So I've done a little research to learn about the allegations that Jessica Taylor used victim narratives in her published work without obtaining victim's prior consent, and I opened a Pandora's box of all her sketchy and inappropriate behavior in both her publications and on social media. Yikes.
I have never been active on Twitter, so I missed this whole debacle when it went down, but thanks to screenshots, anything you say online basically lives forever. This article presents a summary of the glaring evidence of not just of Taylor's breaches in ethics by breaking confidentiality, but also shows her immaturity, impulsivity, tendency towards manipulation of data, and her bullying.
For an example of how she twists facts to suit her narrative, I was not aware that in the UK there is a difference between a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology and a Doctorate in Psychology. There, someone with a doctorate in clinical psychology would be trained specifically in the treatment of mental illness, whereas someone with a doctorate in psychology would NOT have that expertise but would rather be trained in more general psychology. In the United States, both of those skillsets are included under Doctorate in Psychology. For this reason, I did not realize Taylor was laying claim to expertise she does not actually possess. And in fact, people have reviewed her CV when it was posted on Linkedin and found that she actually has no clinical experience whatsoever despite claiming to have years of experience working with patients.
The article linked above also critique’s Taylor’s tendency to manipulate the “studies” she conducts so that they show the conclusions she wants by using selection bias when creating her research samples. In one instance, she requested input on a survey specifically from girls and women who had faced abuse and sexual trauma in the past, and then used the results of that survey to claim that 99% of women would face those things in their lifetimes. Just all in all sloppy work. As another example of how Taylor manipulates data, I noticed when reading Sexy But Psycho that she did have a tendency to oversimplify study results to support her points.
As for the claims that Taylor broke confidentiality by including victim narratives in her books without obtaining prior consent of the victims, this article names a few specific women who spoke up but makes references to there being numerous other victims. However, they do not provide evidence of these other claims. That said, breaking confidentiality in this way even one single time is an egregious ethical failure, and there’s substantial evidence that Taylor did so a handful of times. Furthermore, screenshots from Twitter and Whatsapp conversations show how Taylor reacted to these claims by resorting to bullying and gaslighting. With that kind of immaturity, I don’t think she has any business working in a mental health care capacity with anyone, let alone deeply traumatized women.
Obviously, I didn’t just accept all the claims in this article at face value. As you can easily see reading the comments on her social media posts, Jessica Taylor has a LOT of enemies due to her criticism of trans ideology and psychiatry, and she does face constant classism, misogyny, and homophobia as well. Because of that, I wanted to make sure the author of this article wasn’t just some troll writing a long, biased callout post.
As it turns out, the author of the article is Julian Vigo, a woman who has published multiple articles criticizing modern trans activism and liberalism. So no, she’s not just a biased troll who thinks TERFs need to be deplatformed at all costs etc etc etc.
So, all that said, while I still appreciate Jessica Taylor for loudly advocating for the rights of traumatized girls and women, and I appreciate her attempts to end the medicalization and forced hospitalization of traumatized patients, I don’t think I can continue to support her work. Her methodology is too sloppy, her ethics are too loose, and her lack of maturity in facing criticism frankly makes me embarrassed for her and embarrassed to associate myself with her.
If you want a somewhat more methodologically sound introduction to anti psychiatric thought, the book Anatomy of an Epidemic by Robert Whitaker is a good read. It does get a little pharmacology and neuroscience heavy at times, but I think it’s still very accessible. It also has its flaws, but at least the author has never threatened to send his critics envelopes of shit and glitter.
