conversion therapy – Page 2 – Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia

Our petition for removal by election to UKCP

As many followers know, we have recently been described as bullying for asking that processes be invoked around voting for removal by election of the trustees of UKCP.

Our response to the newspaper article will follow later today but for completeness’ sake, here is the official letter to UKCP, sent on 11 April:

Dear UKCP Company Secretary, and who else this may concern,

I am writing to formally deliver a petition on behalf of alarmed UKCP members regarding UKCP’s board’s latest decision to withdraw as a signatory of the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy in the UK v2 (MoU) and its membership of the Coalition Against Conversion Therapy.

The petition lays out the reasons for our petition and calls for a vote of no confidence in the UKCP board, and for a removal election to be held for the current Trustees. Please find the link to the petition here: Petition

As per UKCP’s Articles of Association, Article 17, the petition has so far garnered the signatures of the required threshold of 2% of your membership as of the 10th April 2024 (9072) (this is not considering students, trainees and retired members). Please find attached the list of the signatures extracted from the letter for your reference. The letter has also garnered the additional support of more than 1000 of concerned professionals in the sector.

As per your Articles of Association, we are expecting a removal election to be held within 120 days of receipt of this petition, with members receiving at least 30 days of notice of it happening.

Please kindly confirm reception of this petition and provide confirmation of the timeline by which we should get a response.

As a trainee UKCP member, I am personally delivering this petition as one of the many trainees and students who are refused a voice in UKCP elections, as a symbolic show that we do have a voice.

Sincerely,

Where do NCPS stand?

TACTT recently sent a group letter to The National Counselling and Psychotherapy Society (NCPS), signed by members, asking for clarification on their position regarding conversion therapy, and the Memorandum of Understanding. This followed NCPS being named in the statement in which UKCP announced their withdrawal from MoU; UKCP stated that they, with NCPS (and other bodies would seek to create new guidelines). The CEO of NCPS, Jyles Robillard-Day, has confirmed that he has received this letter and will respond within 28 days, but since then, new information has come to light, which have raised further questions for us.

Through further investigation, we have become aware that NCPS themselves does not appear to be listed as a signatory on the MoU. This was, for all of us NCPS members at TACTT, a big shock, especially given the fact that historically, they had been a signatory. From what we can see, they remained a signatory up until the end of 2022, but no longer appear on the document in January 2023. This seems to coincide with an update that was made to the MoU in November 2022.

The questions we are therefore asking are as follows:

*Why is it that NCPS appears to have disappeared as an MoU signatory between those dates?

Is this an error, or was it purposeful?

*If this is an error:

is it connected to the changing of the name of the society, from NCS to NCPS?
Can it be rectified asap so the membership can feel confident that they belong to a body who is part of the partnership against conversion therapy and supports the principles laid out in the MoU?

*If it was purposeful:

what was it about version two of MoU that they originally signed that made them make this decision, when their own written code of ethics supports it?
why have the membership not been informed, let alone consulted?

If the NCPS has not been a member of the MoU for nearly a year and a half, without its members being aware (and given there is still open reference to the MoU on the website), this would be an extremely serious matter.

Whether an intentional action or an error, we consider this action a grave mistake. What will be actioned in order that NCPS is fully transparent and accountable to its members to ensure such a grave error not be made again?

All these questions need answering and in our opinion, NCPS must (re)commit to the MoU at the earliest opportunity, and an apology and explanation should be submitted to its thousands of members, untold numbers of whom believed that they were part of an organisation signed up to the MoU, and who thus had a known and widely accepted framework to work within.

We await a full response from NCPS and will share any updates accordingly.

Response from and to NCPS

NCPS responded to our letter. The text is below, along with our response back.

Text from NCPS reads:

“Thank you for your communication regarding the Society and conversion therapy.

The Society, alongside other MOU signatories, was forced to withdraw from the MOU in 2022 after receiving formal threats of legal action against MOU and naming us as potential co-defendants.

Our professional indemnity insurers confirmed they would not be able to cover us should legal action commence against the Society and so we had no choice but to withdraw on financial grounds. Our withdrawal from MOU does not change our position of opposing conversion therapy and has not changed any Society policies. It was agreed at the time that publishing our forced exit as a signatory of the MOU would have had a detrimental effect on the coalition.

