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.

There is a webinar by BPS on Monday.

Talking about diversity among LGBT+ people is the second webinar from the presidential taskforce on diversity and inclusion's series. A panel of experts will be examining labels and self-identification, looking to break down mono-sexist views, and talk about the effects of discrimination and prejudice on the mental health of LBGT+ people.

Open to BPS members and the general public.
I cannot attend as it clashes with work - starts at 4.30. But would like to know what they are saying.

I too was dismayed at the BPS stance - I am a member also. I was also dismayed at the response published under your letter Katie. It seems as if anyone who questions the Stonewall orthodoxy is automatically aligned with those who agreed with having Homosexuality declared a mental health disorder. But it appears that Psychologists, like Ireland, are so afraid of the old ways when they declared all non traditional lifestyles to be a disease, have now swung too far the other way.

I also wonder who, and they were a genius, managed to frame gender dysphoria, as comparable to sexuality, when it should be comparable to other body image disorders such as anorexia.

Oh I want to know what Bit said.
Or maybe I don't.

It sounds like there might be an opportunity to call for a (well advertised) consultation and review of the guidence once the judicial review and cass review are completed.

It's weird that they are saying the guidence is only for adults if it doesn't say that, and especially if it actually talks about children. The fact that they acknowledge that the judicial review on the Tavistock might cause a revisit suggests they are not certain that the guidence is only about adults after all.

Well done for doing it. The fact that some professionals, including 2 consultants, daren't sign their names might cause a few raised eyebrows. That alone would make me look into it.

I also wonder who, and they were a genius, managed to frame gender dysphoria, as comparable to sexuality, when it should be comparable to other body image disorders such as anorexia.

I have often wondered this too, it would seem to have little in common with sexuality. I think that changing the framing would also help treatment plans.

We don't give dc with anorexia a set of digital scales and a calorie counting app while agreeing with them that they are indeed unpleasantly overweight.
It makes as much sense to simply just affirm gender dysphoria and start transitioning without unpacking how the dc arrived at this point.

I am very confused by BitofFun's deletion. I did not see anything that broke the talk guidelines.

It was the suggestion that developing a shared language amounted to in-group jargon, and the implications of that.

I also wonder who, and they were a genius, managed to frame gender dysphoria, as comparable to sexuality, when it should be comparable to other body image disorders such as anorexia.

That is such an important aspect and it really is disgraceful that that has not been properly questioned.