The woman in question has explained that she was receiving support from a regional charity for victims of child sexual exploitation. They retraumatised her by making her watch graphic films about CSE in the name of helping her. Some time later she came across Jess Taylor online, who was campaigning to stop charities from using these films. She contacted Jess by Facebook messenger in a very emotional state, poured out her story, and concluded with something like, "Do what you want with it, mayb. /e some of them will listen."
As an academic who carries out research with very vulnerable children and young people, I know that a Facebook message like that would never be accepted by a university or NHS ethics board as proof of consent. Never. Every participant in a research study has to be given a clear, detailed explanation of what the study involves, what its aims are, exactly how participants' data will be stored and used, and - crucially - how to withdraw their data if they no longer want to be involved. Then they sign it. All of this was absent from this woman's exchange with JT. Furthermore, it's unethical to take consent from a participant who is clearly in a very distressed emotive state. I once interviewed a young woman who broke down into tears and disclosed some deeply personal things. The following year, when I was preparing a manuscript based on that research for publication, I got in touch with her to ask if she wanted me to include this bit or if she would prefer it to be withdrawn. I had a suspicion that even though all the participants had been pseudonymised, she might not want that story out there in a book. She thanked me for being so thoughtful and told me she would prefer I didn't quote that particular part of her interview. Good research governance aside, this is basic compassion.
JT's conduct throughout all this has been beyond disturbing. First she suggested that this woman was seeing herself in the book when she wasn't really there because many women have similar trauma stories. Given that the story involved CSE films shown by a specific organisation, the chances of another woman coming forward with the identical story are statistically quite slim. Then JT started telling people that as the book was based on her PhD thesis, which predates her interaction with this woman, there's no way this woman could be in it...only her thesis is available online and there is not one single mention of CSE films anywhere in it. Not one. Then a second woman reveals a conversation she had had with JT in a Chinatown restaurant had made its way into Sexy but Psycho, a conversation that referred to her professional experiences - which were distinctive enough for a friend to recognise her. JT even mentions the venue in the book. Now, she could theoretically have met someone else in Chinatown who happened to have the exact same professional training and viewpoint and the exact same trauma history as this woman...but what are the odds? Add these two cases together, and the odds of them both being mistaken get slimmer again.
At first I had respect for JT's work. I bought one of her research journals and recommended it to my students. That respect started to unravel for many reasons, but I kept quiet because I thought she was just abrasive and a bit obnoxious at times, but not harmful. She has crossed red lines into actual harm. Her pronouncements about medication and therapy (made in full awareness that the general public are going to think she's a trained clinician) are frankly dangerous and this potential ethics breach is all of a piece with it.