We have agreed to enter into exploratory discussions with UKCP and other professional bodies which does not signal policy agreement. Should the Society consider any policy changes in the future these would first be put to member consultation and ratification.

We are aware of the significance and complexities of this issue and will keep members fully informed of any developments.

Kind regards

Jyles Robillard-Day

Chief Executive Officer”

We have now sent the following response to NCPS:

Dear Jyles,

Thank you for your email and the additional information. However, it leaves us with more questions than answers. I have emphasised the questions to which the members who have supported the development of this response ask of the Society, and a request arising from the emergence of NCPS’s withdrawal from the MOU without informing its members.

Breach of trust and ethical duty of care to clients

NCPS members of TACTT are shocked and disappointed by the Society’s misrepresentation of its support of the MOU since 2022. Several TACTT members joined NCPS within the past 12 months under the impression that the organisation was a signatory to the MOU. The website states that the organisation is “a proud signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, making it very clear that counsellors can help clients who present with conflicting feelings about themselves concerning sexuality or gender identity.” The GSRD page in the Members area of the NCPS website states that “the NCPS supports the work of the MOU.” Given the context of your email, these statements are false and misleading to members and prospective members.

The Society has placed members in the position of harming our clients. Informed consent cannot be given by clients when they believe they are safe because their counsellor or psychotherapist’s membership body supports the MOU when it has not done so since 2022.

The Society has not conducted itself with the transparency that its own code of ethics demands of its members. The code demands that members “ensure that all advertising, no matter in what form or medium it is placed, represents a truthful, honest and accurate picture.” NCPS has recruited paid members using misinformation stating on public-facing parts of its website that the Society is a signatory to the MOU and reinforcing that in member-only information.

Although NCPS members involved with TACTT appreciate statements from the Society on conversion practices, this is an individualised response to a systemic problem. TACTT Members who chose to join NCPS did so on the understanding that their membership body was part of a broad coalition that was using its collective power to bring about systemic change in the UK.

NCPS has let down and misled its membership. This is not only a breach of trust between the Society and its membership, who could not freely choose a different membership organisation that was still an MOU signatory; the vitiation of the therapist/client relationship cannot be undone. The Society has placed its members in the position of deceiving clients, and now we are left with the burden of working out the steps we can take to repair this rupture of trust with our clients.

As members, we require immediate guidance on how we can rectify the position of maleficence that this has placed us in with our clients.

Legal action and MOU alternatives

We are aware of legal action that was brought against a number of co-defendants. However, the legal filings we have seen do not show NCPS as a co-defendant in that case.

We would be grateful if you could confirm the case to which you are referring.

If the Society’s objective for withdrawing from the MOU was to avoid legal costs, it is unclear how entering into a different coalition to produce an alternative statement on ending conversion practices will protect it from future legal action. If the Society intends to withdraw from any coalition or consensus statement openly supporting ending conversion practices, it is difficult to see how the Society’s involvement in any future coalitions will make any meaningful change. A coalition is only as strong as its members, and whilst we appreciate that the executive team has a responsibility to protect NCPS as a legal entity, it also has a responsibility to be accountable to its members for how its funding, which is generated largely from membership subscription income, is used to support ending oppressive practices in counselling and psychotherapy.

We request a statement on how NCPS makes decisions about which of its principles it will stand by and which it will recant when challenged.

Consultation with the membership

It is unclear from your email who you refer to when you say that “we” have agreed to enter into exploratory discussions with UKCP and other professional bodies. The email says that “should the Society consider any policy changes in the future, these would first be put to member consultation and ratification,” but a policy change has already been made. Withdrawal from the MOU coalition is a significant policy change about which the membership was not consulted. As such, we remain sceptical about the trustworthiness of the Society to consult and engage with its membership.

How do you intend to consult and engage with the membership on future changes in policy?

Would rejoining the MOU coalition constitute a change in policy, since the membership was entirely unaware of the policy change to leave the coalition in the first place?

Please feel free to contact me if you require any clarification on the above queries. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Kind regards,

TACTT

Open letter to UKCP about their guidance regarding so-called ‘gender-critical’ views

We have published an open letter to UKCP in response to their recently published statement on the law regarding so-called ‘gender-critical’ views and its implications for the practice of psychotherapy and psychotherapeutic counselling.

