UK medical experts claim treating gender confusion is ‘unethical’. U.S. pediatricians’ group isn’t impressed.
Thirteen British medical, psychological and political
organizations jointly condemned psychological therapy for gender confusion,
calling it “unethical and harmful and not supported by the evidence.”
Critics responded swiftly that the joint statement was
itself not only “unkind, cruel and lacking in compassion” but represents the
triumph of ideology over solid science.
The statement came in response to a BBC documentary
featuring a controversial Canadian psychologist fired for helping youth with
gender dysphoria or delusion.
Among the pillars of the British medical/therapeutic
establishment endorsing the joint statement are the UK Council for Psychotherapy,
the Royal College of General Practitioners, the British Psychoanalytic Council
and the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy, the Scottish
government, and the LGBT advocacy group Stonewall.
Unlike some American and Canadian jurisdictions, the
UK has passed no law against what the joint statement calls “conversion
therapy.” That is defined as “therapy that assumes certain sexual orientations
or gender identities are inferior to others, and seeks to change or suppress
them on that basis.”
It then states that “Sexual orientations and gender
identities are not mental health disorders,” so that any mental issues that
arise with homosexuals, transgenders, or others with gender dysphoria must stem
from social disapproval, not any inherent mismatch.
“Exclusion, stigma and prejudice may precipitate
mental health issues for any person subjected to these abuses,” the statement
claims.
It goes on to characterize therapy intended to help a
person deal with unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction or gender confusion
as itself a form of stigmatization that can only be harmful.
A leading American critic, Dr. Michelle Cretella,
president of the American College of Pediatricians, called the statement “yet
another example of kowtowing to LGBTQ political pressure by professional
medical and mental health guilds around the world.”
Countering the statement’s claim that there is no
evidence that therapy can help a person overcome same-sex attraction or gender
dysphoria, Cretella told LifeSiteNews, “There is no science demonstrating
universal harm to anyone who makes the informed choice to pursue the goal of
diminishing LGBT attractions under the direction of a licensed mental health
professional.”
What’s more, she added, there is no evidence “that
gay-affirming therapy leads to optimal physical and mental health outcomes for
these individuals.”
If people want to be treated for attractions and
feelings that don’t match their biology, she said, they should be allowed to do
so. Attempts to make laws or professional codes banning this are infringements
on freedom, Cretella argued.
“Patients are barred from trying to maximize their
normative heterosexual potential in accordance with their biological sex,” she
said.
Cretella insisted that there are “decades of literature
documenting that change happens, and the fact that thousands of ex-gays now
lead happy and healthy lives.”
She called the term "conversion therapy"
misleading. There no special kind of therapy designed to change anyone’s sexual
orientation, she said. Furthermore, “psychotherapy to aid those who struggle
with LGBTQ attractions does not involve electroshock, ice baths, or other
aversion therapy techniques.”
Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust also
weighed in against the joint statement, which “accuses therapists who seek to
align a person’s mind to his or her birth sex of ‘changing a fundamental
aspect’ of who the person is. But in reality, it is those who encourage and
reinforce thought-patterns which are at variance with the biological evidence that
is staring them in the face who are guilty of changing a fundamental aspect of
who the person is.”
Wells went on to condemn the groups behind the joint
statement for encouraging not just impressionable children and teenagers to
believe what is contrary to objective facts, but society in general.
It is especially “cruel” to promote “the idea to
children that a boy can be born into a girl's body and a girl can be born into
a boy's body. Respecting and preserving a child's birth sex should be seen as a
child protection issue.”
Wells added, “True kindness and compassion involves
honestly, gently and patiently seeking to help people who are genuinely
confused about their identity to recognise and accept who they really are, not
pretending that they are someone that they are not.”
The BBC2 documentary, “Transgender Kids: Who Knows
Best,” featured Canadian psychologist Kenneth Zucker. He was fired under
intense political pressure from the LGBT lobby in 2015 after two decades at
Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health helping hundreds of youth
overcome gender dysphoria.
Zucker's service was abolished and the Ontario
legislature passed a law banning any therapy that would help a youth with
gender confusion. Zucker’s and others’ studies indicated that if gender
dysphoric or gender-confused youth are not encouraged in their delusion, then
90 percent come to identify with their biological gender by their 20s.
The documentary gives both sides of the debate, but
transgender advocates nonetheless worried publicy that parents would be
encouraged to seek Zucker’s brand of “reparative” therapy.
Andrea Williams of Christian Concern was also strongly
critical of the joint statement, telling LifeSiteNews, “The bodies signing this
statement are ignoring plain evidence. … The evidence shows that the strength
and direction of erotic attraction and felt gender can and often do change in
individuals over time, especially in children.”
Williams also asserted that LGBT advocates were
inconsistent in their basic premises — that, on the one hand, “Gender and
sexuality [are] ‘fluid’” and on the other, that they are “fixed and innate in
individuals, and that any effort to change is harmful.”
Dr. Joseph Berger, a Toronto psychiatrist and retired
University of Toronto professor, said the joint statement revealed more about
the way radicals take over organizations than it does about what the general
memberships truly believe.
“Extremists reach power in these organizations and
then coerce the organizations into making statements that are political in
nature, but confuse the general public by seeming to be scientific,” Berger
told LifeSiteNews. They then “bully” therapists and parents “to prevent any
forms of therapeutic help for those troubled by unwanted fantasies.”