‘Conversion Therapy’ In A Time Of Deceit & Bullying

Those who derisively labeled psychotherapist Stella 0’Malley a “conversion therapist” are facing hard questions now that the U.K.’s Youth Gender Identity Clinic, The Tavistock, has been closed down. O’Malley favors Gender Exploratory Therapy and not the narrow-minded gender affirmative model, the narrow model heavily criticized by the independent Cass Review, resulting in the shuttering of The Tavistock.

For someone like me, who has worked as a psychotherapist for many years, trying to explain why conventional talk therapy approach is more useful than blind affirmation is like trying to explain that water is wet. I get the splutters. For example, if a client seeks therapy for their fear of flying, I wouldn’t mindlessly nod along as he tells me that he should avoid all aeroplanes, and nor would I actively help him to try to remove aeroplanes out of the sky for fear that it might be triggering for him. Empathy comes very easily to me and I think my empathy is the trait that I value most in my psychotherapeutic work. So if a client had a fear of flying, I would gently engage in a collaborative therapeutic process that would work through the inner workings of his psyche. It is through reflective dialogue that helps the client to make their own decisions and this is why exploratory therapy is pretty much a fundamental aspect of every therapeutic approach – other than the affirmative approach.

The gender affirmative care model is an experimental approach to gender identity that has only been in existence since 2012. The Cass Review has recently described this approach as “not a safe or viable long-term option” for children. Gender affirmative therapy has been described as the “nodding-dog approach” where therapists act only as facilitators, without offering any exploratory thought or thought-provoking analysis, or encouraging the individual to consider their unconscious motivations. The gender affirmative approach is child-led rather than child-centered and promotes early and aggressive medical intervention for children. Advocates for this approach tell us that children between one and two years old can give a “pre-verbal communication” about gender. There are four stages to this approach: first the child socially transitions whenever they want, which entails a name change, a pronoun change and going to different toilets. Then puberty blockers are offered when the child reaches puberty. After that, cross-sex hormones are offered, and then finally when they’re an adult, surgery is offered.

Read the Whole Thing

Companion Posts


+++

The Gender Conversion Debate

This is a follow-up from the last Conversion Therapy? post.

A gay man, a lesbian and a straight guy (Bill Maher) have caught hell for questioning the accepted Gender Identity narrative.

[Standard link disclaimer1Links from this blog to online resources don’t necessarily mean I support everything found there. But as adults we should embrace viewpoint diversity. And make alliances where we can.]



Who is the Conversion Therapist?

Is it the one who is trying to help a person align their thoughts and feelings with the body they were given at birth or the professional who disregards the body and proposes irreversible radical surgeries combined with life-long hormone treatments in hopes of aligning the outer body with a patient’s inner desires?

+++

Love Refuses to Affirm Confusion

The Dangers of Gender-Affirmative Care

“Rainbow face paint on child, Leeds pride 2015. Family event. E67A9850” by TerryGeorge. is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

Another important piece from UnHerd.com with this essay by Eliza Mondegreen.

[Standard link disclaimer1Links from this blog to online resources don’t necessarily mean I support everything found there. But as adults we should embrace viewpoint diversity. And make alliances where we can.]

American doctors are unnecessarily harming children

The Biden administration recently announced a plan to ban “conversion therapy” and dismantle barriers to “gender-affirming care” for transgender-identifying children and adolescents. A few days later, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal introduced the  “Transgender Bill of Rights” on Capitol Hill which sought to legislate what the Biden Administration proposed to impose by executive order.

On this issue, the Democratic Party assumes the mantle of righteousness. Who could oppose “life-saving” “gender-affirming care”? Who supports “conversion therapy”, which the Biden administration described as “a discredited and dangerous practice that seeks to suppress or change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQI+ people”?

The reality diverges sharply from the loaded language the Biden Administration deploys, lifting terms directly from the most radical trans activists occupying positions at the outermost extreme of an ongoing debate between different factions of gender clinicians.

The dispute over how best to treat gender-questioning children that the Biden Administration seeks to resolve by enshrining “gender-affirming care” and stigmatising “conversion therapy” boils down to whether or not clinicians regard the children in their care as exceptions to everything we know about child development, human biology, sexual orientation, and more. Attending closely to the language of the activists with whom the Biden Administration has sided provides a masterclass in how to manipulate language to normalise risky and invasive medical intervention on a class of people — children — who are widely understood to be unable to provide consent in other contexts.


What’s changed are the ideas and expectations that we’ve raised children on and the way we’ve turned them loose in an online world whose terrain no one has mapped. Many of these children have grown up with extended experiences of online disembodiment. They may not be free to run around outside with their friends but they’re free to roam the darkest corners of the Internet. Who knows what strangers and strange ideas they encounter there.

These children have grown up hearing a very new and confusing set of fairy tales about gendered souls that can end up in the ‘wrong bodies’. Adults who should know better — adults who do know better — have made these children impossible promises.

Children who identify as trans aren’t sages. They aren’t sacred. They haven’t been endowed with wisdom beyond their years. It’s not fair to treat them as exceptions to the safeguards we place around children, so that when they grow up and change their minds and ask why we let them do this, we say: You wanted it. You asked for it. You were so sure. What else could we have done? 

There’s a way in which everything that touches trans must be exceptional — the children, the stakes, the feelings, the possibility of knowing anything for sure — because if these kids aren’t exceptional, then we threw everything we knew out the window. We didn’t ‘help’ exceptional children but harmed ordinary ones, struggling with ordinary challenges of development, sexual orientation, identity, meaning, and direction.

[emphasis added]


Read the whole thing.

+++