James Caspian

A manufactured anti-trans martyr

Before we start, a quick, related announcement! I now have a YouTube Channel, where I’ll be talking more about the issues I talk about here, and bringing friends! To start, my friend

Billie

and I are going through an episode of Dr. Preston Sprinkle’s podcast “Theology in the Raw”, where he talks to Dr. Paul Eddy about detransition. You can start with the first episode here:

The claims

I recently heard of James Caspian for the first time while listening to Dr. Preston Sprinkle and Dr. Paul Eddy discuss detransitioning. You can actually see our first reaction to it on Episode 2 of Celestial Navigation, here (@13:01):

Here’s what Dr. Paul Eddy says in the podcast, in a conversation that is centered around the suppression of research that might be seen as “anti-trans”,

James Caspian, in 2017, just a master student at a university in the UK, wanted to just do a study on detransition and the board that, you know, verifies or imprimaturs dissertations said “no”. And one of the comments said “this is a politically incorrect topic”

Watch it here (@15:39) to get the tone of voice and reactioin from Dr. Sprinkle.

For context, Dr. Sprinkle’s PhD is in New Testament, and Dr. Eddy’s is in Religious Studies.

They are discussing a paper Dr. Eddy authored for Dr. Sprinkle’s Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender, titled, Rethinking Transition: On the History, Experience and Current Research Regarding Gender Transition, Transition Regret and Detransition. In it, he uses James Caspian as his first example of political bias in research covering transgender issues. He writes (page 48):

B. The Caspian – Bath Spa Controversy

In 2017, James Caspian, a student at Bath Spa University in Bath, England, proposed that he write his thesis for a master's degree in counselling and psychotherapy on the topic of detransition. The proposal was reportedly rejected by the university's ethics committee, in part because the topic of detransition could be considered “politically incorrect.”197 The actual ethics committee’s report, which was eventually made public by a Canadian news company, does state that “[e]ngaging in a potentially ‘politically incorrect’ piece of research carries a risk to the University,” and that “[a]ttacks on social media may not be confined to the researcher but may involve the University.” 198 It also offers several methodological concerns about the proposal. In response, Caspian sought to take the matter before the courts – including the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). 199 Caspian received financial assistance in his four-year legal challenge through a crowd sourcing campaign under the title of “Free Speech Matters,” along with the support from the Christian Legal Centre.200 In the end, the ECHR decided not to hear the case. The Caspian—Bath Spa U. affair has become common fare in news stories and documentaries on the transgender debate.201 Naturally, commentators and organizations on both sides of the political divide have lined up either for or against Caspian or the University.202

197 “Bath Spa University ‘Blocks Transgender Research,’” BBC News (September 25, 2017), https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41384473.

198 “Annex 1: Bath Spa University Research Ethics Approval Form” (for James Caspian’s research project), https://ici.radio-canada.ca/info/2019/05/transgenre-sexe-detransitionneurs-transition-identite-genre-orientation/img/Lettre/lettre-de-refus.html

199 Maggie Baska, “Psychotherapist blocked from studying ‘trans regret’ takes case to the EU human rights court,” Pink News (February 9, 2021), https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/02/09/james-caspian-transgender-trans-bath-spaeuropean-court-human-rights/.

200 Ibid.; James Caspian, “Free Speech Matters,” CrowdJustice (2019), www.crowdjustice.com/case/free-speechmatters-round2/. See also James Caspian, “My battle with the transgender thoughtpolice: James Caspian on the suppression of his research into people who detransition,” Spiked (February 22, 2019), https://www.spikedonline.com/2019/02/22/my-battle-with-the-transgender-thoughtpolice/.

201 E.g., “Detransitioning: Reversing a Gender Transition,” BBC Newsnight (November 26, 2019), “The Trans Train” [“Uppdrag Granskning”] Mission: Investigate (April 2, 2019), “Trans-Actions: An Exploration of Gender Dysphoria” (2018).

202 E.g., “James Caspian’s Ethics Review Form Posted Online,” TransSafety Network (February 13, 2021), https://transsafety.network/posts/james-caspian-ethics-review-leaked/; David Scullion, “Banned from Researching Trans: Perceived criticism of trans orthodoxy was too much for one university,” The Critic (February 17, 2021), https://thecritic.co.uk/banned-from-researching-trans/.

Links in Footnote 201 have been placed directly on the name of the video rather than the original URL format, which on Substack would have embedded the video here.

Some observations

Evaporating context

First, note that in the podcast, we lose *all* of the context after the first two sentences and the first mention of “politically incorrect”. His document does note that the reviewers also had methodological concerns, but this is missing from the podcast. He also notes in the paper that Caspian’s legal efforts had been rejected¹, but omits this from the podcast.

Abigail Thorn’s April 11th, 2024 tweet about the Cass Review is relevant here, as the Theology in the Raw podcast will likely be viewed far more than Dr. Eddy’s paper, but the paper gives cover to say “no, we included that context in the paper.” Thorn talks about how the Cass Review “exists to be cited (rather than read)”.

