Page 2 | James Esses Case - Evidence-based therapy

RoastChicory · 2021-09-12T10:53:38+00:00

There has been an update from James Esses, who was suspended from his psychotherapy course as he set up a petition to make sure therapists were allowed to explore issues with gender dysphoria patients and not simply affirm the patient’s self-diagnosis. Shockingly, it appears that the U.K. psychotherapists association put pressure to expel James from the course. They are therefore also now part of the case. If James wins, this would set a very important message to similar associations. Email copied below Update on Expelled from my university course for holding gender critical views Dear Supporters, Thanks to the overwhelming support I received from my original crowdfunding, my lawyers have now been able to draft and lodge my claim. My lawyers are Akua Reindorf, who wrote the Reindorf review into the treatment by Essex University of its gender critical staff, and Peter Daly of Doyle Clayton Solicitors, who acted for Maya Forstater in the appeal that established gender critical beliefs such as mine as being protected from discrimination. My claim is in the Employment Tribunal, because both of the Respondents provide workplace qualifications. These are litigated in the Employment Tribunal because of section 53 of the Equality Act 2010. The First Respondent is Metanoia. The acts of discrimination I am litigating are set out in my original crowdfunding page. The Second Respondent is UKCP, the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy. This is the main registration body for councillors and psychotherapists in the UK. These are not regulated professions, so they don’t have a regulator in the same way that Doctors have the General Medical Council, or solicitors have the Solicitors Regulation Authority. But UKCP is in many ways a quasi-regulator, because registration with the UKCP (or one other counterpart) is required in order to qualify formally as a counsellor or psychotherapist. It has come to light in Subject Access Request responses that UKCP were far more involved in Metanoia’s actions towards me than I had previously realised. Metanoia were liaising with UKCP, who were putting pressure on Metanoia in how they dealt with me. My claim is therefore also against UKCP, on the basis that its actions instructed, caused or induced Metanoia’s discrimination against me, as well as those actions being discriminatory against me in their own right. As with Metanoia, I am litigating against UKCP on the basis that it is a qualifications body, but also on the basis that it is a Trade Association – both of these are within the Employment Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the Equality Act 2010. This is, as far as I am aware, the first claim for gender critical belief discrimination brought against a registration body or quasi-regulator like UKCP. This is therefore an important case because it will have relevance for other regulators and other regulated professions.

StellaAndCrow · 17/09/2021 19:37

@Helleofabore

It is very telling when you have parents of girls identifying as boys, who have not read anything but the Mermaids and Stonewall sites, expressing extreme discomfort that all the literature, all the support seems written from the male view. Those parents remarked just how disturbing it is that the agenda is being shaped by adult transitioned males.

One of those parents had never even spoken to another parent about it. Remarkable how accurately she picked it.

Yes, and even if these parents support their girls' wish to "transition to male", do they realise that puberty blockers will REDUCE their final height, which is surely the opposite of what is wanted by someone who wants to present as male?

What sense do puberty blockers make for girls?

Helleofabore · 17/09/2021 09:45

It is very telling when you have parents of girls identifying as boys, who have not read anything but the Mermaids and Stonewall sites, expressing extreme discomfort that all the literature, all the support seems written from the male view. Those parents remarked just how disturbing it is that the agenda is being shaped by adult transitioned males.

One of those parents had never even spoken to another parent about it. Remarkable how accurately she picked it.

Fitt · 17/09/2021 09:32

Focusing on children was explicitly promoted as a strategy for masking the problem of adult men's "inclusion" or transition into female sports etc.

It seems to be working on anaily who dutifully lumps them together as instructed.

Helleofabore · 17/09/2021 07:27

The transgender community doesn't support him, his course and governing body doesn't support him, his (ex)job doesn't support him, the only support he is getting is from those who are against transgender inclusion, he is on right wing media.

Again, this ‘right wing’ keeps raising its head.

When will people realise this is an issue that is across ALL political affiliations. It is such tired trope. But gets renewed vigor every cycle- every iteration. The anti-Semite phase came and went quickly, then it was back to Nazis, now fascist is the flavour of the day.

Do you ever look at the motivations of those who you personally believe over others? I mean really look at their motivations. Are they activating for solutions that work for the majority, or just for them?

Are the activists you listen to listening to ALL trans people or just those that suit their purpose?

