In 2017, James Caspian, an experienced psychotherapist, attempted to undertake a research project into the phenomenon of ‘detransitioning’, where men and women who have transitioned to another gender come to regret their decision and take steps to reverse the process. But Bath Spa University rejected his research proposal on the grounds that it was ‘politically incorrect’ and ‘might cause offense’. The university’s ethics committee said it could result in criticism of the university on social media.

Since then, Caspian has been fighting the university in the courts. This week, the High Court rejected his bid for a judicial review on procedural grounds. He plans to appeal the decision. spiked asked him about his research and the political climate that led to its suppression. spiked: What made you want to research detransitioning?

James Caspian: In 2014, I met with a surgeon from Belgrade called Dr Miroslav Djordjevic, who is very experienced in doing gender-reassignment surgeries. He told me that he had recently done around seven reverse gender-reassignment surgeries. Natal men who had undergone genital surgery elsewhere but had regretted it went to Dr Djordjevic to reverse it. But once you’ve had your genitals removed, you can’t actually reverse that. All he could do was a cosmetic surgery to create the semblance of a penis and testicles. Since our initial conversation, he has done several more reversals and he has been calling publicly for more research into it. I’ve been working as a psychotherapist for 10 years in a clinical setting with patients who were considering gender reassignment or were undergoing it. I was counselling people referred to me by doctors and assessing people’s suitability for treatment. I was very concerned to hear about this phenomenon of detransitioning.

I went to Bath Spa University and enrolled on an MA course in counselling and psychotherapy. The vast bulk of that course was a piece of research of one’s choosing and my intention was to research detransitioning. After two years of learning about research methodology, I put in a proposal to do a qualitative study into people who had reversed gender reassignment surgery. And the university passed it, saying the proposal was good. But then I had problems getting people to talk to me about their experience. One man who had detransitioned contacted me to say they were too traumatised to speak about it.

Then I was contacted by the spokeswoman for a group of young women in the USA. These women had transitioned to male, taken testosterone and many of them had their breasts removed. They regretted the decision and reversed their transitions, but they did not reverse their surgery. ‘We just live with the scars’, they said. So I went back to the university to ask to broaden the study to people who had reversed their transition but without necessarily reversing the surgery. But when I submitted this to the university’s ethics committee, they rejected it. They said that to undertake research into a potentially ‘politically incorrect’ subject (their words) could result in criticism of the research and the university on social media. I was absolutely flabbergasted.

spiked: Why is the research so important? Caspian: There is some old research into people who regretted transitioning but the studies are very small. Some of them only look at 10 patients and they aren’t particularly long-term.

Besides, the gender field has changed quite a lot in the past 10 or 15 years. It became evident to me that there was a growing number of young people, particularly young women, who were having surgery and then regretting it – in numbers we have never seen before. There have been big changes as use of the internet, social media and smartphones became widespread. The young women that I had been hearing from said they had been drawn into trans as a kind of a movement. Many of them had discovered trans on the internet. They would spend hours online with a community of people that welcomed them. It seemed exciting, it offered promise as something that could resolve their considerable difficulties. But of course it didn’t. Then when they detransitioned, that community rejected them.

We’ve arrived at a point today where trans has become a political entity and a political statement, aligned with identity politics and the social-justice movement. I talk to a lot of people who have incredibly strong views on trans issues, to the point where they become emotionally unstable when arguing about them. Actually, these tend to be people who have very little knowledge about what trans is, particularly clinical knowledge. And that is not good for safe clinical practice because policy is affected by this highly charged political atmosphere around trans. spiked: In what ways is trans politics affecting clinical practice?

Caspian: One clear example is the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy. This was conceived to ban conversion therapy for gay people and was extended to include trans people. I was on the board of the psychotherapy regulator when it was being broadened and I was asked to advise on it. When I read it, I realised immediately that it was dangerous. It was influenced by trans activists who wanted to prevent any questioning of self-declared trans identity.

I persistently advised that the wording should make it clear that some people detransition or regret transitioning. I wanted to make it safe for therapists, doctors and social workers to work with people who wanted to reverse their transition. Under the terms of the Memorandum, as it stands, they could be struck off their professional register. It would prevent professionals working ethically and safely with anyone who wanted to detransition. The political nature of the Memorandum became clear when someone wrote a letter in the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) journal, sounding notes of caution about the transitioning of children. A group called on the journal’s editor to say that she should never have allowed that letter to be published. The editor apologised and another letter appeared, saying that ‘the Memorandum of Understanding makes it clear that affirmation is non-negotiable’. The affirmation approach to transitioning means that a doctor must affirm a patient’s trans identity. So it was just as I had said right at the beginning: that it could lead to clinicians thinking that they had to affirm without really delving into the long-term histories of their patients.