast binder discreetly to a girl they believed was only 14, even after they were told that she was not allowed to use one by her mother" (Telegraph 2022). The story rested largely on an adult who posed as a 14-year-old on the charity's forum and web chat. The paper also reported that the help centre had told users who said they were as young as 13 that puberty blockers were safe and "totally reversible" (Telegraph 2022).

A chest binder is a tight garment worn to flatten the breasts. Reported physical effects include shortness of breath, back and chest pain, overheating, skin problems and rib damage. Mermaids' own risk sheet listed these effects too (Charity Commission 2024). The Cass Review treats binding as part of social transition. It says that in an NHS setting social transition should be seen as "an active intervention" because of its possible effects on psychological functioning.

Other reporting in autumn 2022

• Trustee appointment. On 3 October 2022 The Times reported that a recently appointed trustee, an academic, had given a presentation in 2011 at a conference run by B4U-ACT, a US group that offers support to people attracted to children. The trustee resigned the same day. Mermaids said the conference was "completely at odds with our values" and that it would review its processes (BBC 2022). The Commission later noted that he had served only briefly and had never had contact with beneficiaries.
• Chief executive's departure. On 25 November 2022 Mermaids announced that its chief executive had left after six years, without giving a reason (Guardian 2022). The inquiry report later revealed that the trustees had dismissed her over a "loss of confidence" in her ability to lead. She disputed this and brought an unfair dismissal claim, which was settled out of court (Charity Commission 2024).
• Institutional distancing. The Department for Education (DfE) removed Mermaids from its mental health and wellbeing resources for schools as a "precautionary" step (Schools Week 2022). In January 2023 the NHS trust taking over parts of the Tavistock's caseload dropped planned Mermaids training (Telegraph 2023).

Mermaids' responses

Mermaids rejected the framing of the Telegraph story from the start. It said it took a "harm-reduction position" on binders. Its then chief executive argued that a well-fitted binder was better than "a young person using duct tape on themselves". She said the coverage was meant to make the charity look "dangerous", and that Mermaids had already discussed its binder service and forum with the Commission in 2020 (Guardian 2022). The charity reported 130 abusive calls or messages in the month after the stories, against 29 in the previous six months. It reported the Telegraph's test approach to police as "a fraud and transphobic crime" (Charity Commission 2024). The Metropolitan Police said that supplying a binder to a young person was not a criminal offence.

The Commission records that the trustees "cooperated fully" with the inquiry. In January 2023 it published the recommendations of its own equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) review, and in April 2023 an external governance review by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO). Its board accepted both "in full". When the report came out, the chair of trustees, Kathryn Downs, said:

We are relieved that the Charity Commission inquiry which began nearly two years ago is finally over. The report states, as we anticipated, that there is no finding of misconduct at Mermaids. — (Guardian 2024)

She added that the commission had confirmed "we have not provided medical advice or acted improperly". She called the two-year process "frustrating" and said it had significantly hurt the charity's fundraising.

On puberty blockers, Mermaids changed its position statement after the Cass Review. Its earlier FAQ called blockers "an internationally recognised safe, reversible healthcare option". The revised text says it does not "advocate for any particular pathway" but continues to "campaign for access to timely, holistic and supportive healthcare for trans youth, including access to puberty blockers and hormones for those who need them" (Charity Commission 2024). In November 2025 its new chief executive welcomed the start of the NHS puberty blocker trial but criticised how few young people would get access to the drugs through it (Mermaids 2025).

Investigations, legal and regulatory outcomes

What the Charity Commission found

The inquiry examined governance, culture, leadership and whether the trustees had met their legal duties. To test the public complaints, it sampled 174 beneficiary records from January 2020 to March 2023 across calls, emails, forums and web chats. Its main findings were as follows.

Source for all rows: Charity Commission 2024.

On binders, the inquiry noted that binders can be bought without age limits and that there was "no legal requirement" for parental consent. It still stressed the weight a charity's endorsement carries:

…the supply of binders by a charity brings with it the authority of the charity's approval, which may be of influence on children and their families. — (Charity Commission 2024)

It also said the charity's harm-reduction rationale "does not take into account the possible persuasive effect on young people being supplied with such products by a registered charity". It added that "no advice was given on the possible psychological effects of wearing binders". Parents who did not know their child had been given one "would have been unable to supervise its use".