—

UPDATE: It has been 24 hours since we first shared this open letter and it has already been signed over 400 times by psychoherapists, counsellors, trainees and other therapeutic practitioners. Thank you. We are moved and warmed by this outpouring of support.We also know that, sadly, work of this nature can attract negative attention. But while we acknowledge that risk, we are choosing to continue to share and promote this letter as widely as possible because we can see that it strikes a chord with so many therapists – and clients – who support an affirmative approach to working with trans, non-binary and gender-questioning clients.

—

The full letter is below. If you would like to sign it, please go to https://openletter.earth/open-letter-to-ukcp-about-their-guidance-regarding-so-called-gender-critical-views-c71ce5d6

Open letter to UKCP about their guidance regarding so-called ‘gender-critical’ views

Dear UKCP,

We are writing in response to your recently published statement on the law regarding so-called ‘gender-critical’ views and its implications for the practice of psychotherapy and psychotherapeutic counselling. We are a group of over 100 registered therapists and trainee therapists, some of whom are trans, non-binary and/or gender-expansive people and some of whom are allies. We note that trans voices are palpably absent from UKCP’s statement and hope that this letter goes some way towards correcting the balance of discourse in the psychotherapy and counselling profession, which routinely discusses trans lives without centring the voices and lived experiences of trans people themselves.

Introduction

We were concerned by the publication of UKCP’s statement, which has created confusion and fear within both the profession and trans communities. We wonder why the statement was published at this time, with no explanation of its place within or alongside the UKCP Code of Ethics and Professional Practice (2019) and the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy (2022), of which UKCP is a signatory.

Although not all of our members are registered to practise with UKCP, many are, and our stance outlined in the above paragraph is consistent with several points in UCKP’s Code of Ethics and Professional Practice (2019), specifically:

Point 3: Respect your client’s autonomy (p.1).
Point 24: Understand the limits of your competence and stay within them in all your professional activity, referring clients to another professional when appropriate. This includes recognising that particular client groups, such as children and families, have needs which not all practitioners are equipped to address (p.3).

We believe that therapy which affirms trans, non-binary and gender-questioning clients has the power to save lives. There is overwhelming evidence that gender-affirming care can improve mental health and general wellbeing, whilst decreasing risk of suicide (Lawson et al, 2023). We advocate for an affirmative approach, in which the therapist supports the client’s right to define themselves. Affirmative therapy is exploratory in nature. However we are concerned that the term ‘exploratory therapy’ is increasingly being used to justify therapy undertaken by those with so-called ‘gender-critical’ beliefs. We believe that unless a therapist holds the view that being trans is one of many potentially favourable and healthy outcomes, they are not competent to work with gender in the therapy room. Any ‘exploratory’ approach that does not consider transness to be as good as any other state of being, and which seeks to uncover and possibly ‘fix’ the ‘reason’ for the client’s gender identity is conversion therapy.

As with any marginalised client group, therapists have the task of unlearning preconceptions or pre-decided theoretical ideas regarding a client’s identity in order to work safely and effectively. Consider, for example, the similarities with lesbian, gay or bisexual affirming practice, where therapists are asked to examine and unlearn unconscious biases about sexuality, and to refer clients on if this is not possible (point q, section 5, UKCP, no date). It should be no different for gender identity and gender-expansive experiences.

Simply put, we consider it exceedingly difficult for therapists to hold the dual position of having ‘gender-critical’ beliefs whilst offering genuinely ‘exploratory therapy’ with trans, non-binary and gender-questioning clients. We are concerned that this is not the view UKCP presents to its members and the general public with its new statement. To position therapists with ‘gender-critical’ beliefs as the main proponents of ‘exploratory therapy’ is highly misleading.

Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy

TACTT wishes to understand why UKCP has published this statement now and what purpose it is intended to achieve. We would like to remind UKCP that, as a signatory of the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy (MoU, 2022), you are already bound to an ethical stance on working with gender diversity:

Ethical practice in these cases requires the practitioner to have adequate knowledge and understanding of gender and sexual diversity and to be free from any agenda that favours one gender identity or sexual orientation as preferable over other gender and sexual diversities. For this reason, it is essential for clinicians to acknowledge the broad spectrum of sexual orientations and gender identities and gender expressions. (MoU, 2022, p2; emphasis added)

Indeed, point 36 of the UKCP Code of Ethics and Professional Practice (2019, p.4) specifically highlights that practitioners should be familiar with the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy (MoU) (2022). We are concerned by the stark omission of the MoU in this statement. We are also concerned to find a discrepancy in point 30 of UKCP’s own Code of Ethics and Professional Practice:

Not allow prejudice about a client’s sex, age, colour, race, disability, communication skills, sexuality, lifestyle, religious, cultural or political beliefs, social economic or immigration status to adversely affect the way you relate to them. (UKCP, 2019, p.4)

We notice that gender is not included in these protections and wonder why? As a signatory of the MoU, UKCP is committed to the protection of gender diverse people. May we remind UKCP that ‘gender reassignment’ is still a protected characteristic under the Equality Act (2010).

We request more clarity on how UKCP members should act on the information provided in the statement – is it guidance, or policy? How should this statement be observed and put into practice with clients whilst UKCP’s members abide by the UKCP Code of Ethics and Professional Practice and the Memorandum of Understanding?

An exploratory approach?

We disagree that an ‘exploratory’ psychotherapeutic approach is likely to be taken if a practitioner has sympathy with ‘gender-critical’ views (Ashley, 2023). We also find UKCP’s definition of ‘exploratory therapy’ to be unclear. It has already, in the short time since the publication of its statement, created confusion and distress for clients and the wider trans community.

Whilst case law has confirmed that ‘gender-critical’ beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010, the expression of such beliefs is not protected if it causes harm or distress to another. The ‘gender-critical’ belief that sex is binary and immutable translates into a belief that trans identities are not valid. We agree with the MoU (2022, p.2) that ethical practice when working with gender requires clinicians ‘to be free from any agenda that favours one gender identity […] as preferable over other gender […] diversities.’ Thus, when therapists work from the starting point that being trans is not a favourable outcome and are constantly looking for an ‘explanation’ for someone’s identity, this can easily tip into conversion practices. How can a therapist, who does not believe that a trans person is who they define themselves to be, conduct therapy ‘without any preconceptions or pre-decided theoretical framework regarding the person’s gender identity’ (UKCP statement)?

To work with gender ethically and competently, therapists must accept that being trans is a good state of being and a good outcome – one of many possible, valid outcomes, none of which is preferable to another. Furthermore, any movement towards one of many possible, valid outcomes should always be determined by the client.

While we agree that practitioners will often hold differing views on what approach is in the best interests of our clients, what is missing from this statement is any acknowledgement of what the client wants, needs or feels. Clients who are trans, non-binary and gender-questioning do not always present with ‘dysphoria’ and when they do this term means different things to different people. It is vital that we follow our clients’ lead and explore what they want to talk about. In general, therapists are not medical gatekeepers and, outside of gender services, we do not play a role in whether or not clients can or should access medical care. It is our role to support clients’ sense of agency in defining themselves. It is not our job to greenlight our clients’ gender journeys but to be with them as they figure out where they go.

Research by Hunt (2014) found that therapists’ lack of awareness and competence in working with gender can be a barrier to trans people accessing the support and space for exploration they may require from therapy. Indeed, therapists may not actually be someone their clients choose to share their gender journeys with. But the chances of this are more likely if clients feel able to bring all of themselves. Again, we emphasise that trans voices are noticeably absent from UKCP’s statement, which appears to prioritise the right of the therapist to assert an approach that ‘is in the best interest of their clients’ over the actual needs and desires of their clients.

Misleading and contradictory

We found UKCP’s statement to be misleading and contradictory in several ways. First, we are concerned that by leading with a reference to the interim Cass Review and its implications for UKCP members, and then continuing to reference medical interventions for children and young people, it replicates a hyperfocus on trans children and young people which excludes their voices whilst contributing to public hysteria. Furthermore, therapists who are not informed about the Cass Review and its specific emphasis on children and young people may, having read UKCP’s statement, now take this as direction to hold a particular stance in relation to providing psychotherapeutic support to adult clients.

