James Esses Case - Evidence-based therapy

[RoastChicory]

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.

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?

@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.

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.

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.

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.

@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?

Here you are @anaily fresh off the press.

www.ranzcp.org/news-policy/policy-and-advocacy/position-statements/gender-dysphoria

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists have now updated their guidance. Just in the last day or two.

‘Recognising and addressing the mental health needs of people experiencing Gender Dysphoria / Gender Incongruence’

They are now warning that there is NOT ENOUGH evidence to recommend affirming only treatments or indeed any particular treatment plan. They now say that underlying health issues should be treated at the same time. And warn that medicalisation of children and teens be very careful and thoroughly explored considering the ‘paucity’ of evidence at this time.

I think you might find that this is close to what James was advocating for. That you have derided and decried for all sorts of reasons. Little by little medical authorities are back tracking as more studies, more patient reviews are coming in.

I see daily, in real life, the potential harm of pushing an agenda that is not focused on making sure the wide ranging mental health issues and implications of teenaged girls are not being prioritised by adult male activists who have influenced policy. Do you?

Or are you just fighting against us getting the best health care for our daughters because somebody on the Internet told you that those daughter’s parents hate trans people?

Maybe it is time to actually read those links now. And understand the implications of what is happening and that perhaps the people you have sort to shame for supporting people like a James, have far more on the line than feeling good about who happens to ‘align’ with them.

Sought not sort

So much for hyperbole. His work to destroy rights continue, funded by you. Read that then pat yourself on the back.

@anaily

So much for hyperbole. His work to destroy rights continue, funded by you. Read that then pat yourself on the back.

Thank you for keeping this thread bumped. I think most decent adults are concerned at anybody conflating the right to access contraception alongside deciding that drugs and surgery are needed by little children and 10, 12, 14 or 16 year olds to modify their growing bodies in order to ease their angst at growing up.

This isn't the gotcha you naively think it is.

And what is it about the fact that the same system is probably not fit for the purpose that it is being forced to allow decision making is problematic for you?

After reading all the links I have posted, you still don’t showing any depth of understanding.

Consenting to an immediate treatment that hopefully has no or very well known long term consequences such as the pill or an abortion is rather different to a 9-12 year old or even a 15 year old consenting to losing sexual function, and the high likelihood of early dementia through loss of ovaries so young due to atrophy, loss of bone density, ligament issues to loss of teeth etc (some of Lupron’s known effects about to be subject to a class action court case in the US). That is just to name a few.

Let alone the lasting nerve damage from double mastectomy of healthy damage that can be excruciating. And there is more and more of you listen to the detransitioners who weren’t even on these drugs for long.

Do you understand there is no evidence that this even helps individual female transitioners?

These decisions are different, and I would suggest, has a much less definable affect than the previous uses of Gillick. Yet, trans activists are also willing to throw those previous uses of Gillick under a bus to demand what they want. … just another reason that this is not the ‘gotcha’ you have been led to believe by random activists on the internet.

You again seem so keen to ‘gotcha’ but I think it is very clear you have interest in actually discussing this or seeking to understand. All you are doing now is giving a live demonstration of the usual activist tactics for lurkers.

So crack on. I can keep going all day. I can continue to find links to post, whereas, it becomes blatantly clear you have nothing.

Little interest that should be.

In fact, because this thread is so important, I am going to post this study again too.

This is a European study of adults post medicalised transition over a significant time period. Maybe it would serve those seeking to allow children and teenagers to make irreversible treatment decisions to remember many of these in the study were adult transitioners!!! (and even GIDS admits there are adverse long term effects that are unknown - a good thing though that we know about that Lupron class action )

So adult transitioners with a detransition rate of over 8% after medicalised treatment.

Anybody downplaying the enormity of this rate and the enormity of the impact (life limiting and life shortening) of puberty blockers and testosterone on female bodies needs to understand what they are choosing to ignore.

——-

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5580378/

This is a small study but states:

135 natal males (119 living in the female role, 12 in the male role, 4 did not report their current gender role) and 66 natal females (60 living in the male role, 5 in the female role, 1 did not report a current gender role)

So... 8.88% of males and 8.33% of the females (this does not include those who did not answer the question which if the answer was to detransition would make these figures higher). And in Figure 3. 22.2% of those who socially transitioned, detransitioned.

