Tania Marshall is a psychologist in Australia who has practiced for more than 20 years. She has worked with children, teens and adults who are autistic. Tania earned her Bachelor of arts in Psychology and her Masters of Science in Psychology at the University of Calgary.
Marshall has has been working in private practice. She has worked with many and even made diagnosis over skype.
Marshall is the author of Aspiengirl. AspienWoman, Aspien Powers, and Aspien Boy. Her works centers around functioning labels, specifically Aspergers Syndrome.
Mashall is transphobic and also centers her work around “rapid onset gender dysphoria.” She says her work is not transphobic just because she says its not.
Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria from Tania A. Marshall, M.Sc. on Vimeo.
Tania A. Marshall, should be ashamed of herself for threatening others in our community. We do not support her as a psychologist. Your actions have proven that you do not understand the ethics and boundaries it requires to be a therapist. Agony Autie and others deserve better. Your transphobia is disrespectful and discriminatory. It’s such a sad thing, especially because a lot of people use to look up to you. The ableism and transphobia needs to end! Targeting people, threatening them, slandering them, etc. are not healthy ways of advocating.
Evidence here has proven that you are not trustworthy.
If anyone would like to report Tania to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, please do so here:
Update!
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency is finally going to launch an official investigation into her unethical practices.
 |
|
Ahpra
& National
Boards
Private and Confidential
4 January 2021
Dear
Decision to investigate
In August 2019, you told us of your concerns about Ms Tania Marshall. Thank you for that
– We appreciate the effort this takes and would like to assure you that we take all issues
raised seriously. I apologise for the length of time it has taken to send you this letter.
The Psychology Board of Australia (the Board) has considered all the information it has
and on 6 August 2020 decided to investigate. I am leading the investigation. The
investigation may take between six and 12 months although more time may be needed.
During the investigation, I may ask you for further information. This may be by email, you
will be able to ask me questions about anything that is not clear or is confusing.
I will keep you updated regularly as the investigation proceeds and when the investigation
is completed.
Privacy
The way we gather, manage and share other people’s personal information is explained
in our privacy policy that can be viewed on our website at http://www.ahpra.gov.au.
Unless you asked us not to tell the practitioner that you made the notification, we will
have provided your name and a copy of all the information you gave us to the
practitioner. This is important for ensuring that a fair process is followed. If you have not
given consent for this, then it may pose challenges in addressing your concerns.
We will write to you to tell you the outcome of the notification. This letter may contain
personal information about other people. We ask that you treat it confidentially and
sensitively. Commonwealth, State or Territory laws may restrict how you can use other
people’s personal information.
Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency
National Boards
GPO Box 9958 Brisbane Queensland 4001 Ahpra.gov.au 1300 419 495
Ahpra and the National Boards regulate these registered health professions: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
health practice, Chinese medicine, chiropractic, dental, medical, medical radiation practice, midwifery, nursing,
occupational therapy, optometry, osteopathy, paramedicine, pharmacy, physiotherapy, podiatry and psychology.
|
2nd Update!
There was a reply from Tania’s professional training that agreed her behaviour had been wholly inappropriate and abusive. She was forced to have supervisions, not to mention gender dysphoria again, and to have her social media regularly reviewed if she wanted to remain part of the professional body. She has since come off Twitter spouting some other reasons. This is fabulous news!!! Screen shots of the redacted email below (thank you to the follower who has been corresponding with Australia all this time! Could not have done it without you!!)
 |
|
{AHPRA
Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency
6 September 2019
Private and Confidential
By email:
Dear
Action taken in relation to Ms Tania Marshall after assessment
I refer to our previous correspondence in relation to the assessment of the notification about
Ms Tania Marshall (Ms Marshall)
Issues
As you are aware, the issues identified were:
1. Conduct – Other Issue: Disreputable Conduct
Whether Ms Tania Marshall engaged in disreputable conduct by posting on social media
statements and non-evidence based information that reflect on her ability to practise as a
psychologist and/or reflect negatively on the profession or discipline of Psychology
2. Conduct – Other Issue: Disreputable Conduct
Whether Ms Tania Marshall engaged in disreputable conduct by behaving in a manner
that may reasonably be perceived as demeaning, and/or denigrating the character of
people by engaging in conduct that demeans them as persons or harasses them
Decision
On 5 September 2019, the Psychology Board of Australia (the Board) decided that Ms
Marshall’s professional conduct is unsatisfactory, The Board decided to take relevant action
under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (the National Law) and imposed
conditions on Ms Marshall’s registration.
