First thanks to David for following this up. I think it is worth
responding, at least with a reader's letter, to the inaccuracies in the
event report. A number of people on the list were concerned about Zucker's
work impacting negatively on individual children, and narrowing down what it
means for all of us to have a sexual and gendered identity. I really like
the last sentence of Phil Mollon's letter: "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". Unfortunately
the rest of his letter is about the issue of "reparative therapy for
homosexuality" in response to Susan Kapp's letter which I havent read (where
oh where is my December copy of my beloved Psychologist?) so I'm not sure
how the debate got shunted into this blind alley.
I agree with Gavi about proceeding with caution. I would be very interested
in reading an article about how children identifying very strongly against
their assigned gender challenges our ideas of human sexual identity and how
Zucker's work (crude behaviourism) is as much of an unsatifactory attempt at
closure as crude biological determinism. As I often ponder when faced with
such questions "what would Judith Butler say?". However, it might be quite
an undertaking to propose a special issue along these lines for the
Psychologist. On the other hand a well-written "think piece" reflecting on
Zuckergate would probably be suitable for Clinical Psychology Forum, if
anyone would like to give it a go.
Deborah
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fryer, David" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: our Statement re.Zucker & The Psychologist
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
___________________________________
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
|
