Please read the following important exposé by James Esses regarding the British Psychological Society and ideological capture by a certain agenda, which I am reposting.
The British Psychological Society (BPS) was founded in 1901 and currently acts as the representative body for well over 60,000 psychologists.
I first became concerned with ideological capture in the BPS when I saw that they were actively promoting Mermaids to vulnerable patients (this is the same Mermaids under investigation by the Charity Commission for safeguarding issues, including sending breast binders to children behind parents’ backs).
So, when the opportunity presented itself last week to go undercover to an internal BPS webinar, I took it. The purpose of the webinar was to “shine a light on the history of the LGBT+ community’s experience of receiving healthcare”. However, this was far from a mere talking shop. The BPS stated that the webinar “aspires to equip psychologists with actionable insights and recommendations to implement systemic change”.
It is clear from this blurb that the BPS sought to impress recommendations upon their members.
Before attending the webinar, I looked up the speakers. They included:
· Dr Adam Jowett - Chair of the BPS EDI Board, who has led research for the government on their proposed ban on ‘conversion therapy’
· Penny Catterick – A ‘trans’ member of the BPS Human Rights Advisory Group
· Dr Heather Armstrong – Academic at the University of Southampton
· Dr Katherine Hubbard – Academic at the University of Surrey
· Dr Rob Agnew – Clinical psychologist and Chair of the BPS Section of Gender, Sexuality and Relationship Diversity
Clearly, the BPS were bringing out the big guns.
The webinar began with panellists’ thoughts on the current state of play regarding ‘trans healthcare’ in society. The audience were told that “LGBTQ people face huge medicalisation”. This statement was ironic, given that the BPS support puberty blockers, hormones and surgery for those with gender dysphoria – the very definition of ‘huge medicalisation’.
The usual dollop of scaremongering was quickly added. We were informed that we are living in a “precarious and serious time”. Dr Katherine Hubbard, on the theme of patients feeling anxiety and distress, said: “Of course you feel anxious and distressed…look at the world you’re living in and the way your being is being pathologised”.
This is a worrying sentiment from a senior psychologist who appears to impose her own narrative and worldview on vulnerable patients. Rather than seeking to explore potential causation and co-morbidities of gender dysphoria, she simply views anxiety and distress as evidence as to why someone should transition.
However, the most concerning statement of the session came from Dr Rob Agnew (remember, he is a Chair within the BPS).
Agnew began with what can only be described as a rant, claiming that we have allowed “socially sanctioned discrimination” from people who can “hide behind other protected characteristics”.
It is clear who Agnew is referring to here – those of us who hold ‘gender critical’ beliefs, which, as we know, are protected under the Equality Act 2010. How would gender critical members of the BPS feel listening to this?
However, the worst was yet to come.
Agnew went on to refer to a recent statement from the United Kingdom Council of Psychotherapy (UKCP) as being “transphobic”. This statement was off the back of litigation I had pursued against UKCP and it recognised explicitly that psychotherapists are both professionally and legally entitled to hold ‘gender critical’ beliefs.
Agnew stated that we should clamp down on therapists with gender critical beliefs “in the way we wouldn’t expect a female client to accept therapy from an incel or a misogynist”.
To compare clinicians who believe in biological reality with incels1 or misogynists is beyond disgraceful. Shockingly, not a single panellist challenged Agnew on this statement. Remember, these panellists are purporting to speak on behalf of the entire BPS.
I wrote an anonymous question into the Q&A box, challenging what Agnew had just said. Unsurprisingly, my question was ignored.
Up next was a dose of identity politics from Penny Catterick, the ‘transwoman’ who told viewers that he has “55 years of track experience”, whatever that means.
Reflecting on recent attempts to introduce self-ID in Scotland, Catterick claimed that Scottish women are suffering from “minority stress”, on the basis that they are “living in nested minoritisation in the UK”. Truthfully, I don’t even know what this means…I think Catterick was trying to suggest that because Scottish people are not the majority nationality within the United Kingdom, that this is innately stressful for them…
Catterick, a man identifying as a woman, went on to say that we are “living in a patriarchy”. That he could not see the irony in this statement is truly worrying.
At this point, Dr Rob Agnew chimed in again with more random ranting. He chastised paramedics who “assume a person is a man because they have a beard…putting them in a situation in which they have to out themselves”.
He went on to question: “how relevant is it if they were assigned male or female at birth?”
In the world of emergency healthcare being provided by paramedics, extremely relevant.
But Agnew, blinded by his devotion to gender ideology, cannot even see this. He then said that “social background” is more important that “biological background” and expressed hope that one day we will live in a world in which clinicians can “engage with non cis het people” without needing to know their “personal history”.
This is complete and utter madness being spouted by the association of psychologists – a profession operating within a framework of medicine and science. Or at least they used to.
I was particularly concerned to hear a recommendation from the panel that “WPATH psychologists should be recognised by NHS” and that “recognition and promotion of WPATH practices by BPS practitioners could likely benefit psychological treatments in the UK.”