Reasons
The Board decided this because
1. The Board noted the notification and information submitted by Miss Hannah Belcher
dated 31 October 2018
2. Having considered the information before it, as provided by Miss Belcher, the Board
noted:
a Ms Marshall’s activity on Twitter between July and October 2018 disseminated
information in relation to “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria”, which is not a
recognised diagnosis
b. Ms Marshall proceeded to message Ms Belcher privately, via Facebook, making
inappropriate demands and threats of Ms Belcher, including threatening to complain
to police about Ms Belcher’s behaviour, and threatening to contact Ms Belcher’s
Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency
GPO Box 9958 Brisbane Queensland 4001 http://www.ahra.gov.au
academic institution and supervisors
3. The Board had regard to the relevant provisions of the Australian Psychological Society
(APS) Code of Ethics, which established an appropriate standard of conduct and practice
to be expected of registered psychologists. In consideration of the Code of Ethics, the
Board was of the view that Ms Marshall’s conduct was below the standard to be
reasonably expected, where she:
a. Disseminated information publicly, via social media, which misrepresented Rapid
Onset Gender Dysphoria as an accepted diagnosis:
b. Failed, in her social media interactions, to demonstrate and communicate respect
for other people:}
|
{academic institution and supervisors.
3. The Board had regard to the relevant provisions of the Australian Psychological Society
(APS) Code of Ethics, which established an appropriate standard of conduct and practice
to be expected of registered psychologists. In consideration of the Code of Ethics, the
Board was of the view that Ms Marshal’s conduct was below the standard to be
reasonably expected, where she:
a. Disseminated information publicly, via social media, which misrepresented Rapid
Onset Gender Dysphoria as an accepted diagnosis:
b. Failed, in her social media interactions, to demonstrate and communicate respect
for other people:
. C. Behaved in a manner that may reasonably be perceived as coercive or
demeaning, and
d. Denigrated Ms Belcher’s character by engaging in conduct which demeaned and
harassed her.
4. The Board considered Ms Marshall’s conduct in this respect to have been unsatisfactory,
and to have brought the profession into disrepute. The risk arising out of Ms Marshall’s
conduct in this respect was one of dissuading public confidence in the profession
5. The Board considered appropriate to impose conditions on Ms Marshal’s registration
requiring her to undertake a period of supervision with a registered psychologist. In doing
So, the Board considered that Ms Marshall would be appropriately assisted to modify her
public communications and conduct herself in a manner befitting of a registered
psychologist. Such conditions, requiring regular reporting from Ms Marshall’s supervisor.
would also satisfy the Board of Ms Marshall’s progress and development, and ultimately
satisfy it that Ms Marshal’s conduct no longer posed a risk to the public.
In relation to evidence of ROGD
6. In relation to the article of Dr Lisa Littman submitted by Ms Marshall as evidence of
Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD), the Board firstly noted that at no time did Ms
Marshall provide the Board with a copy of the relevant article. Nevertheless, having
located and considered the article, the Board took this opportunity to note the following in
relation to Dr Littman’s article:
a. The article was published on 16 August 2018 in an online Journal, PLOS One.
The journal is described as “an inclusive journal community publishing
multidisciplinary research. The Impact Factor of this Journal is noted to be 2.766
b. Dr Littman’s study was noted to have been a descriptive study consisting of a 90-
question survey for parents who had reported sudden or rapid onsets of gender
dysphoria in their children,
C. On 27 August 2018, PLOS One announced that it was conducting a post-
publication investigation of Dr Litman’s study. its methodology and analysis.
following concerns in relation to the study participants’ recruitment, and the lack
of interview of the children in question and/or their clinicians.
d. The article was subsequently reviewed and a number of changes made to
Linman L (2018) Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show
signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria. PLoS ONE 13(8): e0202330
https://doi.org/10.1371/ournal.pone.0202330
Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency
GPO Box 9958 Brisbane Queensland 4001 http://www.ahpra.gov.au
address the concerns, prior to its republication on 19 March 2019,
e. Dr Littman’s republished article concluded that the information gathered from the
study allows for the generation of hypotheses about factors that may contribute
to the onset and/or expression of gender dysphori…. [with, emerging hypotheses
including the possibility of a potential new subcategory of gender dysphoria
(referred to as rapid-onset gender dysphoria) that has not yet been clinically
validated…}
{address the concerns, prior to its republication on 19 March 2019.2
e Dr Littman’s republished article concluded that the information gathered from the
study allows for the generation of hypotheses about factors that may contribute
to the onset and/or expression of gender dysphorie… [with] emerging hypotheses
including the possibility of a potential new subcategory of gender dysphoria
(referred to as rapid-onset gender dysphoria) that has not yet been clinically
validated.