The formal conclusion was that "there has been mismanagement in the administration of the charity by the trustees in post at the relevant times". The Commission issued statutory advice under section 15(2) of the Charities Act 2011 in January and June 2024. This included that any resumed binder service must be notified to the Commission in advance, and that information on medical interventions must make clear "whether this information is based on factual evidence or alternatively is the charity's view/standpoint". Its chair, Orlando Fraser KC, said the Commission had "required Mermaids to present a more accurate picture on its website as to the risks involved in the use of puberty blockers" (Charity Commission press release 2024).

Mermaids v Charity Commission and LGB Alliance

In June 2021, backed by a coalition of LGBT+ organisations and the Good Law Project, Mermaids appealed against the Commission's decision to register LGB Alliance as a charity. It argued that the group's real focus was hostility to trans people. This was believed to be the first time one charity had tried to strip another of its status. On 6 July 2023 the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal:

We have dismissed this appeal because we have decided that the law does not permit Mermaids to challenge the decision made by the Charity Commission to register LGB Alliance as a charity. — (Mermaids v Charity Commission [2023] UKFTT 563 (GRC))

The two judges said they could not agree whether LGB Alliance would have qualified as a charity if Mermaids had had standing, and declined to give reasons on that "hypothetical issue". They did find that concerns that LGB Alliance had gone "beyond the boundaries of civilised debate" were "well-founded". Mermaids' statement says that "one of the judges agreed with us". The judgment itself only records that the panel was split, not which way each judge leaned (Mermaids 2023). LGB Alliance said its legal fees came to more than £250,000 (Civil Society 2023). Mermaids said it was taking advice on an appeal. No further appeal decision appeared in the sources reviewed for this page.

Timeline

Significance and wider impact

The Mermaids case mattered less for any single finding than for what it showed about authority. A charity carries public trust. The Commission said this directly when it noted that a charity supplying binders lends them "the authority of the charity's approval". The same reasoning applies to its FAQ on puberty blockers. For years a registered charity told families that blockers were "safe" and "reversible". In 2024 the regulator required it to take that wording down, after NHS England stopped routine prescribing and the Cass Review judged the evidence base weak (see puberty blockers and evidence reviews).

The report also set out "issues for the wider sector". It said trustees of charities working in this area "need to ensure that they have regard to the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Cass Review". That made Cass a reference point for charity governance, not only for clinics (see also UK law).

For schools and parents, the binder findings fed into an existing debate over whether social transition can happen without parents knowing. The Commission accepted that there was no legal duty to involve parents. Even so, it quoted Cass's view that "parents should be actively involved in decision making unless there are strong grounds to believe that this may put the child or young person at risk".

Criticisms of how the case has been framed

Different sides read the same report very differently. Some fair points on each:

• "Cleared" overstates it. Mermaids and some LGBT media reported that the charity had been cleared. In fact the inquiry made several formal findings of mismanagement, required changes to its puberty blocker information, and limited any future binder service. "No misconduct" is a specific legal category, not a clean bill of health.
• "Whitewash" also overstates it. Former Conservative MP Miriam Cates called the report "really a whitewash" and said it "spectacularly misses the point", because it judged compliance with charity law rather than the ethics of youth gender medicine (GB News 2024). The Commission could only examine matters within its remit. Its sampled records did not support several complaints, including medical advice and improper referrals.
• The original sting. Supporters of Mermaids, including PinkNews (an LGBT outlet), objected that the Telegraph story depended on an adult posing as a child (PinkNews 2022). The Commission found that in that case the charity's checks had in fact stopped the binder being sent. However, staff gave a misleading reason, and the inquiry said this "significantly damaged the charity's reputation and could have been avoided".
• "Behind parents' backs" versus "unsupported". The 24 binders went to young people whom Mermaids judged to lack support at home. The charity says it encouraged them to involve a parent or trusted adult and followed up by phone. Critics argue that this is exactly the situation in which parents most need to know.

What detransitioners say

On /r/detrans, Mermaids comes up mostly in UK threads, and often as shorthand for the affirmation-first approach of the 2010s. One detransitioned man described being part of Mermaids' youth network in the 1990s, long before the recent controversies:

I can thank 1990's NHS gatekeeping for preventing me from getting too far down the medical pathway over the several years I was under the gender clinic but you can bet I and the other trans teens I associated with through Mermaids didn't lament daily at how slow and "cruel" the offical NHS process was and we all joined in on protests to remove the 2 year social transition "real life test" roadblock they had. —cagedbunny83, detrans male

His account points to a dynamic the Commission did not examine. Peer groups of distressed teenagers can push collectively against the very safeguards that later protected some of them (see social contagion and peer influence).

