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.