——-

Those numbers are pretty significant aren't they? And I point out these 8% figures are for POST medicalised transition.

It certainly makes me all the more concerned that a treatment plan that has been shown to perhaps have an 8+% rate of desistance from living in the 'gender' role they chose to have surgery to facilitate, is being hailed as the best course of treatment. At all!

No wonder the lobby groups did not want anymore longitudinal patient reviews done and labeled them transphobic. It shines the light on what they do not want to see or acknowledge.

@anaily

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

I know it's a waste of time asking what you mean, because you deflected every time I asked you a straightforward question about your own statement previously* but when you typed this, did you mean that "whatever is best" as a course of action was to amputate, or to not amputate?

*you said that a woman having a baby would have needed to have been with a man in order for that to happen.

helleofabore 8+% is big. Huge!

I'd buy a lottery ticket every week on 8% odds.

Holy crap, Helle, I hadn't seen this www.ranzcp.org/news-policy/policy-and-advocacy/position-statements/gender-dysphoria

Jacinta's going to have a fit. She's firmly hard of thinking over these issues.

Thanks for the other study too, and agree, 8% is a lot when the treatments are so intrusive. These kids are not just getting a piercing or wearing kohl like we did in the 80s to signal our teenage angst. I could weep for them, I really could.

Well Viv, it is only one association at the moment. There are others that need to address their guidelines in both countries. And the governments will need to, too.

But it is a start. The backtracking is happening quietly.

It is my feeling that the Australians will start with malpractice suits earlier. I could be wrong but insurance is a huge cost there as well. These guidelines will reflect the need to cover bottoms from the lawsuits.

The European study gets lost a lot of the time. It will get posted from time to time as a gotcha for ‘success’ by posters who simply never read what they link to. I have seen estimations for close to that on another study too, but I have forgotten where.

Importantly, this was before the spike in transitioning young females even started. Seeing the number of detransitioner females going each week, I expect the % will hold steady or be higher.

God help us from uninformed posters without critical thinking skills who believe they are the righteous ones.

Surprisingly for this study it is nearly 9% for males. I believe this would be because this was before the spike in young female transition, AND the fact that surgery for males is far ranging but does not clarify that it was removing penises. Whereas I guess as a female surgery is more focused on irreversible surgeries such as mastectomies, hysterectomy and maybe a few genital surgeries.

So much to research, so many lost opportunities and so many lives irreparably changed by lack of quality care.

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

That is one of the most pitiful untruths I've ever read on MN, and I've read a lot on here.

@SpindleWhorl

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

That is one of the most pitiful untruths I've ever read on MN, and I've read a lot on here.

You'll also notice that that comment was in response to mine but didn't actually address any of the questions in my comment. Direct questions, that should have been quite easy to answer -

In fact, I'll ask them again -

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 whya child wants to transition? Despite the huge spike in girls in particular wanting to transition?

Update on James Esses court case (below). For those who followed Allison Bailey's court case, it's also possible to get public access for this one.

Update on Expelled from my university course for holding gender critical views

Dear Supporter,

As you will be aware, my 3-day Preliminary Hearing commences tomorrow at 10am.

The hearing is being held because of applications made by two of the Respondents to have my claims against them struck out. For the purposes of these applications, the tribunal must take my case at its highest.

I will be giving live evidence and will make my witness statement available online if I am able to do so.

If you would like to watch any part of the hearings, you can request login details in advance by emailing ‘[email protected]’ and quoting my case numbers - 2206164/2021 and 2206708/2021.

I will of course provide a full update once the hearings have concluded and we have received a judgment on the issues.

As always, I want to thank you for supporting me. It has taken us a long time to even get to this stage of the proceedings and I very literally could not have done it without you.

James

Quite alot has changed since he was expelled from the course. He can point to cass interim report, medical bodies in Sweden, Finland, Australia & France starting to see that things have gone awry. And the significant people in gender medicine in the states starting to blow the whistle. Obviously Idk what he will have to argue, but it seems like there is enough respectable opinion now that supports the view that he had a point and should not have been pushed out for making it.
It will be interesting to hear what the other side argues.

I must say, one thing this whole debate/fight whatever instills is patience. So many legal cases which I am interested in, and they are achingly slow. The wheels of justice are very slow indeed. I can't imagine what the waiting is like for the claimants.

Emailed for an access link. Thanks for the details.