7. For the reasons set out above, Dr Littman’s article was not accepted by the Board as
evidence of ROGD as a diagnosis, and the fact remains that ROGD is not a recognised
diagnosis in the DSM-5.
8. It was also noted by the Board that Ms Marshall, in her online interactions in relation to
ROGD via Twitter between July and October 2018, failed to provide members of the
public with any such information – whether accepted and peer-reviewed or otherwise
upon which she relied when disseminating information about ROGD. Instead, Ms
Marshall stated that she would not waste her breath on explaining ther) 20 years of
experience and what she’d seen heard and listened to
In relation to other information provided by Ms Marshall for the Board’s consideration
9. The Board noted Ms Marshall’s submission to the effect that she had produced videos
on ROGD which demonstrated that she was not a risk to the public
10. The Board noted that no such videos were provided by Ms Marshall with any of her
submissions in response to the notification
11. The Board also did not consider it necessary to consider any videos produced by Ms
Marshall, given that the subject matter of this notification was Ms Marshall’s interactions
and communications on social media, and not the content of any videos produced by Ms
Marshall. The pertinent factor was that Ms Marshall had purported to represent ROGD as
an accepted diagnosis where was not
12. The Board also noted the letter of support from a professional associate provided with Ms
Marshall’s submission of 11 April 2019, and the following information:
a. Ms Marshall had provided her colleague with invaluable guidance in relation to
the phenomenon of young autistic girls adopting a sudden
cross-sex identity
around puberty.
b. “Had (Ms Marshall been ignorant of this surge of gender questioning, the
colleague doubled she would have been able to provide such nuanced and
useful advice…
c. Ms Marshall recommended to the colleague that she use several standardised
assessments which are evidence based and could properly help screen her
clients
d. The colleague’s clinical experience indicates that puberty-onset gender-
questioning is absolutely a real phenomenon, and while ROGD is not a DSM
diagnosis, it is well-accepted as a descriptive term.
13. The Board acknowledged positive reports fore Ms Marshall from the professional
associate, and the professional guidance offered to her by Ms Marshall. The Board also
* Linman L (2019) Correction: Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived
to show signs
of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria, PLoS ONE 14(3): 60214157.
Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency
wished to note that no suggestion had been made, or concern raised by the Board as to
Ms Marshall’s ignorance, or use of non-standardised assessments for screening clients.
14. The Board noted that the subjent the notification was of Ms Marshall’s
disseminating information to the
a platforms, which represented
ROGD as a diagnosis, and not
escriptive term”. A choice example
of this is Ms Marshall’s Twitter
3 of 7
which relevantly stated, “What is
Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria
uals seem more prone to having
It? What are the themes and perures w uses? Coming soon on Vimeo.
15. As such, the Board did not consider the letter of support from the professional associate}
{Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency
wished to note that no suggestion had been made, or concern raised by the Board as to
Ms Marshall’s ignorance, or use of non-standardised assessments for screening clients
14. The Board noted that the subject matter of the current notification was of Ms Marshall’s
disseminating information to the public, via social media platforms, which represented
ROGD as a diagnosis, and not just a ‘well-accepted descriptive term’. A choice example
of this is Ms Marshall’s Twitter activity of 25 July 2018, which relevantly stated, “What is
Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria? Why do some individuals seem more prone to having
it? What are the themes and narratives from my cases? Coming soon on Vimeo.
15. As such, the Board did not consider the letter of support from the professional associate
to be relevant in discharging the concerns relevant to the current notification. The Board
also considered that Ms Marshall had failed to acknowledge, and now continued to
demonstrate a lack of insight in relation to the risks associated with her conduct in
disseminating the information online, namely
a. Her disseminating unreliable information in relation to ROGD.
b. That the information was disseminated to members of the public, who were
reliant on the knowledge and advice of professionals, and who may not have
sufficient knowledge and clinical expertise to make a determination on the validity
of the information Ms Marshall was disseminating
C. That (noting the subject matter of the information) her audience may have
included vulnerable members of the public, with diagnosed and undiagnosed
mental health conditions not limited to Gender Dysphoria, and who may or may
not have been seeking or receiving professional assistance.
