Dr Jessica Taylor New Book

[Seiheiki]

Hi,

Is anyone else going to the Birmingham book launch of Sexy But Psycho on Sunday night?

Having read this thread and the bibliography which she or her wife posed on Twitter today, and as someone who has worked in the mental health/women's mental health/trauma space for over 25 years, it looks like Jess doesn't have the depth and breath of knowledge about mental health to understand where the criticisms levelled towards her are coming from.

Which is absolutely fine, two years out of your PhD, but I hope that she is learning from the feedback given (even that given quite brusquely) as that's how she will improve as an academic and writer.

I hope that doesn't sound patronising - I don't mean it to be and genuinely wish her all the best.

@HollowedOut

There is a single 1 star review on Amazon, with justified reasons for that rating. All the rest are 5 star reviews. Posting crap like this is not something any respected academic should be doing.

@HollowedOut I agree. When you publish a book you can't cattle prod everyone into giving it the rating you want, some people won't like it and although it must be disheartening everyone is entitled to give their opinion. Looks as though she has given herself a 5* rating to balance them out a bit here: www.goodreads.com/book/show/12605841-detoxing-taylor

On the other hand I commend her for using her platform to give a voice to womens issues, hopefully she changes her mind on the mental health PMDD aspect and is open to listening to different perspectives.

@HollowedOut

There is a single 1 star review on Amazon, with justified reasons for that rating. All the rest are 5 star reviews. Posting crap like this is not something any respected academic should be doing.

While I agree that it's not a good idea to post that kind of stuff, to be fair to Jessica, that 1* review has been edited.

I read the reviews this morning and then, it said simply "I was hoping for more." with no reasons, which does sound like it likely comes from someone who's not read the book.

The reasons have been added in later.

I'm disappointed by the personal attacks on Jessica in this post and the undermining of her experiences. It's not fair and as others have pointed out, it detracts from legitimate critique of her ideas.

I have issues with Jessica, as an academic. I bought her first book but find the ideas that she claims to be radical and original are very derivative of lots of work that is already out there and often better evidenced and argued. I appreciate people's argument that she's bringing these ideas to a new audience, this would be fine if she actually referenced the people and often women who came up with these ideas first, but she doesn't. She acts like they're all her own and she profits off of this.

Which leads to my next criticism. She is clearly very good at self promotion and women should be paid for their work. However, she profits off of work that isn't always hers, that other women provide for free, and her organisation's hiring ethics are dubious. The roles advertised require experience and qualifications yet are massively underpaid and she's even now offering "internships", i.e. requesting free labour. She's recently advertised a "pay it forward" initiative with her new book where you can buy one for a woman who can't afford one. I'm sorry but she's very well off now and surely could afford to donate copies rather than encouraging women to further line her pockets to help disadvantaged women.

I'm also troubled by her total dismissal of any alternative views to hers, her refusal to engage in academic debate about her (derivative) ideas and how she jumps to personal insults. She doesn't have the expertise to knowledge to back up so much of what she claims and some of the ideas have potentially dangerous consequences such as women stopping their medication. I'm also disappointed by her refusal to listen to women about their own experiences and the ableism she portrays.

The thing is, there are other posts on this board criticising women like Laurie Penny and Annaliese Dodds very harshly - and rightly so, I think. It's all very well being 'nice' on the basis that someone is female and/or traumatised but I think it's one of the things I love about the gc 'side' of the trans debate is that we aren't tribal, we don't flock around people in admiration just because they've expressed the 'right' views. Lots of women have trauma behind them - unfortunately it doesn't give you a free pass to do harm. Exulansic, too, has gone from being hugely admired to being scrutinised. That's absolutely right and fair. A decent human being looks at the criticisms they're getting and while it might be incredibly painful, they take them on board and justify why they aren't listening to the ones they feel don't apply. It's a really difficult thing to listen to what people who strongly disagree with you are saying - it really takes guts and humility, but there we go. Others manage it. It makes you a better person in the long run. Modelling saying 'I'm sorry, I've realised I got this wrong' changes society for the better because people see that it's ok to change your mind.

Anyway, it is such a relief to read lots of the posts on this thread and know I'm not alone with my concerns. I'm sure lots of us would have Jess's back if she took some of these comments on board and changed tack slightly.

In a nutshell - if you’re going to make money by self-publicising your work across a broad and shallow platform like social media, you’re going to invite all sorts of opinion and criticism. That’s the trade off.

Throwing your toys out of the pram, or doubling down on demonstrably false assertions when you get criticised, is always going to make you look like a bit of a wally.

If you’re going to make part of your brand ‘being a provocateur’ you HAVE to say to yourself you’re going to give zero fucks; like Madonna. Otherwise it won’t work.

I've been following her for a couple of years and have always had great respect for what she's achieved when you take into account her history of abuse, being a single teenage mother from a working class background. I also like the glimpses into her personal life, she and Jaimi seem to be besotted with one another, I really like their chat on their podcast, it has made me think about things that haven't been part of my own experience (I have never been under psychiatric care, or involved in the criminal justice system). However, like so many others here I am concerned about her complete rejection of the use of psychiatric medication, insistence that all mental health issues are rooted in trauma etc. It also concerns me that she does not seem to take into account that many women diagnosed with mental health disorders have undiagnosed neurodiverse conditions, when it is now accepted that the diagnosis of these is also based on the typical male presentation.

Ladies, I only started this thread to see if anyone wanted to meet for a drink before the doors open tonight. Please take the conspiracy theories to your own threads, not mine.

Sharing concerns about her provable, public behaviour is not conspiracy theory.

Yes, the conspiracy stories are tedious and unhelpful.

As is the raking over her social media presence to find disparities between her public accounts of events.

But critiquing the work she puts in the public domain and how she goes about that is valid and important.

@IngenueGinny

Sharing concerns about her provable, public behaviour is not conspiracy theory.

Please stop derailing my thread now.

@Angelicaeliza

I'm disappointed by the personal attacks on Jessica in this post and the undermining of her experiences. It's not fair and as others have pointed out, it detracts from legitimate critique of her ideas.

I have issues with Jessica, as an academic. I bought her first book but find the ideas that she claims to be radical and original are very derivative of lots of work that is already out there and often better evidenced and argued. I appreciate people's argument that she's bringing these ideas to a new audience, this would be fine if she actually referenced the people and often women who came up with these ideas first, but she doesn't. She acts like they're all her own and she profits off of this.

Which leads to my next criticism. She is clearly very good at self promotion and women should be paid for their work. However, she profits off of work that isn't always hers, that other women provide for free, and her organisation's hiring ethics are dubious. The roles advertised require experience and qualifications yet are massively underpaid and she's even now offering "internships", i.e. requesting free labour. She's recently advertised a "pay it forward" initiative with her new book where you can buy one for a woman who can't afford one. I'm sorry but she's very well off now and surely could afford to donate copies rather than encouraging women to further line her pockets to help disadvantaged women.

I'm also troubled by her total dismissal of any alternative views to hers, her refusal to engage in academic debate about her (derivative) ideas and how she jumps to personal insults. She doesn't have the expertise to knowledge to back up so much of what she claims and some of the ideas have potentially dangerous consequences such as women stopping their medication. I'm also disappointed by her refusal to listen to women about their own experiences and the ableism she portrays.

Speaking of pay if forward reminds me - I contacted her a while back to find out how to get a paid forward copy. No reply.

Don't be daft.

No-one is derailing your thread.

The first response was written by someone who had intended to go and decided not to and her reasons for that.

Which sparked thoughts in others too.

That's okay, isn't? People sharing ideas and thoughts on a public forum?

@Seiheiki that’s not how discussion sites work. I agree some of the conspiracy theories seem a bit OTT but there’s nothing wrong with having an opinion on her work or thinking that a certain online behaviour isn’t the best way to deal with criticism

I've found this thread really helpful.

I've followed JT for a few years, since I saw her speak at Filia 2018. I found her interesting and inspiring. However since then I've also found her to be rude and dismissive of people in person and on social media, which has put me off her as a person if I'm honest.

There's no doubt that the work she's doing/highlighting is important. But I also have doubts about some of her more recent angles relating to psychiatric drugs etc. I don't believe she is qualified to make those statements and also believe that they are potentially harmful to those who believe them (& it devalues the good stuff that she has done by talking nonsense about other areas).

