[Kaiserschmarrn]

Bath Spa university bars research into transgender surgery regrets


Pulteney Bridge in Bath. James Caspian wanted to conduct the research for a master’s degree in counselling and psychotherapy at Bath Spa University

A researcher has been refused permission to study cases of people who have surgery to reverse gender reassignment by a university that said it risked generating controversy on social media sites. The proposal was rejected with an explanation noting that it was a potentially “politically incorrect” piece of research and could lead to material being posted online that “may be detrimental to the reputation of the institution”.

James Caspian, a psychotherapist, who wanted to conduct the research for a master’s degree in counselling and psychotherapy at Bath Spa University, accused it of failing to follow “the most basic tenets of academic and intellectual freedom of enquiry”. Mr Caspian, 58, a counsellor who specialises in therapy for transgender people, embarked on the research after speaking to a surgeon who had carried out operations to reverse gender reassignment surgery, as people came to regret their decision. Mr Caspian was at first given approval by Bath Spa for his research, which needed clearance from the university’s ethics sub-committee in order for him to conduct the interviews

He was, however, unable to find people willing to take part and asked to amend the proposal for his master’s so that it would include women who had transitioned to men and reverted to living as women, but without reversing their surgery. Mr Caspian also asked if he could post a request on an online forum for people working in this field — the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) — as a means of recruiting participants. He was told this would require a new submission to the university’s ethics sub-committee which, after discussion with the dean of the relevant department, rejected this request.

On the sub-committee’s rejection form, it said: “Engaging in a potentially ‘politically incorrect’ piece of research carries a risk to the university. “Attacks on social media may not be confined to the researcher but may involve the university.” Under a section on ethical issues needing further consideration, it added: “The posting of unpleasant material on blogs or social media may be detrimental to the reputation of the university.” It also said that there were potential risks to Mr Caspian’s own safety and wellbeing and in ensuring the confidentiality of participants and their personal details.

He said that “in the language of psychotherapy, my ego is strong enough to withstand attack or criticism should I read it elsewhere than social media”. Referring to the reply, Mr Caspian, who has lodged a complaint with the university, said: “That would mean that the university cannot withstand disagreement, argument, dissension. “Where would stand the reputation of a university that cannot follow the most basic tenets of academic and intellectual freedom of enquiry? I am more concerned about the potential impact of that stance on its reputation than I am about possible comments on social media.”

Bath Spa University said that it was unable to comment while the complaint was being investigated.

Total noobs on the ethics committee. You are supposed to make up other excuses, not mention political correctness or social media as an official reason

[foxdemon]

I think it is best that the ethics sub committee stated the honest reasons for their decision. It is now on record for future reference. I can understand why they are concerned about the university's reputation but that isn't really within the scope of an ethics committee. Rather they should be worrying about ethical issues relating to science.

The researcher is correct to assert the principle of acedemic freedom and that the university ought place greater importance on upholding that principle than worrying about the popular opinions that are currently in vogue.

[Heisenberg]

Bath Spa University has a "reputation", does it?

[AFAIK]

It looks like the Economist isn't worried that pursuing journalism may harm it's reputation.
https://www.1843magazine.com/features/w ... 27tbegirls

[Kaiserschmarrn]

After she stopped taking testosterone, her body began to change again. Over the next two years, body fat gradually migrated back to her hips and thighs. She lost some muscle mass and began to menstruate again. Her sex drive, which had been “ridiculous”, became “manageable”. She became “more emotional”: “I cried a ton less on testosterone.” She watched the hard edges of her face soften into roundness and her rough skin become smooth.

Perhaps The Economist should be worried about its reputation, as it now promotes sexist pseudo-science. Differences in sex drive and emotions have no biological basis.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

There is a concerning trend in confusing our cultural expectations/stereotypes of what constitutes being male or female and observed biological and psychological differences between men and women. For example, if a child says he or she likes blue or pink, likes dresses or trousers, likes climbing trees or playing with dolls, and then says they want to be a boy or a girl, I'm not sure how ethical it is to offer that child the option of altering their biochemistry, possibly with long-term permanent consequences, while assuming that child has considered the full ramifications of gender change and how deeply they have considered what being male/female actually means to them.