Not a guilt by association, I'll remain neutral until things change and I'll reassess my position then.

No. You are not neutral. The way you have expressed yourself is entirely biased.

You don’t seem to be able to answer questions anaily, why is that? You will deflect away with ‘this person is x so therefore I will focus on denigrating them rather than answer the question’.

Really, you are not neutral. A neutral person with a inquisitive mind that seeks out knowledge from the original source rather than a ‘safe’ interpretation would by now be able to acknowledge when evidence is non existent. When evidence doesn’t support the views of a group who pushes an extreme agenda.

Or would come back with well thought out replies with alternative links to evidence (not opinion) that lead to further discussion.

You have not displayed neutrality at all on this thread.

In fact, to declare so is laughable. Because taking a more neutral stance is actually what James and many clinicians who are speaking out around the world are advocating. That of exploring all diagnoses, treating underlying health conditions before embarking on irreversible medical treatments.

I would laugh, but it is far from funny.

Helleofabore · 17/09/2021 07:07

@anaily

You may have misunderstood what i said, i said the only support he is getting is from those who are against transgender inclusion, there was no mention of medical pathways. It simply means the only people who support James are also against transgender inclusion.

For medical intervention, if someone wants to get medical help then they should be able to access it, if someone doesn't want it then they shouldn't get it, no one should be forced to do it against their will, aka bodily autonomy.

Anaily

No. Not ALL the trans community support Affirming only therapy.

Of course, those with extreme opinions do. A large part of that is what sex those people are. In fact, if you read enough back threads on this topic here on MN, you would see it neatly fits into the male perspective as males may benefit from early medicalisation by ‘passing better’ (their words not mine). Some of these posters even go so far has stating that the ability to derive pleasure from sexual activity is something they believe a child can deprioritise in the goal to ‘pass’. Ie. Some mtf posters of the past, who have their own children even, advocate that the new generation of transitioners children and young teens should simply accept the loss of sexual pleasure in the pursuit of something that poster wishes they had. Does that sit comfortably with you?

And when it is pointed out to some of these posters that young female transitioners have much higher long term risks associated with early medicalisation, they have no answer but to persist in their full support of affirming only. In other words, they don’t show any concern for the young girls and teens who now make up the majority of young transitioners. Nor card for the young people affected daily by gender identity issues. Our daughters,

Now. To be clear. We also have transitioned adult posters of both sexes who don’t support affirming only treatment. Even in the MN trans community, opinion is split.

It is the same on twitter. There are many trans people who don’t support affirming only. Do you ever see the hatred directed toward these trans people? It is horrific. And coming from their ‘community’.

Posters on this thread, including me, have recommended you actually read that break it down thread, yet you don’t.

I even posted some links. Did you read the clinicians recommendations?

You seem very caught up in ‘anti trans’ vs ‘trans inclusive’. This is the ‘all or nothing’ approach that we see activists using all the time. It is the driver of those people calling women believing sex cannot change and sometimes sex matters (such as you have admitted up thread) names like fascists, nazis and like anti-semites.

And you continue to forget that there are many regular posters on MN who are parents of teens are extremely knowledgeable about the needs of their child who identifies as trans. Who are trans NOW, under the current treatment options.

Again, currently and directly fighting for the best care for their child. And if it is not our child, we are also supporting friends who are fighting for the best care for their child.

Why on earth do you think you know better than them, when you don’t seem to even be bothered to read a balance of medical opinions about this? Instead, you take mainly male adult transitioned activists words over clinicians.

And you label people as ‘anti-trans’. Shall we start labeling people who are pushing this treatment plan that James and other clinicians are fighting against being forced on all trans children and teens as anti-children.

Helleofabore · 17/09/2021 06:52

anaily

Do you also believe a patient with anorexia should be allowed to starve themselves, allow their bodies to simply stop working, because they believe they are fat, unlovable or whatever motivates their need to starve their body of nutrition.

Do you honestly believe affirming only treatment is in the best interest for those patience?

EdgeOfACoin · 17/09/2021 06:45

@anaily

If you want to chop your leg off, you do you, do whatever is best for you.

Okay, well that that was a thoughtful, considered response.

