Pat Harvey reviews the incredible actions and inactions of an incompetent BPS in relation to debates in which it should have taken a strong and credible lead in a letter on behalf of BPSWatch to the Chair of the Practice Board
Dear Dr Lavender,
Sex and Gender and the British Psychological Society’s Ongoing Failures
We are writing to you in your capacity of Chair of the BPS Practice Board. We have concerns which we wish you to formally bring to the Practice Board for discussion as a matter of urgency. These concerns relate to the continuing dereliction of the BPS as a learned and professional body in relation to its duty to assist and, indeed, lead the continuing public debate on sex and gender. These are clearly matters falling directly – even centrally – within the purview of academic psychology and of psychologist practitioners and about which the BPS should have authoritative statements. They are impacted by an evolving context of government policy, service reviews and legal judgements towards which the BPS has latterly taken a decidedly “spectator” stance. This is embarrassing for members, and not what they pay their fees for.
Adult Gender Services
The Practice Board ratified a revision of the 2019 GSRD Guidelines in 2024, although we note from other minutes available to members, not without some concern about how the process was conducted, including the fact only the chair had seen the final draft. There had been a very evident changing context since 2019, signposting the subsequent and ongoing review of adult gender services (https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/review-of-nhs-adult-gender-dysphoria-clinics/) which noted:
- concerns put to the review team by current and former staff working in the adult gender clinics about clinical practice, particularly in regard to individuals with complex co-presentations and undiagnosed conditions
- lack of a robust evidence base; being mindful that the majority of referrals to the adult gender clinics are of natal females who are aged between 17 and 25 years, and that the historical evidence base that has informed clinical practice relates to an older cohort of natal males
- limited information on short and long-term outcomes, particularly for those individuals who transferred to adult services from paediatric services
- an increasing incidence of individuals seeking to ‘detransition’ following previous gender affirming interventions and the absence of a consistent, defined clinical approach for them.
Astonishingly, the BPS chose to replace the two members of the 2019 Task and Finish Group who had demanded their names be removed from that document with two individuals associated with strong trans ideological/activist connections. That ensured that the whole revision group came from one position in the debate and one provocatively at odds with changing knowledge and opinion. It was also unacceptable that the chair remained an individual about whom formal complaints have been made concerning the public statements that research on surgical treatments for transgender people indicate that “…that debate is shut, there is not a debate about this anymore…” (https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxRGiT6y5ouSa6T9Nes0om-J6HWo7otLDx). This statement had been patently false, irresponsible and unethical, and unacceptably the BPS had supported that position. It has had no excuse subsequently, however, not to have been fully aware of the incongruity of retaining that chair to lead the process of reviewing the BPS guidelines .
A wise and reflective British Psychological Society would have been following social and professional developments in the period since 2019 and decided that the original Guidelines were patently and wholly unfit for purpose, and scrapped them. It would have set up a new group, carefully considered the Society’s position, acknowledged controversies and social pressures and supported practitioners back in their clinical and educational environments/teams to be able to discuss the management of gender distress with balance backed by confidence in their professional body. As the Guidelines now stand, they are unhelpful, biased and ideological rather than research and practice based. They are discredited. As such they undermine the credibility of the Society. They are not only embarrassing, they fail the public. And, most importantly, they fail the very people who are asking for help.
Children’s Gender Services
At the point at which new services, with stated aims to provide holistic models of multidisciplinary care required by the Cass review, are being developed, the BPS has entirely abrogated its right to a seat round the table of discussions about the central role that Psychology – academic research and therapy – could and should be fulfilling. The last Practice Board minutes available to members (weren’t we going to get summaries of what was going on in the Board to bridge the gaps?) stated that there had been a first meeting of a group (recruitment criteria unknown, membership unknown, chair unknown) and “a discussion paper is in development” (March 3 2025) This is a stable door creaking on its hinges as the horse is running many furlongs in the distance.
Further Questions
What of Women’s rights and a Society response to the recent Supreme Court ruling which clarifies that biological males, even those with a GRC, cannot be considered women under the Equality Act when it comes to single-sex spaces or services? No comments?
What of the difficulties researchers have experienced in carrying our basic research on sex and gender (see “Review of data, statistics and research on sex and gender Report 2: Barriers to research on sex and gender” (2025) https://www.sullivanreview.uk/barriers.pdf ) such as Professor Sallie Baxendale, clinical neuropsychologist, who experienced repeated rejection of her work by journals on the impact of suppressing puberty on neuropsychological function, saying: “It wasn’t the methods they objected to, it was the actual findings.” No comments?
Beyond that series of instances of barriers, there is a question that perhaps a healthier BPS might be able to address, what are the social psychological implications of gender “exceptionalism” that have led to an extraordinary breakdown of norms in academia and in clinical practice? Might not the BPS be directly implicated in that breakdown?
The Future of Psychology and the BPS in relation to Gender
Clearly there has been an inherent breakdown in how the BPS has and is still responding to the wider controversies on Sex and Gender. The Practice Board has clearly failed in its remit. To undo actual damage to credibility and reputation, It should start by withdrawing the GSRD Guidelines and scrupulously review the energy and activity of the current Children and Young People Gender Group. The BPS as a whole needs to acknowledge its shortcomings and seek a widespread and vigorous consultation with members.
The hitherto biased and resistant editorial policy in respect of The Psychologist should be urgently reviewed.
Given this unfortunate history and the suppression of debate within the BPS and in the pages of The Psychologist, BPSWatch.com intend to continue a challenging series of articles under the title psychology UNREDACTED. The first two and a response of these should be read by interested parties:
The next article in BPSWatch.com will be this open letter to you.
We demand action.
Yours sincerely,
Pat Harvey
Peter Harvey
David Pilgrim
BPS members and BPSWatch.com
cc.
President of the BPS
Chair of BPS Board of Trustees
CEO
Director of Knowledge and Insight (as currently still designated on website)
psychology UNREDACTED 
Based on previous responses over the decades, perhaps this could have been more realistically titled “Unopened letter to the BPS”?
LikeLike
love this spot on with you all the way
LikeLike