As a note, my blog posts tend to be quite long precisely because I don’t want to lose context. So, for example, in this post itself, I’ve quoted the full remarks by Dr. Eddy both in the podcasst and the paper. This allows the reader to draw their own conclusions, though of course I also offer my own as opinion.

James Caspian, as shown in a photo shared by Christian Concern

The actual rejection

Footnote 198 cites the actual document issued by the university’s reviewers. It’s unclear how this document came to light, but nevertheless, it’s available, and Dr. Eddy both knew about it and cites from it. I actually found it because of Dr. Eddy’s footnote here.

I recommend reading it yourself - the remainder of this will just be my impressions and thoughts.

I’d like to make a few observations of additional context that seems to have been summarized into a single line, “It also offers several methodological concerns about the proposal.”

The smallest possible sample size

The goal of this study was, in the review, “An examination of the experiences of people who have undergone reverse Gender Reassignment Surgery and/or have reversed a gender transition.” To be honest, I’d love to read a study like that. As we say in the podcast, detransitioners (while rare²) deserve full support, and if anything can be learned from their experience, we should do that.

But it falls apart in literally the next line (emphasis mine)

Number and type of proposed participants: Between one and four people who have undergone reverse Gender Reassignment Surgery as part of reversing a gender transition, or who have reversed a gender transition socially and/or medically without necessarily reversing surgery at least two years prior to interview.

A qualitative study that could have included exactly one detransitioner (surgical or not) is the study that raised over £20,000 of crowdfunding to challenge its rejection in court. And no more than four people!

Dr. Sprinkle and Dr. Eddy focus on sample sizes repeatedly in both the paper and the podcast, but somehow Dr. Eddy doesn’t note it here.

Even more shocking, the sample size isn’t even one of the reasons it was rejected.

Initial Approval

The response includes this sentance: “The research project was initially approved by the ethics committee, however when the researcher attempted to recruit participants none were forthcoming.” It goes on to describe an amended application, which is what was rejected.

This completely debunks Dr. Eddy’s implication that it was rejected simply for the fact that Caspian, “wanted to just do a study on detransition” (in Dr. Eddy’s words). In fact it lays waste to it, because Caspian’s initial study was approved.

Immediately prior to the timestamp above, Dr. Eddy describes this event as one of three “seismic moments.”³ I simply cannot help but note that, if one of the three biggest moments of “politics” in trans research is one in which the researcher’s initial work was actually approved, the case for demonstrating political suppression of research in this area is surprisingly week.

“politically incorrect”

Dr. Eddy notes that the reviewers described the research as, “politically incorrect”. Here are the two relevant quotes:

• Engaging in a potentially ‘politically incorrect’ piece of research carries a risk to the University.

• Explanation needs to be provided as to why the research material is ‘minimised, dismissed and politically incorrect’. Further consideration then needs to be given to the ethical implications of this.

It took me a minute to notice it, so I’ll highlight it: both uses of “politically incorrect” are in quotes. The second one is longer and asking a question: why is the research material, “minimised, dismissed, and politically incorrect.” That very much appears to be quoting James Caspian and his research proposal. Which is to say (likely in both instances⁴), the reviewers weren’t calling it “politically incorrect”, Caspian was.

Risk to the University

The revised research proposal (unlike the original, which was approved) included intent to, as the reviewers describe: “advertise on an International website.”

That last part is then the context of the following statements about risk to the university:

• 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. This needs to be assessed by the University Ethics Committee.

• Risk to the University – the posting of unpleasant material on blogs or social media may be detrimental to the reputation of the University. This needs to be assessed and addressed.

These are the only two cases in which concern for the University is expressed, and both include instructions to address those concerns. Far from being used as a grounds to reject the proposal, the reviewers clearly envisioned those concerns being mitigated, though ultimately this review rejects the proposal due this and other factors.

Lack of confidentiality

The reviewers also say this (Emphasis mine):

He also needs to make it very clear to the participants what will happen to the data. He guarantees that the data will be seen only by the researcher. This is not accurate. Given the context in which the study will be undertaken, the data will need to be made available to the supervisor(s), the examiners and will also feature in the dissemination through journal articles and conference presentations.

Dr. Eddy is a professor and I can only assume that his employer (Bethel University) would also reject a research proposal which inaccurately promised more confidentiality than would actually exist.

Additional confidentiality issues are called out in the document as well.

Safety of participants

The reviewers cite inadequate safety of participants. I can speak from experience that having to discuss my past experiences with gender can be deeply uncomfortable, and psychological support is necessary to be able to do so well. There are still some things I rarely talk about with anyone. Caspian apparently failed to ensure that such support would occur:

Safeguarding the participant - there needs to be written confirmation not just that personal therapy will take place for the participant but what that therapy will be so that it can be assessed as appropriate. There then needs to be confirmation that support is available where necessary throughout the duration of the project and beyond it.