16. The Board considered that Ms Marshall’s conduct in this respect was disreputable, and
brought into question her ability to practise a psychologist, and reflected negatively on the
profession of psychology, contrary to Sections C.1.1 and C.1.2 of the Australian
Psychological Society (APS) Code of Ethics.
In relation to Ms Marshall’s conduct toward Ms Belcher
17. In relation to Ms Marshall’s conduct toward Ms Belcher, the Board noted Ms Marshall’s
view that she had not defamed Ms Belcher, on the basis that Ms Belcher would not
succeed in an action brought against her for defamation
18. The Board took this opportunity to note, for Ms Marshall’s reference, the relevant
provisions of the APS Code of Ethics which provide (emphasis added):
“In the course of their conduct.psychologists:
(a) Communicate respect for other people through their actions and language
(b) Do not behave in a manner that, having regard to the context, may reasonably be
perceived as coercive or demeaning:
(c) Respect the legal rights and moral rights of others; and
(d) Do not denigrate the character of people by engaging in conduct that demeans them
as persons, or defames, or harasses them.
Where conduct is defined the Code as any act or omission by psychologists: (a) that others
may reasonably consider to be a psychological service (b) outside their practice of
psychology which casts doubt on their competence and ability to practise as psychologists
) outside their practise of psychology which harms public trust in the discipline or the
profession of paychology. (d) in their capacity as Members of the Society as applicable in
the circumstances
Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency
4 of 7
19. Importantly, it was noted by the
Ethics is not limited in its
applicability to interactions bet
clients.
20. The Board considered that Ms Marshall had failed to communicate respect, both publicly
and intelwand Me Balchor and that Ma Marshall had demsaned and harmed Me}
 |
|
{Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency
19. Importantly, it was noted by the Board that the Code of Ethics is not limited in its
applicability to interactions between psychologists and clients.
20. The Board considered that Ms Marshall had failed to communicate respect, both publicly
and privately toward Ms Belcher, and that Ms Marshall had demeaned and harassed Ms
Belcher. In forming this view, and the requisite reasonable belief that Ms Marshall’s
conduct was unsatisfactory, the Board particularly noted:
a. Ms Marshall’s public tweet, when challenged on her view by Ms Belcher, that she
would not waste her breath explaining ther 20 years of experience and what
she’d seen heard and listened to
b. Ms Marshall’s publicly addressing Ms Belcher and others, when challenged on
her publicised professional views, as “Trolls”.
c. Ms Marshall’s privately messaging Ms Belcher on Facebook, after Ms Belcher
shared the Facebook Page “Friends of Concerned Aspies”, harassing Ms
Belcher to remove the link, threatening her with police action and threatening to
contact Ms Belcher’s university and PhD Supervisor
21. Noting these choice examples and Ms Marshall’s submission of 11 April 2019, the Board
also held particular concern in relation to Ms Marshalls likening Ms Belcher’s notification
to AHPRA and the Board to Ms Marshalls contacting Ms Belcher’s academic institution
As Ms Marshall’s regulator, it was appropriate for the Board to be made aware of and
consider Ms Marshal’s professional conduct in publicly disseminating information about
ROGD and communicating inappropriately on social media including in a public forum
However, there appeared to have been no merit in Ms Marshall’s contacting Ms Belcher’s
academic institution
In relation to risk and regulatory action
22 For the avoidance of repetition, the Board referred to its reasoning at paragraph 15, in
relation to the risk associated with Ms Marshall’s disseminating of information about
ROGD.
23. In relation to her public communications via Twitter, the Board considered that Ms
Marshall demonstrated a lack of insight as to how her communications may be perceived
by members of the public, and the disrepute this may bring to the profession.
24. In relation to Ms Marshall’s private communications with Ms Belcher, the Board
acknowledged that there was no immediate risk to the public. Similar to its concerns in
relation to Ms Marshall’s public communications however, the Board’s concerns were in
relation to Ms Marshal’s demonstrated lack of insight in relation to her communication,
and the potential for Ms Marshall to communicate in such a manner with clients and
colleagues moving forward.
