IDEOLOGY ABOVE ALL:

It was left to the EHRC to point to "the possible need to consider a differentiated approach in relation to sexual orientation and being transgender so as to ensure, in particular, that clinicians and therapists are not prohibited from providing appropriate care and support for individuals with gender dysphoria". The professional bodies themselves did not think to consider the potential impact on their members' ability to do their jobs properly.

The EHRC also highlights the need for a clear definition of "being transgender" -- which is not a clinical diagnosis -- and clarity on which forms of communication would be caught by a ban on "talking conversion therapy". Professionals must be able to offer legitimate professional services which "should include support to reduce distress and reconcile a person to their biological sex where clinically indicated" without being afraid of being caught by a ban.

In between the consultation closing and the government's U-turn, the NHS-commissioned Cass Review of the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) published its interim report.

If the signatories to the MOU2 had not previously considered the impact of a "transgender conversion therapy" ban on their members, there was no excuse not to do so now. The Cass report was unequivocal about the significant impact the MOU2 has had, referencing several times the concerns of therapists who "feel under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach". This is at odds with normal standards of paediatric practice.

This passage from the report is worth quoting in full:

"Some secondary care providers told us that their training and professional standards dictate that when working with a child or young person they should be taking a mental health approach to formulating a differential diagnosis of the child or young person's problems. However, they are afraid of the consequences of doing so in relation to gender distress because of the pressure to take a purely affirmative approach. Some clinicians feel that they are not supported by their professional body on this matter."

The Cass report is a stark exposure of a service that has utterly failed in its duty of care to children. What has led to these failings? The report states:

"From the point of entry to GIDS there appears to be predominantly an affirmative, non-exploratory approach."

And the conclusion:

"A fundamentally different service model is needed which is more in line with other paediatric provision."

Pause for thought for the professional health bodies? Time for a reassessment of the MOU2? No. The professional bodies have doubled down.

Tweet   @brothersjudd