James Esses has written an excellent piece in the Spectator in a genre I call ‘shocking but not surprising’ about his time as a volunteer at the counselling service, Childline. Esses claims that, after five years , his contract was terminated for ideological reasons. Here is an extract:
Over time, I began to notice a change in the presentation of children coming through to speak to me. Increasing numbers of children were telling me that they were ‘trans’; that they felt trapped in the wrong body. These children were also becoming younger and younger.
Some of the foundational principles of counselling include exploration, neutrality and not going into the conversation with a pre-determined outcome. However, I noticed that gender ideology was becoming more prevalent within Childline. I believed this was in breach of the core therapeutic ethics of the charity.
It became clear that Childline were collaborating more closely with Stonewall. The first time I became aware of this was when I attended a shift and noticed that there were Stonewall posters plastered throughout the counselling room. They read: “Some People Are Trans; Get Over It.” This immediately raised red flags for me, especially given safeguarding concerns that have emerged regarding Stonewall. Examples of this include Stonewall’s statement that toddlers can “recognise their trans identity”, recommending the book Are You a Boy or Are You a Girl (which suggests that children can be trapped in the wrong body) for two-year-olds, as well as glorifying double mastectomies in their Christmas cards. Stonewall’s CEO, Nancy Kelley, has even previously compared ‘gender critical’ beliefs (that sex is binary and immutable) to anti-Semitism.
I raised my concerns with senior management within the organisation at numerous meetings and even submitted a briefing document. I assumed that I would be listened to, especially given the significant implications for the welfare of vulnerable children. My concerns were acknowledged but ultimately ignored, with no action taken.
Esses goes on to explain how he was cancelled because his ethical concerns went against the charity’s new-found ideology.
Around the same time, I had started to speak out publicly about my concerns regarding gender ideology and the risk of harm to children. Childline sought to limit my free speech from the outset by requiring me not to refer to the fact that I was a Childline counsellor in any of my advocacy.
When I requested them to re-consider their position in the interests of transparency, I found myself invited to a meeting with the head of Childline. At this meeting, I was informed, without so much as having a conversation, that my volunteering with Childline was being terminated with immediate effect and that I should not come in for my next shift. I appealed the decision, which was swiftly rejected, even though it was found that there had been numerous policy breaches relating to how my complaint was initially handled.
The fact that Childline terminated my contract after five years of service, without a single concern regarding the standards or ethics of my counselling, made it clear to me that this decision was based on ideology.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“That is my take, but make up your own minds by reading the full piece.”
It is behind a paywall.
https://12ft.io often gets you past some paywalls. Works well on Telegraph articles.
Thank you.
By the second paragraph, they are telling us….
“As Tate, who denies the allegations, waits to find out what will happen next, the misogynistic philosophy he has built is still thriving among social media followers. In the real world the effect has been significant.”
They can’t help themselves, and this is certainly not objective. Misogyny is defined as a hatred of women. Tate doesn’t hate women. He has a traditional view of how the sex roles are or should be played out in society. From what I’ve seen his focus is mostly on the man, and taking responsibility for their actions, and playing the provider and protector in relationships. Its a bit old fashioned if you like your men soft and weepy, but it isn’t what ts played to be. That so many leftie educators should want to spend time on making sure that young boys aren’t responsible, self reliant, ambitious or competitive, but rather compliant, and passive says a lot more about them that it does about Tate, imo.
Just expanding the point a little. I think Tate is what we used to call a ‘highly eligible bachelor’. He probably meets a far higher proportion of women, who see their opportunities in, shall we say ‘gold-digging’. Its the same for the wives of professional footballers. Are they complaining about their partners misogynism while they are spending £100k a week, driving Ferrari’s, and up to their firm buttocks in Gucci. It was a similar argument of feminism about the ‘Male Patriarchy’ because a handful of super successful and competitive men have vast wealth, then try to apply that rhetoric to the typical male in a typical marriage with a typical woman.
I know nothing about Tate but my gut tells me that his enemies are my enemies.
As for “man up” and “be a man” I think the behaviours those phrases are aimed at emphasising are generally helpful but it’s unfortunate they are sex-specific. I’m a man so it doesn’t hit me in the way it might hit a woman but to me they say “be stoical in the face of adversity and take responsibility for your own actions”. Possibly at some point in the past the general perception was that those were more typically male behaviours and that may or may not be true. I wonder if we should try to out that behind us and agree that those qualities are generally positive. Btw I’m not denying that males and female females might on average have different tendencies. I tend to think that people should think of themselves as individuals and not worry about their sex, and be strong in themselves, whatever that brings for them.
”Man-up’ a problem phrase? good grief; it is like a 1984 manipulation of language, I wish some of our politicians (male/female/in between) would ‘man up’ and get a few things sorted out.
Not a problem phrase for me – but I suppose it might be for women who could interpret it as implying that those qualities were exclusively or predominantly male. But I tend to think we should not get hung up on such things. But I can’t presume to speak for women.
Why is this unfortunate, ie, why shouldn’t woman be able to man up? The phrase is historical and ultimatively comes from the fact that men were expected to be soldiers/ fighters and women weren’t. How can the fact that this used to be the case possibly negatively affect someone? Any attempt to create or enforce politically correct language is evil.
Yes, indeed – I agree.
Tate has been a psy-op. Stop glorifying him. And don’t underestimate the enemy.
I’m curious as to why you say that. Care to explain further..?
Is that the best you’ve got.? Downvote me because I asked for an expanded answer.? Come on, engage in the discussion. We might learn something from each other…
Don’t know Tate, don’t really care either, but an online (non-Google) search of ‘who is Andrew Tate’ gives you pages and pages of MSM vitriol about him. He’s obviously hit a non-narrative nerve: perhaps one reason they’re so narked is that his classically patriarchal misogyny (where women can actually call themselves women) is getting more attention than wokerati transgender misogyny (where women can’t). That, and encouraging boys to be boys. Allegedly.
classically patriarchal misogyny
Or so. Judging from comments in the Weekly Sceptic podcast (I hate real-time media because I can read much faster than people usually speek), the guy is an ex-kickboxer- turned-pimp with an internet presence for self-marketing. Guaranteed to drive certain people up the wall in anger but otherwise, not exactly a savoury or much important character.
Entirely agree he’s probably a loathsome individual with possible criminal intent, I was just making an – admittedly tangential – point about how MSM rage about his misogyny (it seems to be the point du jour in a lot of headlines) yet are fully embracing of wokerati misogyny. Nuff said: he’s not worth the attention.
Neither, actually, and I’d quite like it if the entire internet stopped trying so hard to make me care about him.
“Some pupils are giving up on studying for exams”. How many more young people are giving up studying for exams or in the worst cases giving up on life because they have been brainwashed by Greta Thunberg, Extinction Rebellion etc. to believe that climate change means that they have no future. Surely these unfortunate victims need a bit of sympathetic “re-education”, or at least being presented with alternative points of view so they can make up their own minds. The same applies to gender confused teenagers who are being brainwashed into taking damaging puberty blockers by woke doctors or groups such as Mermaids.
It’s funny how right on people only call it brainwashing when it involves opinions they don’t agree with, otherwise it’s education or empowerment.
The law states that teachers must not promote partisan political views and should offer a balanced overview of opposing views when political issues are taught
Is the law being followed in schools?
https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2022/02/17/political-impartiality-guidance-for-schools-what-you-need-to-know/