On binding itself, a number of women who bound as teenagers describe lasting effects they did not foresee:

I wore a very tight binder from 12-15 (basically when my breasts were supposed to be growing) and as a result my chest is flat and deformed and ugly. —StarryPlatypus, desisted female

i wore a binder through most of my puberty when my body was developing and i still have issues breathing now. —Background-Set6515, desisted female

These are self-reports and cannot show cause and effect. They do match the Commission's point that the physical and psychological effects of binding in adolescence are poorly studied. On puberty blockers, many commenters reject the "reversible" framing that Mermaids used until 2024:

I heard the claim that puberty blockers "have no side effects" and are "100% reversible" everywhere. I was fascinated because there are so few medications in the world with 0 side effects… —Femmeghost99, desisted female

Some commenters also link charities and clinicians to the "transition or suicide" message given to parents. One detransitioned man describes its effect on his father:

He was so convinced that I was at risk of taking my own life due to the things the "professionals" drilled into him that he practically fast-tracked my transition. —Hedera_Thorn, detrans male

He does not name Mermaids. For the evidence on that claim, see suicide and transition.

Trans perspectives

Many trans people and LGBT organisations regard Mermaids as a lifeline and the 2022 coverage as a hostile campaign. Their case for the binder service is the one Mermaids gave the inquiry: teenagers bind anyway, and a correctly sized binder with safety guidance is safer than tape or makeshift options. Trans men on Reddit often make the same argument:

A binder is the safest option to fight dysphoria at this point. Yes, if you abuse it it can cause problems but not like binding with tape and other makeshift options. —Harry_Saxon, trans man (FTM)

The inquiry accepted that the charity's safety guidance matched published information. It also noted that this approach ignored a charity's persuasive authority, and that it gave no advice on psychological effects.

Related pages

• Medical transition scandals
• Tavistock GIDS
• GenderGP
• Schools and parents
• Social transition
• Puberty blockers
• Evidence reviews
• UK law on sex and gender
• Keira Bell v Tavistock
• Study archive · Support directory

References

• Charity Commission for England and Wales (2024). Charity Inquiry: Mermaids (published 24 October 2024). source.
• Charity Commission (2024). Poor governance at Mermaids amounted to mismanagement, inquiry reveals (press release). source.
• Cass, H. (2024). Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people: Final report. study page.
• First-tier Tribunal (GRC) (2023). Mermaids v Charity Commission and LGB Alliance [2023] UKFTT 563 (GRC). judgment.
• National Lottery Community Fund (2019). Statement: Outcome of our review into Mermaids UK grant. source.
• Civil Society (2019). Lottery body to proceed with grant to Mermaids after media criticism. source.
• The Telegraph (2022). Trans charity Mermaids giving breast binders to children behind parents' backs (25 September). source.
• Sky News (2022). Trans charity Mermaids investigated after 'offering chest binders without parental consent'. source.
• BBC News (2022). Mermaids trustee quits over paedophile-group links (4 October). source.
• Third Sector (2022). Lottery fund pauses Mermaids payments amid Charity Commission compliance case. source.
• Schools Week (2022). DfE removes trans charity Mermaids from school wellbeing resources. source.
• Siddique, H. / The Guardian (2022). Mermaids: why has the trans charity been in the news? source.
• PinkNews (2022, LGBT outlet). The Telegraph's attacks on Mermaids are damaging trust. source.
• The Telegraph (2023). NHS trust drops Mermaids training scheme after concerns raised. source.
• Civil Society (2023). Mermaids loses appeal to strip LGB Alliance of charitable status. source.
• Mermaids (2023, party statement). Statement on the ruling in Mermaids v Charity Commission and LGB Alliance. source.
• Gentleman, A. / The Guardian (2024). Trans children's charity told to rewrite guidance on puberty blockers. source.
• GB News (2024, partisan outlet). Mermaids investigation sparks outrage over 'whitewash' report. source.
• The Telegraph (2025). Controversial trans charity given £400,000 by taxpayer-funded foundations. source.
• Mermaids (2025, charity statements). Press statements archive. source.