Reason, facts, talking and learning

Congratulations to Dr Rob Agnew on taking up his position as Chair of the British Psychological Society's Sexualities Section. I wish him well, but may I remind him that 'with great power there must also come great responsibility'. This advice applies equally to the editorial board at The Psychologist.  

Some may think that the interview with Dr Agnew [December 2023] showed a lack of responsibility on both sides. In the interview, Dr Agnew says that 'LGBTQ+ communities will save themselves, and we will do it through reason, facts, talking and learning. How can psychologists not be at the forefront of this?' Yet he also parodies gender-critical clinicians by describing us as 'failed academics, self-declared experts, and people flying the flag for their pet theory on gender and sexuality diversity trumpeting microaggressions and misinformation into society' and 'a tiny minority of psychologists who deny the existence or validity of trans and non-binary identities and same-sex preferences'. He describes our views as 'anti-trans misinformation and rhetoric' and he makes the unjustified assertion that allowing gender-critical voices to be heard will mean that 'LGBTQ+ members and our Section (will) live under the threat of regression to ignorance and erasure'. 

Notably, the interviewer didn't see fit to question Dr Agnew on these characterisations, suggesting perhaps that The Psychologist doesn't see a problem with this kind of language. Yet these kinds of comments cannot form the basis for the kind of respectful discussion that Dr Agnew appears to advocate.

If Dr Agnew really values reason, facts, talking and learning, he will now use his influence within the BPS to ensure that gender-critical clinicians are given the same opportunity to describe their concerns and beliefs for themselves, in their own words, that has been afforded to him. But we doubt that he will do this.

The marginalisation of responsible gender-critical views is now commonplace at all levels in society. Without doubt, the 'affirmative' approach to the transgender phenomenon has been in the ascendant, clinically, politically and culturally, in recent years. In this climate, serious gender-critical voices have often struggled to be heard. For example, where are the interviews in The Psychologist with gender-critical clinicians? Where are the articles in The Psychologist about using exploratory, rather than purely affirmative, approaches in gender dysphoria? Where are the discussions of formulation-driven approaches versus critical social justice understandings of gender identity issues? Where are the careful and nuanced reviews of the Cass report? To the best of my knowledge, there have been none. [Editor's note: You can find two of Dr Higgon's previous contributions to The Psychologist here]. Rather than looking to The Psychologist, psychologists who are interested in the concerns and views of gender-critical psychologists would be better off going to Hannah Barnes' 2023 book Time To Think or The Genspect Gender Framework to educate themselves on these.  

We are aware, of course, of the hostility and discrimination that has been and still is visited upon members of the LGBTQ community. We deplore it. Amongst gender-critical psychologists there are many who belong to the LGBTQ community. But the answer to discrimination is not to shut down honest and respectful debate amongst professionals. Indeed, we agree with Dr Agnew that we should embrace 'reason, facts, talking and learning'. Furthermore, we believe that we can often learn most from those with whom we disagree most profoundly.

Dr John Higgon 

Editor's note: I appreciate you raising these issues in a reasonable and constructive manner. We have now had a good exchange of views over email… we agree to disagree on some aspects, but your point around language and respectful debate was well made and I hope well taken on my part.

Dr Rob Agnew replies: I would like to thank Dr Higgon for taking the time to read my interview and for his congratulations. Thanks also for the Spiderman reference – superhero quotes are always a win with me.

Dr Higgon raises some important points in his reply to my interview that I would like to address.

We have in our profession an important contribution to make for transgender people, and this needs to be done in a respectful and accessible way. To allow our passions to colour what we say can detract from our arguments and creates an environment in which people fear to speak. Singling out any group of people without the right to reply is as inappropriate to do to LGBTQ+ people as it would be to those who hold gender critical beliefs. As such, in my article, I made no mention of psychologists with gender critical beliefs, this allusion was made by Dr Higgon in his reply. The reference to "failed academics, self-declared experts" and "people flying their flag" was in fact a reference to speakers from outside of psychology who regularly opine on trans issues with no particularly relevant background. My reference to the "tiny minority of psychologists" was not a reference to those who identify as holding gender critical ideology; I do not know if they would in fact describe themselves as gender critical. This was a reference to psychologists whom I have first-hand experience of saying and doing inappropriate things with regards to LGBTQ+ people. I apologise for the lack of clarity but can see where the misunderstanding arose and will be careful in future to differentiate between those types of individuals listed above, and those who hold gender critical beliefs.

I take Dr Higgon's point that the language I used could not form the basis of respectful discussion. My position on this is that were I engaged in a BPS roundtable on gender identity, or drafting policy, I would of course use the appropriate voice. This was an interview, the purpose of which is to convey a sense of the character of the interviewee. I expected that my article would be read in a more casual way, clearly taken as a representation of me, and held as somewhat separate from my role in the BPS; to this end I used humour and disclosure to lighten the overall tone. However it appears that I was not successful in this regard and it will be something I take greater care over in the future.

I do not feel that I am in a position to comment on the level of representation of gender critical ideology in the BPS or The Psychologist magazine. Dr Higgon is correct in that I would not advocate for the expansion of gender critical beliefs in the BPS, but I would not agree to the incubation of any ideology in the BPS that targeted one particular group of people (trans people in this case). However I would not oppose genuine and sincere attempts to expand upon the understanding of gender identity in a way that is led by those it affects the most. This may not be in line with current accepted understandings and as psychologists we have to remain open to developing our knowledge even when it may be socially undesirable or politically incorrect. Without this ability, there would be no Sexualities Section.

Finally, Dr Higgon appears unconvinced by my concerns over the ignorance and erasure faced by LGBTQ+ psychologists. However I can assure him that in the two months that I have been the Chair of our Section I have experienced repeated bigotry and personal attack from the public and from psychologists and psychoanalysts. It is impossible to speak about LGBTQ+ issues without being opposition to some individuals and this puts us at greater risk of negative actions. It limits what we say, what we are 'allowed' to say and we constantly have to work within what is comfortable for those whom we are trying to reach with our concerns. Our voice automatically invites objection and confrontation from a group of people who are much bigger and more powerful than we are and this comes with a certain amount of risk.

As Dr Higgon and I seem to share a fondness for Marvel I hope he enjoys a quote that I think applies in a number of ways: 'Everyone fails at who they are supposed to be, Thor. The measure of a person, of a hero… is how well they succeed at being who they are.'