Secondly, we find that overall UKCP’s statement conflates working psychotherapeutically with being directly involved in any medical care trans clients may wish to consider and access. Psychotherapists and psychotherapeutic counsellors are not medical professionals. Outside of specific Gender Identity Clinics, therapists are not involved in any decision-making about gender-affirming medical care. This is the case regardless of whether we find ourselves supporting children, young people, or adults. This continues to be the case even if a client self-defines as experiencing gender dysphoria (in whatever language they may use), has a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or may be seeking a gender dysphoria diagnosis for any number of reasons.

However, thirdly, this statement unnecessarily centres the concepts of gender dysphoria and medical intervention, as though these are the only experiences of being trans in the world. It is incorrect, disrespectful, and reductionist to regard all trans, non-binary and gender-questioning clients as experiencing gender dysphoria and/or seeking gender-affirming medical intervention. Doing so dismisses the incredible diversity of what it means to be trans, non-binary or gender-expansive, and to experience oneself authentically and euphorically. This statement reads as though it has been written by people who have never worked with trans, non-binary and gender-questioning people. As per point 29 of UKCP’s Code of Ethics and Professional Practice (2019, p.4), we urge you to expand your knowledge of transness, to honour the diverse narratives of trans people, and to make space for other experiences, such as gender euphoria and trans joy.

Reductive and pathologising

We find the UKCP Chair’s use of the term ‘gender issues’ in this statement to be reductive. By placing this alongside ‘mental health conditions and emotional issues such as depression, eating disorders and relationship difficulties’, UKCP treats gender diversity as problematic and pathological and ignores the creativity, potentiality and joy that can be found in working with trans, non-binary and gender-questioning clients. The Chair further reduces working with gender to ‘questioning’, which in our experience is only ever part of a vast, kaleidoscopic landscape of what it means to work with gender in therapy. Many trans people in therapy already know what their gender is; it is living in a world which denies their existence and does violence to their bodies which causes them psychological distress and harm.

We also wish to remind UKCP that trans people may seek therapy for all the reasons anyone seeks therapy and it is important that therapists do not assume clients are only seeking support for gender identity or transition. We work with clients on family issues, sex and relationships, work, bereavement, isolation, anxiety, depression – all the things any client may bring to therapy.

The Chair’s assertion that a ‘thorough exploration’ of gender ‘can take time, and sometimes a very long time’ is highly alarming, and redolent of the potentially harmful concept of ‘watchful waiting’. It suggests that therapists have the power to decide how long a ‘thorough exploration’ should take, all the while clients are held in a place of discomfort and dis-ease. How will the therapist know when enough time has passed? What will tell them that any exploration is ‘sufficiently thorough’? Again, this argument appears to prioritise the approach of the therapist over the agency of the client. As Saketopoulou (Acast, 2022) suggests, “This seems to have more to do with the person who wants to do the watching, rather than the person that is doing the waiting.”

We believe the Chair’s reference to medical interventions has no place in guidance published by a UK psychotherapy body. As we have stated, in the UK, psychotherapists and psychotherapeutic counsellors are not medical gatekeepers; it is not our responsibility to determine ‘risk’ in seeking gender-affirming medical care. UKCP’s statement risks generating panic amongst practitioners and clients by suggesting that it is the therapist’s place to sanction a client’s access to gender-affirming care.

For UKCP therapists who are interested but inexperienced in supporting trans, non-binary and gender-questioning clients, such panic prevents them from learning and offering appropriate psychotherapeutic services. Thus, the pool of competent, safe therapists available to such clients becomes ever smaller.

Furthermore, medical intervention is not the only choice open to trans and non-binary clients, and this reductionist statement does nothing to help wider public understanding of the complexity and nuance of what it means to explore gender or to be trans in the world.

We find the Chair’s closing argument troubling. It creates further concern about UKCP’s stance on how its members should work with gender diverse clients:

Regardless of viewpoints, all professional psychotherapists and psychotherapeutic counsellors who work with gender dysphoria or gender-identity want the best for the person who is struggling and needs help. If this is always kept in mind, these vitally important conversations, however difficult, can take place in a healthy and supportive manner, allowing us to ensure our clients’ and the public’s best interest and safety remain paramount. (UKCP statement)

Can UKCP clarify why safety is a concern for the public in relation to transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people seeking therapy? How will psychotherapists and counsellors know what is ‘best’ for clients? Who defines ‘best interest’? Does this mean respecting our clients’ autonomy? How will UKCP act to protect trans, non-binary and gender-questioning clients from therapists whose ‘gender-critical’ beliefs cannot be bracketed and unduly influence what they believe is in the best interest of the client?