There are definitely people who are born with male or female sex organs but have always seen themselves as the opposite gender, undergone a change, and been satisfied being who they want to be. If someone with a penis wants to grow breasts, it's not something I care about, and it doesn't affect me in any way. However, I'm not convinced of the ethics involved with children.

[Decky]

Universities are profit making bussineses, of course they would put the reputation of the institution first and academic freedom last. Why is that right wing people go on and on about the free market being great all the time but they then complain about the inevitable results of their imposition of free market principles over the last few decades when they have held a monopoly on power in the west?

[Pants-of-dog]

I am not sure the ethicc committee made the right decision.

While they are correct that such a study would be used by transphobes in online debates, that is easy to ignore, and let's face it, most transphobes are not that good at citing studies,

My main concern, though, is whether or not the ethics committee consulted with trans people on this decision. The study has possible benefits for trans people, so I can see how trans people might actually want this study to go through.

A lot of unethical things have happened because ethical people picked up a cuase without consulting the people affected.

[foxdemon]

I am not sure the ethicc committee made the right decision.

While they are correct that such a study would be used by transphobes in online debates, that is easy to ignore, and let's face it, most transphobes are not that good at citing studies,

My main concern, though, is whether or not the ethics committee consulted with trans people on this decision. The study has possible benefits for trans people, so I can see how trans people might actually want this study to go through.

A lot of unethical things have happened because ethical people picked up a cuase without consulting the people affected.

See, that's the thing. Best practice in research involving human subjects is to involve them though consultation rather than treat them like guinea pigs. This is already the case in areas of research such as autism. That is a matter of ethics.

The ethics committee is there to focus on research ethics, not to make calls on whether or not the uni should prevent research that might be controversial. Given the subject of research has been identified as possibly controversial, the ethics committee might verify procedures are in place to protect the identities of anyone involved. That would be in scope.

I think we agree that the ethics committee hasn't make the best decision and ideally they would reconsider that decision with attention to the principle of acedemic freedom.

Anyway, I don't think we have much to argue about here apart from the fact you only mention 'transphobes'. Clearly the university was worried firstly about social conservatives using the results of the research to justify their position and secondly, that PC ppl would then blame the uni for conducting such research.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

More on this:

The new taboo: More people regret sex change and want to ‘detransition’, surgeon says

Dr. Miroslav Djordjevic says more people, particularly transgender women over 30, are asking for reversal surgery, yet their regrets remain taboo


Dr. Miroslav Djordjevic says he has been approached by transgender people from countries all over the Western world, united by an acute sense of regret, who wish to reverse their gender reassignment.

Five years ago, Professor Miroslav Djordjevic, the world-leading genital reconstructive surgeon, received a patient at his Belgrade clinic. It was a transgender patient who had surgery at a different clinic to remove male genitalia – and had since changed their mind. That was the first time Djordjevic had ever been contacted to perform a so-called “reversal” surgery. Over the next six months, another six people also approached him, similarly wanting to reverse their procedures. They came from countries all over the Western world, Britain included, united by an acute sense of regret. At present, Djordjevic has a further six prospective people in discussions with his clinic about reversals and two currently undergoing the process itself; reattaching the male genitalia is a complex procedure and takes several operations over the course of a year to fully complete, at a cost of some euros 18,000 (pounds 16,000). Those wishing the reversal, Djordjevic says, have spoken to him about crippling levels of depression following their transition and in some cases even contemplated suicide. “It can be a real disaster to hear these stories,” says the 52-year-old. And yet, in the main part, they are not being heard. Last week, it was alleged that Bath Spa University has turned down an application for research on gender reassignment reversal because it was a subject deemed “potentially politically incorrect”.