25. The Board maintained its view that it was appropriate and the minimum regulatory force
required to impose conditions on Ms Marshall’s registration, requiring her to undergo a
period of supervision. The Board formed this view, particularly given
a. The subject matter of the notification and Ms Marshall’s conduct, which the Board
considered Ms Marshall would benefit from discussing with a colleague,
b. Ms Marshall’s lack of insight in relation to her conduct, such that the Board
considered a caution would not be sufficient to alert her to her professional
responsibilities and protect the public from the risk of harm arising out of her
dissemination of information about ROGD, which is not a recognised diagnosis:
c. The conditions would not require supervision in the strict meaning of the term but
Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency
5 of 7
rather required Ms Marshall to attend for monthly sessions with a colleague, for
Guided indimenti relation to the sun The Board}
{Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency
GPO Box 9958 Brisbane Queensland 4001 www ahora.gov.au
rather, required Ms Marshall to attend for monthly sessions with a colleague, for
guided professional development in relation to the relevant issues. The Board
considered these conditions to be appropriate and the least onerous action
available to address the concerns raised with Ms Marshall’s conduct, noting that
she was already required to undertake activity of a similar nature as part of her
continuing professional development obligations. The conditions imposed an
additional requirement for Ms Marshall to provide reflective reports in relation to
the supervision undertaken, which the Board considered would appropriately
demonstrate her understanding of the issues which gave rise to the conditions,
and the changes she implements to ensure similar conduct would not occur in
future
26. The Board accordingly decided to impose conditions on Ms Marshall’s registration, noting
the topic of the supervision to be undertaken conduct that reflects negatively on the
practitioner’s capacity to practise as a psychologist, and reflects negatively on the
profession of psychology – encapsulating both Ms Marshall’s disseminating of
information, and her inappropriate communication about ROGD.
Information considered
The Board considered the following information in making the decision:
1. The Notification and attachments, submitted by Ms Hannah Belcher, dated 31 October
2018
2. The response submitted by Ms Marshall received 12 February 2019 enclosing a
reference to the article of Dr Lisa Litman
3. The response submitted by Ms Marshall, received 11 April 2019, enclosing letter from
Sasha Ayad, dated 31 March 2019.
The response submitted by Ms Marshall, received 5 June 2019
5. The further information submitted by Ms Marshal’s legal representative, received 18
June 2019.
The public national register has been updated to reflect the action taken and can be viewed
Thank you for taking the time to raise your concerns. This matter has now been closed,
Information Privacy
This letter contains personal information about other people. This information has been
disclosed to you under the National Law and in accordance with our Privacy Policy. You are
asked to treat any personal information about other people confidentially and
sensitively. Commonwealth, State or Territory laws may restrict how you can use other
people’s personal information
Your feedback
Your feedback is important to us. Telling us about your experience with AHPRA can help us
improve what we do and how we do it. In the coming weeks we will email you a link to a brief
survey about your experience. The survey is voluntary and you will not be asked to identify
Littman L (2018) Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show
signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria. PLoS ONE 13(8): e0202330
httsidio 10.1371simal pone.0202330
Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency
/
yourself when responding. The information you provide will be handled in accordance
with AHPRA’s Privacy Policy and SurveyMonkey’s Privacy Policy
if you have any queries about the decision, please contact Me Tom Hall on 07 3149 4601
tom hallara.gov.au quoting the notification reference number 00400808}
{So vip
N10: 93% | 11:33
2019090…808.pdf
people’s personal information
Your feedback
Your feedback is important to us. Telling us about your experience with AHPRA can help us
improve what we do and how we do it in the coming weeks we will email you a link to a brief
survey about your experience. The survey is voluntary
and you will not be asked to identify
*Littman L (2018) Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show
signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria. PLoS ONE 13(8): e0202330.
Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency
yourself when responding. The information you provide will be handled in accordance
with AHPRA’s Privacy Policy and SurveyMonkey’s Privacy Policy.
If you have any queries about the decision, please contact Mr Tom Hall on 07 3149 4601 of
som ballahra.gov.aw quoting the notification reference number 00400808.
Yours sincerely
Tom Hall
A/ Manager, Notifications
Reference Number: 00400808
Save to my Dropbox}
Sources:
Past Facebook posts
Fierce Autie 