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.

So basically birth certificates are dangerous because some men commit sex crimes?

Can you provide evidence or statistics that prove transitioned males commit sex crimes at a decreased rate than other males?

@anaily

I don't agree with them being in a womans prison, they should be kept isolated elsewhere.

But if they have a GRC, if they have changed their birth certificate, how does anyone know if they are male or female and what prison to put them in?

@anaily

I don't agree with them being in a womans prison, they should be kept isolated elsewhere.

Transphobe

@anaily

I'm not, no. The ex gf is in the article. So i have to weigh up your opinion and the ex gf's lived experience. Factor in the media stir up anything. Who do i believe.

It is transphobic to not believe the person saying they are trans. Surely you understand this. It doesn’t matter what the ex girlfriend has said. Or the media. Or you.

No i can't, i can't provide black people commit less crime either, it doesn't mean they are also a safeguarding risk. Your rule can be applied to literally any group to make them to be dangerous.

@anaily

i get your main issues in life is what genitals people have and who is using the cubicle next to you

If that's what you think people here are saying you have misunderstood.

Please stop seeing what you expect to see and read what people are actually saying. It really is very simple.

1. Your body is just your body. It is a fixed fact about you yes, but it doesn't define anything about your personality. The only fixed differences between men and women, or boys and girls, are the ones that come from our bodies. Every other difference is just social baggage and it does no one any good. Moving from one social box to the other is a no doubt a little better than staying in a box, but true freedom is to realise there are no boxes in the first place.

2. BUT - here and now, our culture is still sexist/male normative and because of that, people with female bodies get a rough deal in a lot of areas. It's nothing to do with who they are inside, it's just the way our society treats people with female bodies. To explain this properly is the work of more than one lifetime but to put it very briefly, the way our culture presents male and female means some male people feel entitled to female time, attention and sexuality and react with verbal or physical aggression when they don't get it, while others have picked up the idea that places where females are alone are erotic and so developed a fetish about invading female privacy. Not all males, not even (I hope) most of them, but enough to be a danger and it's not possible to tell from the outside which ones they are. So for those reasons, it's important to have spaces where females can escape from males. I hope this is not the case forever, but for here and now and is.

3. There is no evidence that trans women (male) have the same challenges as female people (of any gender). Trans women certainly suffer some of the same issues as female people but not all of them, not always in the same way, and they also have issues that female people never encounter. We are often parallel but we are not the same. So while it's entirely valid to say trans women are different to other males and need their own spaces and provisions, it is not valid to say that being different from other males makes them so interchangeable with females that they can move without impact into ours.

4. Female-specific provisions have historically been called "Women's" simply because at the time "Woman" was specifically female-sex. Unfortunately, the gender ideology's adoption of slogans like "trans women are women" which change the meaning of the word Woman has created an expectation that these female-only provisions must be open to trans women (male) as well simply because they still use the word Woman without acknowledging this is Woman in its old meaning. A moment's thought shows the fallacy of this assumption, but it's become an act of faith in the gender movement to challenge any single-sex rights, spaces or provisions. This unfortunately has lead some trans allies to assume that gender critical feminists are somehow "anti trans" when the reality is they simply want to separate rights and provisions based on sex (which is unchangeable and nothing to do with gender identity) from those based on gender.

And that's basically it.

The long term goal is to get rid of boxes other than what is necessary to mitigate the inescapable differences that come from our biology (who has periods, who can hit hardest, who needs maternity support etc), but until society stops tacitly allowing poor treatment of female people by male there is a short term need to protect female people with female only spaces.

@anaily

I don't agree with them being in a womans prison, they should be kept isolated elsewhere.

Great, there’s a petition floating around about keeping prisons single sex- you can pop over and sign it.

But I didn’t ask if you agreed I asked why it happened.

And as you seem to know as much about it as the position of feminists who disagree, it’s because groups like Stonewall and other TRAs have campaigned for it. To allow men into women’s prison. Irrespective of what it says on their birth certificates.

I get that you don’t want to actually “educate yourself” and won’t answer any hard questions but the info isn’t hard to find. It’s in this section of MN. With links in case you don’t believe the posters here.

Under the law, if a trans woman has a GRC, they have to be in a woman’s prison. If anyone can get a GRC with no questions asked - self-id - then any male can go to a woman’s prison. Including rapists.

In Scotland, a lot of prisoners declared themselves to convert to Judaism to get better food.

Life is hard for sex offenders in male prisons. Why wouldn’t a significant number self-identify as women?

@anaily

No i can't, i can't provide black people commit less crime either, it doesn't mean they are also a safeguarding risk. Your rule can be applied to literally any group to make them to be dangerous.

Safeguarding applies to all.

All races, sexes, sexualities and even gender beliefs.

We don’t safeguard by ‘race’. We safeguard by ‘sex’.

Because males have penises (in fact 80-90% of males who have transitioned retain their penis). Because a transitioned male has a punch that is so much more powerful than an average woman’s punch, their hand grip is still more powerful by far than a woman’s and their hands are bigger, their bones are heavier, their frame is bigger, they have faster twitch muscles, they are quicker. I can keep listing the proven advantages that males who have transitioned have over females. Shall I?