This is the same WPATH recently under intense spotlight, following the publication of the ‘WPATH Files’, demonstrating that their clinicians are clearly aware of the serious damage that can be caused by puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery, in the name of ‘gender affirmation’. This is the same WPATH which recommends breast and penis removal for children as young as 9 years old and has even advised that ‘eunuchs’ are recognised as a distinct gender identity.
Towards the end of the webinar, the panel engaged in a highly unprofessional and deeply disgusting attack on the ongoing Cass Review – the independent, government-commissioned review into gender services for children.
Dr Rob Agnew said that we should not have a “cisgender person deciding what trans youth services are going to look like” and instead “should have someone we can have faith in”.
To attempt to raise doubt, suspicion and paranoia over the work of Dr Hilary Cass, solely on the basis that she is “cisgender”, is utterly abhorrent and incredibly dangerous.
He went on to claim that there are “risks of explorative therapy” and that explorative therapy is “tied very strongly to conversion therapy”. To allege that therapists who seek to explore issues with clients (a bedrock of psychotherapy) is a form of ‘conversion therapy’ is simply beyond words.
The webinar finished with ‘transwoman’, Penny Catterick, saying that people have always told him “what a courageous person” he is for ‘transitioning’. He then, dramatically, paraphrased Franklin D. Roosevelt, telling his fellow trans people that they have entered the “Theatre of Critics” and reminded them that they are on a “hero’s journey”, even if “people in the cheap seats do chuck stuff at you”.
The webinar finished with a statement that “trans affirmative healthcare is the right side of history.”
I closed my laptop, feeling like I had just come from a Stonewall rally, rather than a professional, psychological webinar.
The lunatics are well and truly running the asylum. This should be of great concern to us all.
“Will it hurt doctor?” “Oh I’ll be fine, but thanks for asking.” Source
Speaking of the lunatics running the asylum, I am reminded of my very first employment after I graduated from university. It was as a research assistant at what is Canada’s and one of the world’s top psychiatric research institutions working on a research study of affective disorders defined as depression and/or manic depression. Having trained and worked as a professional ballet dancer prior to going to university, I really had no idea what I wanted to “be” or do anymore. As such, when a friend of a friend suggested I apply for the research assistant job where she worked I thought, why not give it a go and did so.
One of the many things I learned from my own observations and experiences was that a sizeable number of the psychiatrists, psychologists and assistants appeared to have chosen the psychiatric area of study out of self interest. As a highly sensitive empathic person it was a very strange, intense, toxic and sometimes stressful environment to work in.
I soon became aware that there were a lot of very creepy studies going on behind closed doors at the institute. One such study involved experiments which measured the sexual response of male prison inmates to various pornographic material. This particular study was being conducted down the hall from our office. We would see and hear the study subjects walk by with ankle chains as they were brought in by armed police guards. I became friends with the male research assistant working on that study who explained it to me and shared some of the um, shall we say, unpleasant things they were doing with the study participants.
Although there was and continues to be a a very strong movement to stop the use of electroconvulsive therapy on patients, I also became very much aware when I was on the ward one day to update the research study notes, that ECT was regularly being used on patients. This was also confirmed in the most tragic manner when I was invited to sit in on a review with one of the inpatients whom, along with her family, was also one of our study participants. She was a brilliant, accomplished and highly successful business woman. However, it was patently obvious that the “treatments” had disrupted aspects of her memory and zombified her demeanour. I found this deeply disturbing and very upsetting. I do hope that she is in a much better state and place now.
It was certainly an interesting experience and the people I worked with were really lovely however, I felt a huge sense of relief upon completion of my one year contract and not having to work any longer in that very strange environment. There was a lot of discordant, disturbed and toxic energy held in that place in desperate need of a massive clearing of the space on all levels. My experience firmly ruled out pursuing any further work in the arena of psychology and/or psychiatry.
Please note that this footnote was not included in James’s original article. Although I have seen the term used before, I wanted to check on the definition of “incel” so I looked it up.
The following is an excerpt from the Psychology Today article, What Do We Know About Incels?Getting a clearer picture of a feared communitypublished 17 October 2022, with the image.
People are single for many reasons. For some, it’s a choice—they might be “finding themselves,” prefer casual sex over commitment, or be waiting until the right person comes along. For others, singlehood feels like a choice society has made for them, whether they like it or not.
Source: Sora Shimazaki/Pexels
Involuntary celibates, or “incels,” are a sub-culture of men who feel totally excluded from the mating market. Often holding extreme views about how dating works (inspired by a caricature of evolutionary psychology), incels have developed a reputation as sexist, trolling, and dangerous. Concerns that incels pose a danger to society have been reinforced by mass shootings committed by young men with supposed (and sometimes later debunked) links to the community.
As a psychologist, I have observed the incel community from a distance for some time. I have seen extreme views about women, other men, and dating in general which shocked and troubled me. I also saw hopelessness, despair, bravado, and variety.