James Caspian, a psychotherapist who specializes in working with transgender people, suggested the research after a conversation with Djordjevic in 2014 at a London restaurant where the Serbian told him about the number of reversals he was seeing, and the lack of academic rigour on the subject. According to Caspian, the university initially approved his proposal to research “detransitioning”. He then amassed some preliminary findings that suggested a growing number of young people – particularly young women – were transitioning their gender and then regretting it. But after submitting the more detailed proposal to Bath Spa, he discovered he had been referred to the university ethics committee, which rejected it over fears of criticism that might be directed towards the university. Not least on social media from the powerful transgender lobby. Speaking this week, Caspian described himself as “astonished” at the decision, while Bath Spa University has launched an internal inquiry into why the research was turned down and is at present refusing to comment further.

Until the investigation is complete, Djordjevic, who performs around 100 surgeries a year both at his Belgrade clinic and New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital, is unwilling to give his exact opinion on the apparent rejection, but admits he is baffled as there is a desperate need for greater understanding in reversals. “Definitely reversal surgery and regret in transgender persons is one of the very hot topics,” he says. “Generally, we have to support all research in this field.” Djordjevic, who has 22 years’ experience of genital reconstructive surgery, operates under strict guidelines. Before any surgery, patients must undergo psychiatric evaluation for a minimum of between one and two years, followed by a hormonal evaluation and therapy. He also requests two professional letters of recommendation for each person and attempts to remain in contact for as long as possible following the surgery. Currently, he still speaks with 80 per cent of his former patients.

Following conversations with those upon whom he has helped perform reversals, Djordjevic says he has real concerns about the level of psychiatric evaluation and counselling that people receive elsewhere before gender reassignment first takes place. Djordjevic fears money is at the root of the problem, and says his reversal patients have told him about making initial inquiries to surgeries and simply being asked to send a cheque in return. “I have heard stories of people visiting surgeries who only checked if they had the money to pay,” he says. “We have to stop this. As a community, we have to make very strong rules: nobody who wants to make this type of surgery or just make money can be allowed to do so.”

To date, all of his reversals have been transgender women aged over 30 wanting to restore their male genitalia. Over the last two decades, the average age of his patients has more than halved, from 45 to 21. While the World Professional Association for Transgender Health guidelines currently state nobody under the age of 18 should undergo surgery, Prof Djordjevic fears this age limit could soon be reduced to include minors. Were that to happen, he says, he would refuse to abide by the rules. “I’m afraid what will happen five to 10 years later with this person,” he says. “It is more than about surgery; it’s an issue of human rights. I could not accept them as a patient as I’d be afraid what would happen to their mind.”

Referrals to adult and child gender identity clinics in the UK have increased dramatically over the past 10 years. In April, the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, the only clinic for adolescents in England, reported 2,016 referrals to its gender identity development service, a 42 per cent rise compared to the previous year, which in itself marked a 104 per cent increase on the year before that. The clinic stresses the majority of its young referrals do not end up receiving physical treatment through the service. While NHS guidelines state young people should not be given cross-sex hormone treatment until 16, concerns have been raised about the lack of regulation, particularly in the private sector.

Earlier this month, it was revealed a Monmouthshire MP, Dr Helen Webberley, was being investigated by the General Medical Council (GMC), following complaints from two GPs that she had treated children as young as 12 with hormones at her private clinic, which specialises in gender issues. Webberley insists she has done nothing wrong, and there were no “decisions or judgments” made on the claims against her. “There are many children under 16 who are desperate to start what they would consider their natural puberty earlier than that,” she said this month.

Djordjevic feels differently, and admits he has deep reservations about treating children with hormonal drugs before they reach puberty – not least as by blocking certain hormones before they have sufficiently developed means they may find it difficult to undergo reassignment surgery in the future. “Ethically, we have to help any person over the world starting from three to four years of age, but in the best possible way,” he says. “If you change general health with any drug, I’m not a supporter of that theory.” These are profoundly life-changing matters around which he – like many in his industry – feels far better debate is required to promote new understanding. But at the moment, it seems, that debate is simply being shut down.

The Sunday Telegraph