Race doesn’t produce anything near this power imbalance. So tell us why safeguarding should change because a male has transitioned?

When you cannot provide any evidence (because there is none by the way) to prove they do not continue to commit sex crime at a rate more like a male than a female.

Why should these males be put into a special exemption category for safeguarding purposes?

Are you going to campaign against Judaism to stop those in jail exploiting it?
I appreciate the long thread above. I may have questions later on.

@anaily

I don't agree with them being in a womans prison, they should be kept isolated elsewhere.

I can't even imagine the pile on you'd get from TRA's if you posted this on Twitter. It is, in the eyes of many on there, intensely transphobic. When they say TWAW, they mean it literally. In the Scottish prison system, whether a transwoman has a GRC or not is moot as they are considered to be a woman to all intents and purposes. Women have been raped in prisons due to these 'inclusive' policies (see the recent judicial review).

Are you nice and comfortable about the MMA fighter that was a male special forces personnel who just choked out their female opponent on their very first public bout?

Comfortable that this person is no safety risk when the last male who fought as a woman broke an opponent’s orbital bone. Because, like I posted upthread, male’s don’t lose much of their physical advantage at all in transitioning. And women have bones that are less dense, their skulls are more fragile and their brain is actually more prone to brain damage.

Are you comfortable that females are being protected in their sport when this happens?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4346354-Transgender-fighter-wins-debut-after-choking-out-opponent-in-second-round

@anaily

Are you going to campaign against Judaism to stop those in jail exploiting it? I appreciate the long thread above. I may have questions later on.

What are you talking about?

@anaily

Are you going to campaign against Judaism to stop those in jail exploiting it? I appreciate the long thread above. I may have questions later on.

Where is the safeguarding risk to others of declaring oneself Jewish?

Running sports is mainly won by what race? It's certainly not white people. Is that justification for race segregation? Crime stats by race will also draw conclusions that can justify race segregation. Some things are just morally and ethically wrong to do.

Presumably you're campaigning to remove the requirement for DBS checks for people who work with children and vulnerable adults then yes?

Nope, dbs checks should remain in place. Bit of a reach there. Any reason you try to portray everyone who isn't in line with you as some sort of threat?

With that logic your views of trans are transphobic.

@anaily

No i can't, i can't provide black people commit less crime either, it doesn't mean they are also a safeguarding risk. Your rule can be applied to literally any group to make them to be dangerous.

For goodness sake anaily.

In case you don't already know this, 98% of all sex crimes are committed by men. 90% of all violent crime is committed by men. In fact most crimes are committed by men.

This doesn't change when they identify as women.

Of the 130 transwomen in prison over half are there for sex crimes that's a massive over representation.

Male Paedophiles, rapists, and murderers are being put in female prisons - it's automatic if they have a GRC and an F on their birth certificate, and it is assessed by a panel, if they don't.

Women are being sexually assaulted in prison by these men.

You now appear to have agreed that they should not be in women's prisons. But bloody hell, it does not take a genius to work out that male sex criminals shouldn't be given access to incarcerated women.

This is about preserving women's safety and that of their children. On the few occasions where they are vulnerable and require sex segregation, like if their knickers are round their ankles, they're taking their clothes off, theyre having a mammogram, or are incarcerated in prison.

You might be fully behind eliminating safeguarding protocols, but you won't find much support on a parenting website.

@anaily

Where is the safeguarding risk to others of declaring oneself Jewish?

Same risk as someone being trans or non binary. 😐

You've contradicted yourself there as per your post regarding transwomen in women's prisons - 'I don't agree with them being in a womans prison, they should be kept isolated elsewhere.'

You yourself can see the safeguarding issue.

So could you please answer a pp's question - 'Where is the safeguarding risk to others of declaring oneself Jewish?'

@anaily

Running sports is mainly won by what race? It's certainly not white people. Is that justification for race segregation? Crime stats by race will also draw conclusions that can justify race segregation. Some things are just morally and ethically wrong to do.

Not only transphobic in deciding who is and isn’t a trans person, but racist as well.

Where will you go next?

You are the one bringing false race equivalences into this discussion.

You obviously did not read my post about how being male meant being more powerful and all the other advantages. You have tried to twist and deflect bringing race in and to what end?

No one is advocating for race segregation. No one. Single sex spaces are there for all females, whatever their race or religion.

Since you have introduced religion, why are you advocating for actions that mean those women who cannot share single sex spaces with males will then be excluded? Because that is what you are advocating for. Those women will be excluded from places, events and activities because they cannot share single sex spaces such as toilets with males.

@anaily

Nope, dbs checks should remain in place. Bit of a reach there. Any reason you try to portray everyone who isn't in line with you as some sort of threat?

And DBS checks are not the only safeguarding action that is needed or undertaken.

And while we are on DBS checks… tell us about that article posted to answer one of your questions about how people who have name changed and changed other details on their birth certificates are now being undetected in any checks.