The Telegraph newspaper recently published an article claiming that leaders of membership bodies including the UKCP have been “ousted” for raising safeguarding concerns relating to gender-affirming therapy for children. We have written a response to this in the form of a letter to the editor which you can read in full below:
We are a group of over 400 therapists, including members of the UKCP, BACP and NCPS, writing in response to the article ‘Top therapist ‘ousted’ after trans activist row’ (26 October 2025). We were disappointed to once again see a news story about trans lives and care that did not speak to or consider the perspectives of trans people. We believe that people should be free to be themselves and live within a true understanding of themselves, and that the way to “protect children from harm” in therapy is to allow them a safe place to explore who they are.
The article reports claims from former UKCP Chair Christian Buckland that activist pressure from within the therapeutic profession has created a coercive environment regarding the treatment of gender-questioning children, and describes allegations of intimidation, governance failures, and the marginalisation of voices calling for exploratory rather than affirmative approaches. In particular, the article focuses on claims that Buckland, and leaders of other therapist membership bodies, have been “ousted” for raising safeguarding concerns relating to gender-affirming therapy for children. These centre around Dr Buckland’s decision to withdraw the UKCP from the UK’s Memorandum of Understanding on conversion therapy (the MoU). Dr Buckland claims this was done because he “became aware” that the MoU (which states that conversion therapy in relation to sexual orientation or gender identity is unethical, harmful, and not supported by evidence) applied to children as well as adults.
We deplore the threats of violence that Buckland says he has been subjected to as we deplore hate and violence against any individual, trans or cis. We also object strongly to the implication that threats and violence are tactics consistently and deliberately used by some hypothetical ‘pro-trans’ lobby.
Dr Buckland’s claim that he was unaware the MoU applied to children as well as adults seems disingenuous; there is a paper trail relating to the MoU, including a press release back in 2019 showing that it was discussed that the guidance should apply to all ages. There has never been an explicit exclusion from conversion therapy practices for children, because there has never needed to be one. There is no evidence that conversion therapy works for any age, and plenty of evidence that it harms, as made clear in a Government report of 2021.
Buckland and Martin Pollecoff both had ample time in the 7+ years of discussion around the MoU (and the revised edition) to ask for clarification on whether the word “people” as used in the document included “people under the age of 16”. It would appear that this did not happen, until Buckland decided in a meeting in 2023 that he was unaware that those under 16 were in fact “people”. Rather than discuss those concerns, his statement (according to someone present in that meeting) was that he would need to speak with those linked in UKCP to working with minors. No further communication followed that we are aware of, as UKCP was withdrawn as a signatory before the next meeting.
It should be noted that, despite UKCP citing concerns around work with children as their reason for withdrawing from the Memorandum of Understanding on the prevention of conversion therapy, UKCP’s own website ‘clarifying’ this decision makes a very clear statement that: “We want to be clear that we are against conversion therapy for any age, adults or children.” It is unclear, then, why the UKCP is withdrawing from an understanding that conversion therapy is bad for all ages, whilst unequivocally stating on its website that conversion therapy is bad for all ages.
The article stipulates that Buckland received backlash for “trying to protect gender-questioning children from policies that would encourage them to be trans and go on to receive life-altering drugs and surgery” and says that gender affirmative approaches pose “significant harm”. The article does not elaborate on the nature of this alleged harm, only implying that it is inherently harmful to allow for the possibility that a child or young person is transgender. We do not believe that acknowledging that a person – of any age – who is wondering if they are trans may in fact be trans is harmful. In fact we believe that acknowledging that transness exists as a valid, non-pathological identity protects people from harm, particularly in a world where transphobia is so prevalent.
Also published was the claim that the MoU is “encouraging 100 per cent of children [with gender dysphoria] to go down the medical gender reassignment route”, concluding that “The crux of the split is around how children who are confused about their gender or believe it does not match their sex should be treated.”
This misrepresents what is meant by ‘affirmative therapy’. “Affirmative” (the term borrowed from, and endorsed by, Dominic Davies who wrote about “gay affirmative therapy” in the 1990s) refers to a framework which affirms the client “in their right to explore and to use words that are right for their identity”, and within which the therapist has no preference for the client to hold any particular identity. Affirming therapists do not seek to convert, persuade, or coerce, and do not seek any particular outcome other than the growth and flourishing of our clients, whatever their age. Affirmative therapy simply means that we do not think it is a worse outcome if a client decides, for themself, that they are or are not cisgender (TACTT, 2024).
We do not actively wish for children to be trans anymore than we wish them to have any other particular identity. We worry for our trans clients – of any age – because we understand the difficulties inherent in being a trans person in 2025; with significant, almost uniformly negative media representation, constant public debate, and steady erosion of rights. We firmly believe that people should have the space to work out if they are trans, and if they are, we will affirm that position. If someone comes to the decision that they are not trans, we will affirm that identity also. “Affirming” does not mean “coercive”. It means accepting someone’s view of themselves as valid.
Those of us who disagree with Dr Buckland’s decision are denigrated as “activists”, as if being an activist is something one should avoid being, when in fact, we are activists merely because we care about the lives of all people (and this includes trans people). This denigration also undermines our collective wealth of experience in the fields of psychotherapy and clinical research.
Yours,
Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia
Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia 