In November 2016, counsellor and therapist James Caspian applied to Bath Spa University to begin research into the numbers of transgendered people who subsequently regretted and sought to reverse the surgery they had undergone as part of their gender transitioning treatment. He had been working as a therapist with transgendered people for over a decade, and was growing increasingly concerned at the numbers who wanted to reverse their surgery. He wanted to know why, as he felt such knowledge was vital to the well-being of the transgender community.
Initially the University gave permission for the research – which no one else had undertaken and for which there was, and is, a clear need. Later, however, it reversed its decision – on the basis that the research might attract unpleasant comments on social media, which it claimed might be detrimental to the reputation of the university. At the same time, it refused to refund the £30,000 in fees Mr Caspian had paid to secure his place.
As a result, Mr Caspian is challenging Bath Spa’s decision in the courts. His initial application for judicial review was refused on procedural grounds, but the judge – commendably – was sympathetic to his case, and now Mr Caspian is trying urgently to raise the funds for an appeal – possibly as far as the European Court of Human Rights. If you would like to contribute, please go to his crowd funding page: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/free-speech-matters-round2/?utm_source=case_page_social&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=sumo_widget. In our increasingly totalitarian society, where freedom of speech and thought are becoming rapidly diminishing memories, it will be money well spent!
But the point, surely, is that this case should never have arisen in the first place. Mr Caspian’s aims were and are wholly admirable, so why was he not allowed to ask questions? After all, we need to know the answers – especially in light of controversies at the Tavistock Clinic, where five Consultants recently resigned because of complaints they were being pressured into improperly recommending children for treatment without adequate assessment (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/911736;https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/07/nhs-transgender-clinic-accused-covering-negative-impacts-puberty/). Add to that the increasing numbers of children choosing to detransition, and you’d think this research would be welcomed – if not demanded – as a matter of urgency!
But no. In our brave new world of LGB and Transgender rights and inclusivity, no one is permitted even to hint that the new value system might have darker undertones. Even where there is clear and incontrovertible evidence that all is not well! Instead, bound by the totalitarian mindset of ‘liberal’ Britain, it would appear we all have to subscribe to the creed of sexual freedom and ‘choice’.
What has happened to the spirit of intellectual enquiry and debate – of fearless investigation into the truth – upon all of which Britain once prided itself?
We are in the middle of what has been designated gay pride month, with marches and celebrations all over the country, and enthusiastic support from supermarket chains, the media, government bodies and even, heaven help us, from some churches. This, despite the fact the lifestyles being promoted carry serious and significant health risks, undermine traditional family values, and significantly contribute to mental health problems for both children and adults. By which we mean that the endorsement of sexual licence, promiscuity, and what was formerly labelled perversion, has an unhealthily obsessive sexualising effect on individuals who lack the emotional maturity and discernment to exercise restraint, and suffer the inevitable consequences.
Yet even despite that, we are all expected, without question, to buy into the lie that we can be whatever we choose and act as we want, without any kind of consequence.
This is not the doctrine of love, but of untrammelled licentiousness. It is demonic.
A well known supermarket chain, when recently quizzed over its enthusiastic support for behaviours many in the community regard as medically dangerous and religiously offensive, replied, ‘The LGBT+ community has only recently received understanding and acceptance from most of the general population, and as we are an inclusive company that sells more than just food, we want to be a part of a movement that removes stigma, ends injustice and inequality and ensures people feel wholly comfortable in their own skin.’
Highly commendable, but the company refused point blank to address the effects on children, and of health issues attaching to the behaviours being endorsed. Similarly, they dismissed recent problems occasioned by transgender men insisting on using female facilities, where they then assaulted women, saying they weren’t ‘interested’ (cf. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life).
What are we coming to when the State endorses and promotes without question ‘theories’ that cause clear and quantifiable damage? Why are sexual rights campaigners and bureaucrats so afraid of questions? And why must anything that runs contrary to the new and pernicious Weltanschuung be silenced?
The questions need to be asked, and answers based on independent evidence need to be given. Mr Caspian should be allowed to carry out his research.