It cannot be said with any certainty that all psychotherapists and psychotherapeutic counsellors who work with gender dysphoria or gender identity want the best for those who are struggling and need help. By definition, therapists who hold ‘gender-critical’ beliefs already disagree on what trans, non-binary and gender-questioning people define as best for themselves.

Overall, UKCP’s statement grossly misunderstands the reality of working with trans, non-binary and gender-questioning clients who seek psychotherapeutic support. There is nothing ‘difficult’ about being allied with our clients’ views on how they feel about themselves, or their expressions of identity in ways that are fulfilling and meaningful. Doing so is simply part of offering psychotherapeutic support in an ethical manner, making space for difference and diversity along the way.

Conclusion

We ask that UKCP clarifies its original guidance and responds to the questions and points we have raised throughout this letter.

We invite you to further your own education on trans experiences and centre trans voices in any future public commentary on trans lives. This can be achieved by consulting with trans and non-binary therapists, as well as practitioners who are undertaking affirmative therapy with trans, non-binary and gender-questioning clients. There are many practitioners in TACTT and beyond who would generously share their experiences in the interest of making emotional and mental wellness a human right for trans people.

Finally, we urge UKCP to reflect on how a ‘gender-critical’ therapist could reasonably, ethically, and legally be able to offer psychotherapeutic support to trans, non-binary and gender-questioning people. We see nothing but risk of harm in this approach.

We fear that if UKCP continues down this path, the council and its members will be considered by clients to be synonymous with being ‘gender-critical’. Indeed even in the short space of time since this statement was published, we are already seeing this fear shared amongst trans people. Many practitioners train for a long time to achieve UKCP membership and registration; it is disappointing that those of us who are trans-affirmative are starting to question our place in the organisation.

We invite other psychotherapists and psychotherapeutic counsellors who support this letter to sign below.

Yours sincerely,

Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia (TACTT)

—

References

Acast. (2022). ‘Exposing Transphobic Legacies, Embracing Trans Life’ with Dr Jules Gill-Peterson & Dr Avgi Saketopoulou. Couched (Podcast) 24 June. Available at: Episode 3, Season 3. iPlayer, 17 February 2023. Available at: https://couchedpodcast.org/exposing-transphobic-legacies-embracing-trans-life/

Ashley, F. (2023). ‘Interrogating Gender-Exploratory Therapy’. Perspect Psychol Sci. 18(2): 472–481. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10018052/

Bachman, C. L., & Gooch, B. (2018). LGBT in Britain: Health Report. Stonewall. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/lgbt-britain-health

Hunt, J. (2014). ‘An initial study of transgender people’s experiences of seeking and receiving counselling or psychotherapy in the UK.’ Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Journal. 14 (4): 288-296. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/14733145.2013.838597

Lawson, Z., Davies, S., Harmon, S., Williams, M., Billawa, S., Holmes, R., Huckridge, J., Kelly, P., MacIntyre-Harrison, J., Neill, S., Song-Chase, A., Ward, H., & Yates, M. (2023). ‘A human rights based approach to transgender and gender expansive health.’ Clinical Psychology Forum 369.

Available at: https://explore.bps.org.uk/content/bpscpf/1/369/91

Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy in the UK: Version 2 – Update March 2022. (2022). Available at: https://www.bacp.co.uk/media/14985/memorandum-of-understanding-on-conversion-therapy-in-the-uk-march-2022.pdf

UKCP. (2019). Code of Ethics and Professional Practice. Available at: https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/media/bkjdm33f/ukcp-code-of-ethics-and-professional-practice-2019.pdf

UKCP. (no date). Guidance on the Practice of Psychological Therapies that Pathologies and/or Seek to Eliminate or Reduce Same Sex Attraction. Available at: https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/media/hhxle33g/guidance-on-psychological-therapies-that-pathologise-and-or-seek-to-eliminate-or-reduce-same-sex-attraction.pdf