Nellodee · 17/09/2021 06:32

The existence of desistors and detransitioners really undermines the narrative that being trans is exactly like being gay in every way and so it must be suppressed at all costs.
Unfortunately for such thinking, all the evidence shows that with watchful waiting, most children will desist.
I do not understand the thinking that it is better for hundreds of children to unnecessarily spend a lifetime on harmful drugs, potentially losing sexual function and fertility, than it is to even suggest or entertain the idea that being convinced of being trans is not always a permanent state, despite all evidence that this is the case.

Blibbyblobby · 17/09/2021 00:18

@anaily

Afaik he is not a therapist. Why is the transgender community not rallying behind him?

Firstly, you don't know who is supporting him. Do not mistake the loud voices of extremists and their misinformed "allies" for a coherent community.

Secondly, why would the transgender community in particular be rallying behind him? People who are comfortably trans are not the ones who will suffer if therapists hands are tied.

It's people like those who have posted earlier in the thread, who went through a period of gender questioning but concluded they were not, in fact, trans who are put at risk by this ideological and political insistence that only pre-approved avenues are permitted to be explored.

These people know first hand how wrong this assumption that "anyone who thinks they are trans is definitely trans" is.

So while I would hope (and I have no doubt) that many trans people also do not think fast tracking any children with gender questions into social then medical transition is a good thing, at the end of the day this is not a trans issue.

The only reason it's being presented as a trans issue is because of TRA ideology's absolutist stance that gender identity once expressed is a fixed point that cannot be questioned, only accommodated.

Waitwhat23 · 17/09/2021 00:15

@anaily

You may have misunderstood what i said, i said the only support he is getting is from those who are against transgender inclusion, there was no mention of medical pathways. It simply means the only people who support James are also against transgender inclusion.

For medical intervention, if someone wants to get medical help then they should be able to access it, if someone doesn't want it then they shouldn't get it, no one should be forced to do it against their will, aka bodily autonomy.

I didn't misunderstand. The tweets reproduced in the newspaper article linked on the first page of this thread make it clear that James Esse was calling for therapeutic support for children instead of immediately going down a medical affirmation route. You have repeatedly said he is 'against trans inclusion' which is not the case - he is advocating an exploration into patients thoughts and feelings - essentially the 'watchful waiting' approach.

By 'medical help' do you mean surgery and drug treatments? In the case of children, should this not be done with the most careful of consideration and safeguarding?

anaily · 16/09/2021 23:59

Afaik he is not a therapist. Why is the transgender community not rallying behind him?

anaily · 16/09/2021 23:55

If you want to chop your leg off, you do you, do whatever is best for you.

Blibbyblobby · 16/09/2021 23:54

@anaily

You may have misunderstood what i said, i said the only support he is getting is from those who are against transgender inclusion, there was no mention of medical pathways. It simply means the only people who support James are also against transgender inclusion.

For medical intervention, if someone wants to get medical help then they should be able to access it, if someone doesn't want it then they shouldn't get it, no one should be forced to do it against their will, aka bodily autonomy.

You may have misunderstood what i said, i said the only support he is getting is from those who are against transgender inclusion

I have supported him. I am not against transgender inclusion. So it is not true that "the only support he is getting is from those who are against transgender inclusion"

As I said in my previous post, I do not believe tying the hands of therapists is a valid way to include and support trans people.

PickAChew · 16/09/2021 23:53

In fact, you didn't read my question.

PickAChew · 16/09/2021 23:52

@anaily

If you suffer from body integrity identity disorder (BIID) then i suggest you seek help from your gp. You can discuss with them.

You didn't answer my question.

anaily · 16/09/2021 23:44

If you suffer from body integrity identity disorder (BIID) then i suggest you seek help from your gp. You can discuss with them.

PickAChew · 16/09/2021 23:39

@anaily

You may have misunderstood what i said, i said the only support he is getting is from those who are against transgender inclusion, there was no mention of medical pathways. It simply means the only people who support James are also against transgender inclusion.

For medical intervention, if someone wants to get medical help then they should be able to access it, if someone doesn't want it then they shouldn't get it, no one should be forced to do it against their will, aka bodily autonomy.

Say I woke up tomorrow and decided I identified as an amputee, would you expect health professionals to agree and lop off my lower left leg "because I wanted it"?

anaily · 16/09/2021 23:34

You may have misunderstood what i said, i said the only support he is getting is from those who are against transgender inclusion, there was no mention of medical pathways. It simply means the only people who support James are also against transgender inclusion.

