Scenario: A learner on a counselling course has expressed gender realist/critical beliefs online or elsewhere. Transwomen in general were described as ersatz (an inferior substitute for the real thing) or, pretending to be women. Students on the course who are offended by these statements suggest to the tutor that ethics codes (BACP / BPS) have been breached and they complain to the tutor. They ask for the matter to be discussed at the next tutorial event. The student fears, as did James Esses in his legal action against Metanoia that they will be thrown off the course, or, cancelled.
The Law: Gender critical beliefs are Protected and cannot in ANY context be subjected to a detriment, including harassment or disciplinary action, provided that they are not expressed in a way that is “objectively abusive.” In law there is a distinction between “offensive” and “abusive.” The courts in the Forstater Ruling have been clear; a belief is protected even if it is offensive, shocking, or disturbing to others. For a statement to be “objectively abusive” and lose its protection, it usually must involve targeting a specific named individual with slurs; threat of violence and incitement to lawbreaking, or, persistent targeted bullying in a workplace or clinical setting. So a generalised statement about the nature of biological sex and its relationship to gender identity, while controversial, does not meet the legal threshold for “abusive” that would strip a person of their Article 10 Free Speech or Equality Act Protections.
The counselling authorities may take a different line, and claim that a hostile description of trans people, such as “pretending to be” or “not real,” breaches the Ethics Code of Respect. Most codes of ethics (including the BPS and BACP) base “Respect” on the principle of “honouring the dignity and worth of all individuals.” An authority would argue: while you have the right to believe sex is immutable, using words like “pretending” or “Ersatz” is harassing or demeaning conduct. They will try to classify the language as a “lack of respect” even if the belief is protected. They say such language denies an individual’s “personhood” or is an attack on their dignity.
The Defence
A professional body cannot simply redefine “Respect” as “Anything that makes people feel validated.” If a therapist believes that “trans people are the sex they were born as,” then calling the alternative “pretending” “passing off as” or “Ersatz” is a logical extension of that belief. A belief is protected, however rude it seems, providing that it is seen as worthy of respect in a democratic society, so a counselling authority cannot easily claim that stating the belief breaches their internal code of Respect. The expression of the belief is not an ethical breach provided it is not done in a way that constitutes illegal harassment (such as targeted bullying or shouting).
This puts counselling authorities in a bind. If their DEI claims the student is a bigot, or subjects them to the any form of harassment because of their views, they are the ones breaching the code of Respect. Their only course is to accuse the student of disrespectful “tone” but that is a very high bar to prove and as far as I know, has never succeeded. The term “trans women are men pretending to be women” is not abusive “tone”.
Regarding The Harassment Angle
The attempt by “offended” fellow students to “debate” a specific student’s written words in a classroom, especially when these words have been “cleared” in a former disciplinary action, is highly likely to meet the legal definition of harassment under Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. Harassment exists in a professional or educational context where it creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment, and it targets a specific individual – the hapless student- for a protected characteristic (their belief).
Such a co-ordinated action by a group of offended students colluding to write to a Course Tutor, is not equivalent to a group of offended citizens writing to a newspaper. It is a form of collective policing, less interested in debate and more concerned with sanctioning a person whose views are antithetical to their view of what a counsellor “should be”. When they organise to complain about a fellow student, this satisfies the definition of Harassment and is itself a Breach of the BACP Code of Ethics. Forcing a public debate on a students protected belief confers humiliation and is hence harrasment.
Ironically, it is these hostile actions, not the protected belief that likely violate several BACP ethical principles, Namely:
- Respect: Failing to respect the Protected belief of a colleague.
- Integrity: Attempting to use the academic forum to “re-try” a matter already settled by an employer and the Free Speech Union ( in this specific case) .
- Justice: The BACP requires counsellors to be committed to the “fair and objective treatment of others” and the “avoidance of discrimination.” Targeting a peer for a legally protected belief is a failure of this duty.
The “UnSafety” Accusation
Students often claim they feel “unsafe” because of a peer’s views. Courts are increasingly sceptical of this. “Subjective” feelings of being unsafe do not override “objective” legal rights to hold a belief. A school or college has a duty to protect a student from their peers “cancel” campaign just as much as they have a duty to ensure the environment is inclusive. Tutors and Department Heads need to know that they have a Statutory Duty Of Care to protect a student from harassment by peers, for views that are protected under the Equality Act 2010. Learning providers should not “side” with students who disagree with those views; this may be hard for an individual tutor who holds ideological beliefs, but, the education environment has pivoted and teachers must obey the law.
If a student is pre-emptively warned of a targeted campaign or, witch-hunt- by a body of students who are hostile to their protected beliefs and right to express them, they need to write to their Learning provider to make it clear that their peers request to “debate” or “complain ” is an act of targeted harassment and a “hostile environment” that makes them feel unsafe in the peaceful continuance of their studies. The letter should contain an assertion that the views they hold are Protected under the Equality Act 2010.
Acceding to a debate on a settled issue and protected speech is unacceptable. While counselling courses often debate “ethics,” this should be limited to course content. The validity of a student’s protected conduct should never be the subject of a classroom discussion . Discussions of ethics should always be in general terms. Should a tutor allow students to target one individual, especially by a form of ambush, the College itself becomes liable for the harassment. They are essentially allowing a bunch of peers the right to be judge and jury regarding a matter that is non-negotiable in law.
Conclusion: We have seen professionals like Kathleen Stock and James Esses institutionally persecuted for views that some people find unacceptable. This has been reinforced by a DEI structure that mandates a particular belief system in the name of equality and inclusion. The legal landscape has changed.
Any coordinated attempt to “no-platform,” denigrate, or “penalise” a peer, or question their fitness to be a therapist, represents a Breach of the Law and the Ethics codes of the counselling authorities. Because the person who is the subject of this opinion piece has already been cleared with the help of the FSU, they have the “pioneer” advantage; the legal heavy lifting has already been done. A student is not at the mercy of their Learning Authority. They should remain firm that their lawful private beliefs are not a curriculum item for their peers to dissect.