Safety of the researcher

Last but not least, the reviewers repeatedly express concern for Caspian himself, concerns which, again, were surfaced by Caspian. (emphasis mine)

The researcher states that there may be issues in advertising on this website from trans activists. He refers to the risk of attack on social media and his attitude to this is that he doesn’t engage in this form of communication and so it is unlikely to affect him. He needs to rethink this. He also needs to rethink the face to face interviews; given his concerns with the sensitive nature of the topic and the lack of screening in place, how can his safety be guaranteed?

Caspian sees a silver lining?

Here’s what Caspian himself said after his final appeal to the European Court of Human Rights was declined (emphasis mine)

This was the case that never got a hearing. Yet over the four years since it began, the problem of universities preventing research on spurious grounds and hence preventing free speech; and the subject of my research - the huge rise in gender detransitions - were brought to public attention in the media, and kept there. Ironically, had Bath Spa University allowed me to carry out my research, both subjects would not have had the worldwide exposure they did have, thanks to their prohibition. Over the last four years I have given countless interviews to newspapers, TV documentaries, podcasts, radio news and discussion programmes,magazines; taken part in meetings at the House of Commons, House of Lords, and talked with policy makers, politicians, educators and journalists across the political spectrum almost continuously, about my research and the problem of the suppression of free speech. This has raised the profile of detransitioners, a much maligned group, and raised awareness of the impairment of free expression in academia.

So from Caspian’s perspective, the rejection of his proposal was even *better* for his cause than if they had allowed him to do it. And speaking of his cause, it’s difficult to read the above and not come to the conclusion that Caspian had an agenda going into this, to “raise the profile of detransitioners”, etc.

It’s also worth noting again that Caspian lost all appeals. Typically, one would conclude that this indicates that his case was baseless, not that there is a grand conspiracy to suppress free speech.

Summary

As near as I can tell, Caspian never actually completed the Masters program at Bath Spa University⁵. Which is to say, rather than doing as the review board said, and pivoting to a less ethically complex research project, he simply dropped out of the program, abandoning whatever tuition and fees he’d invested. He did not do what most students would do, which is to simply choose another topic. Even after dropping out, it’s not like he’s gone and worked with even anti-trans research organizations like Genspect to pursue his proposal. It just vanished. It does make me wonder how committed he truly was to his education or to this research.

A reminder: as Dr. Eddy writes, he is nowhere near the first to cite Caspian this way. He’s not the one who made Caspian into an anti-trans folk hero. But looking at his particular treatment of Caspian is, I think, educational.

What’s frustrating to me is that, again, I only know all of the above because of sources Dr. Eddy linked to. So he was fully aware of them (or cited sources he had not read). But he glosses over the clearly problematic aspects of this “study”, barely mentioning them in his paper, and not at all in the podcast interview. The casual listener comes away thinking this is proof of clear political bias, when it appears to be the case of a university rightfully rejecting an unethical proposal, for reasons having nothing to do with politics. Moreover, this appears to be the case of anti-trans activists manufacturing a martyr story, presumably because they have been unable to find a real one.

Thanks for reading, and It’s two weeks from election day - please get out and vote⁶!

1. Dr. Eddy’s paper does not appear to cite a source for the result from the European Court of Human Rights, but I found it on Caspian’s crowd funding page. He raised over £23,000 for his legal challenges and was rejected by courts at every step.

2. Literally today, a new study was published showing that trans youth detransition at very low rates. You can read about it from the outstanding journalist

Erin Reed

here. While you’re there, I highly recommend subscribing (free or paid) to her work - she’s doing vital work as a member of the trans community and is the journalist doing the most comprehensive work covering issues affecting us.

New Study: Trans Youth Satisfied 6-10 Years Later With Very Low Loss To Follow Up

3. The other two are a court case, Bell v. Tavistock, and the airing of a segment on detransitioners on 60 Minutes and the subsequent criticism of it. Bell lost her case accusing Tavistock of wrongdoing, and the airing of the 60 Minutes segment shows that there was not a blackout of discussion of detransition. Understandably, when reporting happens about trans people, trans people and advocates may have opinions on that. In the case of the 60 Minutes segment, I watched it and personally agree that it was a highly irresponsible piece of journalism. Do they have the right to air it? Of course. But I also have the right to say what I think about it. The same is true of Dr. Sprinkle and Dr. Eddy’s conversation.

4. I can’t say for sure, but the fact that the reviewers are asking why it’s “politically incorrect” makes me relatively confident that the first instance isn’t just the reviewers using “scare quotes” around a contentious term. It makes far more sense that, in both instances, the reviewers are quoting Caspian back to himself.

5. It’s not listed on his credentials.

6. Yes, absolutely please vote for Kamala Harris and other Democrats. The Republican Party has become wildly anti-trans and is already hurting so many of us (I’ll have more to say on that soon). If you are a life-long Republican, and simply cannot bring yourself to vote for Democrats (but seriously, consider it), please consider at least not supporting the Republicans, at least this time.