In an excoriating open letter, the British Psychological Society (BPS) have been taken to task for their unquestioning and controversial position on gender. The letter, sent to the Chair of the Practice Board by the group BPS Watch, provides a detailed critique of the BPS’s recently revised guidelines on Gender, Sexuality and Relationship Diversity (GSRD). The letter calls for the Chair, Board members and the President of the BPS to take ‘collective responsibility’ for the ‘gross ideological bias’ of these guidelines.
The publication of the guidelines, soon after the Cass Review final report landed, raises serious questions about judgement and cohesive decision-making within the BPS. While their President-Elect was publicly praising the Cass Review on the BPS website, it seems that, behind the scenes, a group of clinicians advocating a gender-affirming model of care, were working on a revised version of the BPS’s guidelines on GSRD.
It is not as though the BPS were unaware of the controversy surrounding these guidelines. A previous version, published in 2019, which was clearly ideologically-driven, was met with disbelief and dismay. Two of the original six authors withdrew their signatures from the document. As for the revised version, the letter argues that while ‘the infamous ‘Slut’ reference is amended and ‘Kink’ is omitted from ‘favoured BDSM allusions’, the new version remains ’in essence, the same deplorable document.’
Why is it ‘deplorable’? Amongst the concerns raised in the letter is the tendency of the guidelines to ‘downplay any notion of the common presence of serious mental health problems in gender confused individuals, be they adults or children’. Dr Hilary Cass highlighted the complexity of patient presentations, including in some cases autism, trauma and same-sex attraction. She also expressed concern about the lack of adequate assessment in gender identity clinics. The letter argues that the BPS guidelines contend that ‘the only distress that transgender patients experience is socially created by minority stress’, despite the fact that ‘the empirical evidence does not support this thesis’.
The letter also takes issue with the current authors of the guidelines, claiming that they are ‘transgender activists’. Questions are raised about their affiliations, including involvement in writing guidelines for the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). In view of recent revelations of medical malpractice, made in the WPATH Files, this should be of serious concern to the BPS.
The letter concludes by accusing the Practice Board and the BPS of ‘failing the membership, practitioners and the public’. It contrasts the position of the BPS with that of the Association of Clinical Psychologists (ACP–UK). The ACP–UK have not only endorsed the Cass Review but are one of ‘the key players centrally involved’ in NHS England’s plans for new specialist gender centres for children and young people.
How will the BPS respond? They have a record of ignoring, dismissing or resisting criticism. It may, though, prove harder for them to do so in the face of recent developments. The BPS should certainly heed the statement issued by Metanoia, the UK training institution, in relation to James Esses’ litigation claim. In their statement, Metanoia refer to the ‘changing policy landscape’ in the field of therapy. They cite the ‘significant withdrawal’ of the UK Council for Counselling & Psychotherapy from the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, on safeguarding grounds. They also refer to the Cass Review and highlight the importance of freedom of speech, and the right to hold gender-critical beliefs under the UK’s Equality Act (2010). Where does the BPS stand in this changing landscape?
The BPS cannot continue to bury their head in the sand and hope this will all go away. If they persist in ignoring or resisting calls for change, they may find themselves increasingly isolated. If they want to be part of the future, they need to let go of the past.
Leave a Reply