Gender identity politics and people who have learning disabilities

[BadSkiingMum]

A long time ago I did a placement at a charity for people who had learning disabilities. Their client group often had quite significant cognitive impairments but many were living with some degree of independence, in housing projects run by the charity.

I remember staff talking in a meeting about a female client who was very sexually active and would have sex with a succession of men. The attitude seemed to be that as long as she was getting her regular contraceptive injection then it was ok. I didn’t think much about this at the time (and went into a different field) but I look back now and wonder if some of that was sexual exploitation of the woman, who was also quite young and presumably sexually attractive. But the approach of staff was very laissez faire…

By chance I stumbled across an account of work around gender identity with people who have learning disabilities. It made me feel very uneasy as it is a complex area and the client group are very vulnerable to exploitation.

Does anyone in the social care sphere have any insight into what is happening in this area?

Where is the balance between encouraging agency and preventing harm?

Thank you for starting the topic.
Do people with learning disabilities have a legal guardian? In some countries that is the case, so that - depending on their degree of independence - they could make legal/financial decisions only together with the guardian, such as contracts to sign, withdrawing large amounts of money at once and similar, so that there is a prevention option in case someone tries to manipulate them / extort money / pressures them to sign costly contracts when they cannot understand the consequences.
Often the guardian is a family member; otherwise it is someone from a department of social affairs or similar.

It is a good question about responsibility when it comes to social situations like this: finding the right path between independence and prevention, and also the dignity of the person.

Thanks for your reply. I think that might only apply when a person is deemed to not have ‘capacity’ and would be court ordered.

I suppose I feel uneasy about a person who has learning disabilities being supported along the pathway of gender transition, just as I would if they were encouraged to sign up to a large monthly donation or join a religious group.

As you worked at the charity, too, do you remember from the safeguarding training whether there was a gender-critical angle, or isn't included in these courses? or that they maybe think it encroaches too much on the privacy of the people using their service if they were cautioning them?

Perhaps a different approach that would help support the people with learning disabilities make informed decisions would be to take the content from the safeguarding training and adapt it to the service users (I understand that there are different learning disabilities, so that there is no one-size-fits-all-approach).

That way the people themselves could work through the content of the safeguarding lessons, either alone or with a trusted person, with the possible outcome that they know better how to spot others who might try to take advantage of them.

I don't know whether that would be possible for everyone, though.

I've thought about the connection between autism (which is not a learning disability, though) and the trans-movement, too, which is a topic in the Cass report as well as part of the discussion here on this board, but you are right in that the problem is more widespread and affects various disabilities.

Regarding the specific charity you worked at, if it won't jeopardize your own work, perhaps you could pose this question towards their headquarter or similar and see whether they are actually aware of it, or check with the Charity Commission?

I was at the charity a long time ago, way before it was the norm for everyone to have regular safeguarding training.

I have had all kinds of safeguarding training since then, but the risks of gender identity transition have never come up as, until very recently, it’s not been publicly recognised as a risk.

I suppose the problem is that well-meaning practitioners may be encouraging people who have learning disabilities to explore/express their differing gender identity as a means of self-expression or showing agency - but as we know, social transition is not a neutral act.

Here’s a page from a leading charity in this field.

https://www.mencap.org.uk/easyread/what-gender

All the information on the page is absolutely true and correct, I don’t dispute that.

But is there something in the power of suggestion? If a group of people (with recognised vulnerabilities) are given the option of attending a workshop or project about gender identity, will some of them decide to pursue that path to a greater extent than they might otherwise have done?

Maybe off-topic, but this got my hackles up immediately, because we aren't "given" a sex at birth, we simply "are" that sex.

I suppose the problem is that well-meaning practitioners may be encouraging people who have learning disabilities to explore/express their differing gender identity as a means of self-expression or showing agency

This happened to a stroke victim I know who lives in a long-term care facility. He was mid-40s and his wife said he'd never cross-dressed or had any Malaga Airport before severe stroke. But his mind had so altered that whatever he said was reinterpreted by staff to be evidence of transgenderism. His wife said that fighting it was as cruel as facilitating it. She just wanted him cared for, not indoctrinated, but it seemed a battle not worth fighting with staff as he had limited cognitive functioning. The entire thing makes her sad.

thanks for the example. A sentence like this: "Some people can take medication or have surgery to change their appearance and body." without further context does indeed give the impression that it is not a difficult and long road.

On one hand, the information needs to be simplified somewhat to give a first understanding of the topic, but on the other hand, before any action is taken, more conversation and information would be absolutely necessary.

The responsibility of these decisions should lie with the medical staff. People who do not have the ability to understand the consequences of medical interventions like this cannot bear all the weight of it on their own. That means not taking them on as patients and starting a transition would be unethical.

I remember with some horror the newspieces about some doctor who did surgery on a person with autism who he knew full well did not really understand it.

The grey area inbetween, like the woman from your first post, and the example about cross-dressing, about social behaviour, are indeed much more difficult to regulate.

The "well-meaning" support staff probably has received all the politically correct training that has been going around, and is treading carefully in order to not suppress agency; I agree with that.

"I have had all kinds of safeguarding training since then, but the risks of gender identity transition have never come up as, until very recently, it’s not been publicly recognised as a risk."

From which side was it brought up? Where do you think could be a lever to make the risk more visible? I'm happy to hear that the topic at least starts to be part of training, even if it's now late in the game.

I hope someone else from the charity sector, as you asked in the OP, might join here as I am clearly not in it nor have the expertise, but I support your worry.

Thanks for raising this OP. It's one of the horrifying consequences of the capture of various social work and charitable bodies. I hope that Cass, though I know this was not the group she focused on, will help to change practice. I can't see this as anything but abuse.