I don't think she deserved the hard time she was given by some other rad fems, but I also think that the way she dealt with some comments exacerbated the situation.

I also have to remember that she's a different generation to me, so all the oversharing on social media that I find unnecessary is probably an age thing for me!

I have bought the book and am interested to read what she says so will reserve judgment until I've finished it.

I have her book and am looking forward to reading it.

I saw on her twitter an exchange about ADHD being caused by trauma and, well, I do have ADHD but I don't have any childhood trauma. I really don't. I have a differently wired brain which caused me endless problems as a teenager and as an adult and medication for it has greatly improved my life. So that has piqued my interest a bit. I also saw (again on twitter) that she talks about auto-immune conditions and MH diagnoses. I have two nasty auto-immune diseases so am interested in that side of it too.

I do think women get judged very harshly on their interactions with people (on social media etc) and even feminists have it so ingrained about women needing to be 'likeable' that we judge other women on it unconsciously.

PS. If I was in Birmingham I would go for a drink with you OP!

I applaud her for making waves and encouraging this debate.

I binge read the book in two days and I loved it. Having worked in the field I agreed with a lot of what she had to say. All the women I know (personally in my family) who have a diagnosis of BPD/bipolar with psychosis have extensive childhood sexual trauma. They were only ever truly helped after trauma psychotherapy. They were indeed subjected to ECT as teenagers and medicated up to the eyeballs with dangerous drugs/sectioned etc.

For them personally psychiatry did oppress them. I feel sad for them knowing it took basically their whole lives for them to finally feel peace (they received trauma therapy very late indeed).

On another note I think it’s convenient for certain people to believe heavily in the medical model. My middle class sister in law being a perfect example. Much better to blame her 14 year old being sectioned for wanting to kill himself on a mere brain abnormality. (Nothing at all to do with the covert abusive family dynamic ).

It’s incredibly rare to find people in secondary MH services who have not suffered extensive trauma.

I forgot to add re one of my family members was on and off medication for years due to psychosis. It was the therapy that enabled her to finally be medication free. The trauma humanistic approach helped her make sense of those voices far more than any pill ever did, or psychiatrist for that matter.

Over the years she was dual diagnosed with BPD, Schizophrenia, dissociative disorder and one even suggested multiple personality disorder. I mean how could we ever take a diagnosis seriously after being told different ones every couple of years?

Eternally grateful to the trauma psychotherapist who enabled her to live peacefully and voice free for 5 years at the end of her life. It was just a shame the 62 years prior to that all of the sections and pills never did help.

@HariboMaroon fucking hell, what an absolutely atrocious thing to say about your sister in law.

Her comments on ADHD and autism are very disappointing.

She says there is no physical evidence ADHD exists. This isn't true, neuroimaging shows differences in size and structure. She also says there's no genetic test for ADHD - this is true but there is evidence of strong heritability of ADHD.

She says ADHD is diagnosed through self-report - this is incorrect. Diagnosis in children often involves psychological assessment including testing working memory, as well as reports from teachers and parents. She also states that anyone can be diagnosed with ADHD which is not the case.

She says there has been a huge increase in women and girls being diagnosed. This is not true. Women and girls are often underdiagnosed which often results in girls missing out on early interventions to support them at school.

Most often she says that ADHD is actually trauma. This is a huge simplification. ADHD is not trauma but trauma can result in an ADHD type presentation. People with ADHD also often experience trauma due to isolation, bullying. To imply that ADHD doesn't exist, though, and it's all just trauma alone is just wrong. It makes it harder for people with ADHD to get help when these ideas are put around. It stigmatises parents of children with ADHD who already get criticism for being bad parents, for medicating their children and so on.

This is a more nuanced look at ADHD and trauma: www.additudemag.com/adhd-trauma-somatic-therapy/

[quote HollowedOut]@HariboMaroon fucking hell, what an absolutely atrocious thing to say about your sister in law.[/quote]
I think @HariboMaroon meant that it was impossible to take a diagnosis seriously, when they chopped and changed every couple of years.

Not that she didn't take her SIL's difficulties seriously at all.

I don't think the SIL and the relative who received the multiple doses are the same person, Twitterwooo.

Diagnoses, not doses!

Ah, yes, I see. Thanks for correcting.

As you were...