There has been little indication that List members suggesting the List wishes to take up Jon Sutton on this offer or indeed to continue with debate and action on this matter. I am aware of only 3 posts since 8th Dec: Deborah argued tentatively in favour of pursuing this; Gavi issued a caution re strategy; and Richard seems to suggest "a well prepared symposium/special edition, or whatever" would be more suitable than a Reader's letter in the Psychologist. Am I reading the list accurately enough to summarise that in general the List members do not wish to take this matter further in the ways suggested below? I feel I should respond to Jon in some fashion
David
David Fryer
________________________________
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Fryer [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 08 December 2010 07:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: our Statement re.Zucker & The Psychologist
Dear All,
You will remember that the Statement of Concern re Prof Zucker's work was sent amongst others to the Editor of The Psychologist, Jon Sutton. He has now replied. The whole string is pasted in below FYI. Note that Jon asks some questions and also sends us a copy of an 'event report' in which Prof Zucker comments and a reader's letter which will be published. The identity of the author of the reader's letter is disclosed. I checked if it was OK to circulate this letter on the List and Jon said it was but asked that the letter and the report not be circulated beyond this list prior to publication.
There are a number of issues for us to decide upon, here are some which occur to me:
Do we want the statement published as a reader's letter?
If so do we want to amend it now the conference has taken place and in the light of the event report and other letter as Jon suggests? Note that a 'reply 'would also be published.
Would want to offer and alternative event report? Partly because it is inaccurate or at least I have read a rather different report by Jemma, and partly because it is yet another case of the Society offering a platform for Zucker's voice and not really an event report.
Do we have a position on Phil Mollon's letter and if so would we want to weave that in to a revision?
Do we want to ask for space for a longer article in The Psychologist also?
When a consensus on the above is reached or evident I am willing to reply on behalf of the List collectively if that is the wish of the List or we can agree another way to proceed
David
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Jon Sutton <[log in to unmask]>
To: David Fryer <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tue, 7 December, 2010 23:14:35
Subject: Re: Your letter on Zucker
Hi David,
Yes, that’s fine, on the understanding that both letter and report are confidential to the list members until publication.
Cheers
Jon
On 07/12/2010 12:07, "David Fryer" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Jon,
Thanks for the request for clarification, further information and opportunity for revision. I sent the message but it was produced collectively by the UK Community Psychology Discussion List members. I will liaise with the other members before answering your question by circulating your email and report. Is it OK to also circulate Phil Mallon's letter when I do so ? that would be useful. I am assuming it would be OK as obviously Phil's letter is meant for public circulation but wanted to check with you first
David
________________________________
From: Jon Sutton <[log in to unmask]>
To: David Fryer <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tue, 7 December, 2010 22:27:04
Subject: Your letter on Zucker
Dear Dr Fryer,
Your statement of concern was copied to me. Can I ask whether you intended it for publication in The Psychologist, and if so whether you would like to take the opportunity to amend it in light of the event itself, and our audience? You might also find our report of the event, due out in the Jan issue, helpful. I have also copied a letter in response to the letter on p.952 of the December issue: this is also set for Jan.
Any resubmission or revision would be considered for our February issue now. This would hopefully allow time for a suitable response.
Best wishes
Dr Jon Sutton
Editor
Event report:
The distant chants of a small but noisy protest could be heard throughout Ken Zucker’s (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto) keynote on Gender Identity Disorder (GID) in children and adolescents. According to an introduction from DCP chair Jenny Taylor, several BPS groups, including the Psychology of Women and the Psychology of Sexualities sections, had called for Zucker’s invite to be rescinded on the basis that children’s gender confusion shouldn’t be pathologised and amidst allegations that Zucker had practised ‘reparative’ therapy for homosexuality. Zucker denied this – ‘it’s an urban myth,’ he said – and also denied that his clinic had ever had the goal of reducing homosexual outcomes in children.
Zucker described the diagnosis of GID and gave several examples of children who fulfill the criteria, including one girl who pleaded with her parents to be given a penis for her sixth birthday. The key criteria are a strong and persistent cross-gender identity, dressing in opposite-gender clothing, disliking of one’s sexual anatomy, and verbalising the wish to change genders. Zucker, who is chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-5 work group for Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders, said that the current proposal was to change the name to ‘Gender Incongruence’ and to drop the word ‘Disorder’ in the hope of reducing stigma. The explicit desire to change gender was also going to be made a compulsory criterion for diagnosis.
