Letter to The Psychologist about affirmation only guidelines

[KatieAlcock]

A group of us who are members of the BPS have written to our members' publication about the guidelines on "diversity"

Letter here

Slight problem with the response: There are no separate guidelines for children and there is no indication within the main guidelines that they apply to adults only.

Another signatory is asking who the author of the reply is.
I'm not a clinical psychologist but this leaves child clinical psychologists without any framework to operate under.

Well done for tackling.

Why would the BPS consult Stonewall, as an organisation what expertise do they have in the field of Psychology, or are they contacted for approval?

Are there other areas of psychology that encompass both adults and children, where experts provide guidance for adults alone and children are ignored?
Worrying they haven't made it clear to practitioners that their guidance only refers to adults.

Saw this and was much cheered. The response was entirely inadequate - didn't engage with any of the substantive points just rabbited on about broad churches. The letter explains the problem with clarity and compassion. I'm going to forward it to a number of the woke.
Many thanks to you and to all the signatories.

Thank you for doing this, @KatieAlcock.

Are we sure that, given the content of the "adult" guidance (which should definitely be labelled as such), we want the BPS to provide guidance in relation to children?

They do have to provide something or child clinical psychologists are operating in a restriction-free context.
Parents could just take their gay son to a conversion therapist if there are no guidelines.
(OK, currently they are deciding he's a girl and doing the same...)
I'm going to get my title edited as it's a little vague.

Thanks for posting Katie - it's appalling that psychologists are being restricted in applying their professional skills because of this woke nonsense. I wish more people had been willing to sign it and not constrained by the threat of potential backlash.

It’s always reassuring to see relevant professionals asking the right questions. Thank you.

Thanks for doing this.

This makes sense, @KatieAlcock - thank you.

Does anyone know much about the status of BPS guidelines like these? Are clinical psychologists working in the NHS (or elsewhere in the UK) legally bound to follow them?

Just want to say thank you again to the brave individuals who've been willing to sign this.

Thanks Katie.

I don't remember even seeing this consultation or I would have responded and it seems that because so few people even responded they are assuming few people take issue with the guidance.

Yes Flitting I agree. Apparently the RCPsych have responded - I was completely unaware of this.

I've only read the first few pages so far - it seems a ridiculous mishmash of LGB with e.g. "people who don't identify as monogamous". Is monogamous (or not) an identity now?

I note that they thank to Meg John Barker for the first edition of these guidelines - were these the "Northern women are allowed to express femininity bt being aggressive" ones?

FFS it also includes (as an identity) "people who engage in BDSM". Whilst I accept that many people happily engage in BDSM, surely a psychologist should at least be allowed to explore (from a trauma perspective) why a vulnerable woman might be engaging in this.

". . .just as one would accommodate and facilitate a person from a non-white background irrespective of racist discomfort."
Ermm what?

No @stella47 that is the BACP.

Thanks so much for doing this. I feel I am guilty of not really engaging with BPS on stuff they may have communicated with me about.

Hi Katie thank you for doing this. Yes, sorry to confuse things - I just realised that was the BACP rather than the BPS, noticed Meg John Barker's name on both. I'm worried that the consultation didn't get more exposure. I work in a related field and didn't hear anything about it.

great letter which needs widely sharing, especially amongst parents with kids who might access services

Please do share!

The print version is out today too.

Can I ask, what are the implications of these guidelines for educational psychologists? For example, if you were working with a teenage girl with ASD traits who suddenly decided to identify as a boy.

I'm not an ed psych but I imagine a) the actual guidelines would lead to the ed psych having to accept the child's preferred identity b) the supposed lack of guidelines on children would leave them in an awfully grey area, open to all kinds of accusations.
If an ed psych felt, for example, that a parent's insistence that transitioning was not going to "cure" their DCs ASD, they would really struggle to say to parents that the DC is still confused (e.g. if the DC has a learning disability) and still needs all the accommodations that the EP originally suggested. So, if parents insist on The Mermaids Way this could clash with the EP's advice.

I'd imagine that, as well as leaving psychologists working with children very exposed (due to lack of explicit guidance for this group), this will also lead to many psychologists reluctantly shying away from working with ROGD clients at all (because they can't in all good faith, and with the genuineness which is so important to psychological work, feel they can go down the "blindly affirm" route).

Thank you KatieAlcock for your response, it was very helpful. My long term career goal has been to become an EP and I've been building up experience to strengthen my doctorate application. I was unaware of the BPS guidelines and reading them has been a real blow. I can't believe they would align themselves with an affirmative approach given the rapidly growing concerns raised by a number of professionals.

I have extensive experience of working with children with ASD and am fascinated by the differences in traits of boys and girls. This was going to be a potential area for my thesis - exploring the coping mechanisms of girls with ASD. I fail to see how an affirmative approach would adequately support such children given that other needs would continue to need addressing. Additionally, you would no doubt be prevented from discussing ROGD as a possible coping mechanism.

Apologies if this is a bit rambly but it really has thrown me. I've been so busy applying psychological theories in my practice thinking it would help me get on the course, but I've failed to see what was happening within the BPS.

@moptophairshop

Thank you KatieAlcock for your response, it was very helpful. My long term career goal has been to become an EP and I've been building up experience to strengthen my doctorate application. I was unaware of the BPS guidelines and reading them has been a real blow. I can't believe they would align themselves with an affirmative approach given the rapidly growing concerns raised by a number of professionals.

I have extensive experience of working with children with ASD and am fascinated by the differences in traits of boys and girls. This was going to be a potential area for my thesis - exploring the coping mechanisms of girls with ASD. I fail to see how an affirmative approach would adequately support such children given that other needs would continue to need addressing. Additionally, you would no doubt be prevented from discussing ROGD as a possible coping mechanism.

Apologies if this is a bit rambly but it really has thrown me. I've been so busy applying psychological theories in my practice thinking it would help me get on the course, but I've failed to see what was happening within the BPS.

Please don't let this put you off. We're all hopeful that the BPS guidelines will be reviewed, especially as more & more evidence comes in.

Thank you greying, yes let's hope for a review and a positive change. I think as I've always held the BPS in high regard both academically and professionally that it's been quite a jolt to learn that they would hold such a view.

Thank you so much to those who sent and signed the letter, I'll keep my fingers crossed for you.