Mick Hartley

Yasmin Zenith had an article in The Critic back in January, voicing her concerns about the dominance of gender ideology in psychiatry:

Something troubling is happening in premier UK medical institutions like the Royal College of Psychiatrists. There is a schism between the influential proponents of gender ideology, which is ascendant across the NHS, and those who view it as unscientific and an impediment to safe-guarding and freedom of speech. Dissenting clinicians are concerned about an increasingly dogmatic promotion of gender identity ideology.

She now returns to the subject:

The absence of a forum for debate and the top-down imposition of ideological orthodoxy on gender and trans healthcare has been vividly described to me by the psychiatrists I’ve interviewed since my article in January. It is striking that all of the female psychiatrists I spoke to requested anonymity because they are fearful of repercussions if they speak openly. What does that say about the glacial climate for free speech within the profession? Phoebe* is a consultant adult psychiatrist with decades of experience and a sharp analytical mind. She is scathing about the dominant influence of Stonewall and EDI on the issue of gender dysphoria. She tells me: “The agenda for EDI has become paramount. EDI dictates are unquestionable, and there is an atmosphere of fear which makes discussion impossible. You are made to feel like a fascist if you criticise the affirmative approach.” Phoebe says ideological perspectives are inhibiting debate, and people are denounced for asking questions….

A consultant adult psychiatrist who I will call Cassandra* has a wealth of clinical experience. Her compassion for her patients is clear. She describes how aggressive activism is having a distorting impact. She is critical of the affirmative approach particularly if a young woman presents with a constellation of issues, including a background of sexual abuse. Cassandra used to deliver annual lectures to junior doctors to pass on her clinical knowledge and expertise, but she has stopped out of concern that she will be reported for failing to adhere to the orthodoxy on gender dysphoria. She has no confidence her trust would support her if that happened. Medical education is becoming increasingly ideological. “We’ll look back at this like we look on lobotomising patients.”

Dr Adrian James is the current President of the RCPsych. His tenure ends in July. His commitment to EDI [Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion] has been explicit. In a blog to celebrate Pride in 2021, he announced RCPsych was signing up to both Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index and its Diversity Champions programme. He wrote: “When I announced I was running for President in 2019, I made Equality and Diversity one of my four key priorities. When I did that, supporting the LGBTQ+ community was central to what I wanted to achieve.” When RCPsych won a Stonewall Gold Award in February after complying with “80 per cent per cent of the measures which were consistent with our values”, Dr James was “delighted”. Are these clinical or political priorities? Dr James has also affirmed RCPsych’s commitment to a ban on “so called conversion therapy”. What does conversion therapy mean in the context of trans identified patients seeking healthcare? Will a ban mandate affirmative care? Will it criminalise clinicians who adopt a holistic, exploratory approach? What about the young women encouraged by the medical profession to embark on a pharmaceutical and surgical voyage that leads not to euphoria, but regret?

Conversion therapy, in trans-speak, covers everything except immdediate affirmation that a troubled teen is absolutely correct in their belief that they've been born in the wrong body, and that life-changing medical intervention is required immediately. No discussion, no counselling, no let's-wait-and-see – it's straight onto the puberty blockers.

And this from the current president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. 

What precisely is happening within apex institutions across the medical sphere? This picture of an icy inhibiting environment, in which psychiatrists are frightened to speak or question gender orthodoxy, does not bode well. If the freedom to debate, challenge, explore is lost, where does that leave science and medicine?