Regarding developmental trajectories, there appear to be two pathways. Most young children diagnosed with GID lose their ‘gender dysphoria’ with time. By contrast, the feeling of being the wrong gender persists in 75 per cent of adolescents, only subsiding with the help of surgery or hormone treatment. As for links with homosexuality (another issue raised by protestors), the majority of boys diagnosed with GID grow up to be homosexual adults, Zucker said, but only a minority of girls with a diagnosis of DID develop into adult lesbians.
Letter:
In her letter to the Psychologist (December 2010), Sylvia Kapp, on behalf of the DCP Faculty of HIV and Sexual Health states: “The Faculty believes that healthcare professionals who attempt to change sexual orientation may be committing human rights violations”. The implication seems to be that some practitioners may set out with an intention of somehow ‘changing’ a person’s sexual orientation – perhaps a bit like the behavioural aversion therapists of the 1960s and early 70s. I doubt there are many of those around these days. However, is it considered unethical to assist a person in exploring their thoughts and feelings? Sometimes people are uncertain of their sexual orientation. It can happen that a young person may conclude, in the course of therapy, that his or her sexual orientation has a less fixed and rigid quality than they may previously have thought, and may choose to explore other aspects and forms of sexual expression. Of course, stigmatisation of homosexuality can give rise to deep distress. On the other hand it is often our human attachment to rigid identities - all ultimately illusory, false, and culturally shaped – that can create psychological prisons that cause misery. Regarding the Bartlett study quoted by Kapp, it would be easy to draw a misleading inference that if a psychotherapist or counsellor were to say he or she had ‘helped’ a lesbian, gay, or bisexual person reduce their sexual feelings, this must mean it was the therapist’s intention to do so, rather than it being simply one outcome of the client’s self-exploration. Sexuality is perhaps more fluid and multifaceted, and identity less fixed, than Kapp’s letter (paradoxically) implies. I suggest we need to respect developmental autonomy and the evolution of the unknown self – core values, it seems to me, that can help to provide a protected psychotherapeutic space for reflection on the deeply personal mystery of sexuality.
Phil Mollon
Psychoanalyst
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The British Psychological Society
This email is intended for the addressee only. It may contain confidential information: disclosure of or action in reliance upon this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us by return email and delete the message.
Any views are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Society, which accepts no liability for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of this information unless confirmed in writing by a Society Manager.
We accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by viruses: you are advised to conduct your own checks on any attachments. When emailing us, be aware that email is not a 100 percent secure medium.
The British Psychological Society is a charity registered in England and Wales, Registration Number : 229642 and a charity registered in Scotland, Registration Number : SC039452 - VAT Registration Number : 240 3937 76
www.bps.org.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanned for viruses and unwanted content by emailsystems
If you believe this email is spam, please forward via email to [log in to unmask]
Information regarding this service can be found at
www.emailsystems.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The British Psychological Society
This email is intended for the addressee only. It may contain confidential information: disclosure of or action in reliance upon this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us by return email and delete the message.
Any views are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Society, which accepts no liability for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of this information unless confirmed in writing by a Society Manager.
We accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by viruses: you are advised to conduct your own checks on any attachments. When emailing us, be aware that email is not a 100 percent secure medium.
The British Psychological Society is a charity registered in England and Wales, Registration Number : 229642 and a charity registered in Scotland, Registration Number : SC039452 - VAT Registration Number : 240 3937 76
www.bps.org.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________ The Community Psychology List has a new website/blog at: http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/ There is a threaded discussion forum: http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi There is a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK To post on the website blog, forum or twitter feed, contact Grant or David at the email addresses below. David Fryer ([log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>) To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
___________________________________
The Community Psychology List has a new website/blog at:
http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/
There is a threaded discussion forum:
http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi
There is a twitter feed:
http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK
To post on the website blog, forum or twitter feed, contact Grant or David at the email addresses below.
David Fryer ([log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask])
To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
|