For medical intervention, if someone wants to get medical help then they should be able to access it, if someone doesn't want it then they shouldn't get it, no one should be forced to do it against their will, aka bodily autonomy.

Waitwhat23 · 16/09/2021 23:25

Just to be clear, anaily.

Are you saying that advocating a 'watchful waiting' approach is explicitly anti trans inclusion?

Are you saying that the only way to be trans inclusive is to begin medical transition when a child says that they are trans?

Are you saying that there should be no support from therapists in order to understand the reasons why someone wants to transition? Despite the huge spike in girls in particular wanting to transition?

Blibbyblobby · 16/09/2021 23:18

the only support he is getting is from those who are against transgender inclusion

Please don't conflate tying the hands of therapists with "trans inclusion".

There are many ways to include and support trans people. Forcing therapists to follow the most divisive and blinkered pillars of misogynistic and regressive genderism over listening to and helping their clients as individuals is not one of them.

anaily · 16/09/2021 23:08

You have yet to answer why YOU don’t support James? If you want trans people to get mental health support that means when they transition they are better able to live a life that has better mental health prospects, are aren’t you supporting him?

The transgender community doesn't support him, his course and governing body doesn't support him, his (ex)job doesn't support him, the only support he is getting is from those who are against transgender inclusion, he is on right wing media. Not a guilt by association, I'll remain neutral until things change and I'll reassess my position then.

MaudTheInvincible · 16/09/2021 10:38

@SusannaM

Sorry, not meaning to derail, but I can't get past this remark...

It's interesting that it appears to be the first case brought against a regulatory body. I was on the Baroness Nicholson webinar on Friday and she said how she'd come to this fight after a visit from a group of nurses who'd lost their jobs as a result of refusing to do an impossible procedure on a male body. I imagine a cervical smear on a TW or similar scenario. Doing so would have breached the Nursing & Midwifery Council code of practice but they lost their jobs regardless of that.

What?!
Have skimmed the rest of this thread, but can't find further details. Can someone enlighten me?

I didn't watch last Friday's webinar so can't comment on it, but they're all linked here if you want to see for yourself childrenandwomenfirst.org/public-meetings

SusannaM · 15/09/2021 14:20

Sorry, not meaning to derail, but I can't get past this remark...

It's interesting that it appears to be the first case brought against a regulatory body. I was on the Baroness Nicholson webinar on Friday and she said how she'd come to this fight after a visit from a group of nurses who'd lost their jobs as a result of refusing to do an impossible procedure on a male body. I imagine a cervical smear on a TW or similar scenario. Doing so would have breached the Nursing & Midwifery Council code of practice but they lost their jobs regardless of that.

What?!
Have skimmed the rest of this thread, but can't find further details. Can someone enlighten me?

Helleofabore · 14/09/2021 18:57

Do you hate men anaily? Have you been told that feminists hate men? Have you been told the posters on the feminist boards on MN are man haters?

Because it seems you are under the impression that we should not support a man who has been harmed while trying to support trans people to get the best health care.

You are making very wrong generalisations all through this thread. You seem to really be struggling to honestly answer questions or to provide support of any kind about what you state most confidently. Yet, you are reprimanding women for supporting James.

You have yet to answer why YOU don’t support James? If you want trans people to get mental health support that means when they transition they are better able to live a life that has better mental health prospects, are aren’t you supporting him?

Or have you become entrenched in the activist trope that only affirming treatment ever, is the only treatment plan. Despite clinicians with decades of experience saying this is wrong.

If you believe affirming treatment is the best and only way, show us the evidence to prove that.

Sophoclesthefox · 14/09/2021 18:13

On the funding topic, I’ll spend my money where I damn well please. If you don’t support James, then don’t pledge any money, it really is very simple.

It’s not about whether a man lost his place on a uni course. Laying aside the issues relating to trans, I don’t want to live, study and work in a country where having the wrong political opinion gets you summarily thrown out of any aspect of public life. Maybe it appeals to your authoritarian instincts, anally, but most people have a sense of natural justice and fair play, and believe in the concept of being able to defend themselves from an accusation and put their side.

What happens when it’s your opinion that’s out of favour? Would you be comfortable with risking being chucked out of uni for your perfectly legitimate opinions?