SCoPed and trans (and other marginalised) people

This is a post that got started some time ago but was neglected until now. The arguments still stand and so we are posting it with ‘better late, than never’ in mind.

The 2023 BACP announcement that ‘all partners’ had decided to adopt SCoPEd is going to reframe what training means for qualified counsellors, along with who gets what, when, and how. What it will eventually mean is that according to your training you will enter at one of three points A, B or C (originally these columns were called ‘counsellor’ ‘psychotherapeutic counsellor’ and ‘psychotherapist’, but this was changed after an outcry- as if labelling the column differently is going to make a significant difference to the stratification of our profession). Jobs will likely be stratified according to at least the competences listed in the columns, if not clearly by the columns themselves.

We’d like to concentrate here on both the EDI assessment, and the impact that SCoPed will have on LGBTQIA+ practitioners and trainees as we move forward.

We will use the term ‘therapist’ here to cover anything that we would consider either ‘counselling’ or ‘psychotherapy’ in that whatever you call it, we are all aiming to be of some kind of therapeutic benefit when working with our clients.

Your TL;DR is: Without Membership Body (MB) data, we do not know if those in ‘protected characteristics’ will be discriminated against, and there is no MB data (and currently no suggestion that this will change). Whilst there will be the ability to move between (up through) columns post-training, it is likely to more significantly impact those with less privilege. A ‘column A’ therapist is expected to have less competences (and will be seen as less competent) than a column B therapist. It follows then that a column B therapist will likely be a higher paid role.

So, those with less financial privilege (uniformly those who are more marginalised in society) will be most likely to participate in a ‘column A’ ranked training, ending them in a lower-paid job, which will render undertaking further training to get into column B (and C) more difficult (and it is likely that people will be unable to find out definitively from BACP BEFORE they pay for an additional training, whether that would qualify them to apply for the ‘next column’), and once that has happened, the individual will then have to pay to move into that next column.

For this EDI assessment, six therapists, a miniscule fraction of the 50,000+ therapists currently registered with BACP, were consulted, and the qualifications of the consultees is not disclosed. Despite there being very little actual EDI work in this EDI impact assessment, and the results suggesting that there will be at least some impact on those more marginalised, the EDI assessment suggests we make a start on SCoPEd as it is and trust that the rest is worked out along the way.

The EDI impact assessment

We believe that as a process, this EDI impact was flawed. There are six member organisations that have signed up to SCoPEd. Whilst there will be a percentage of people who are in multiple organisations, the membership for NCPS sits at over 9000, the membership for BACP sits at over 50,000, UKCP sits at over 11,000. That’s half the memberships listed, and although we expect BACP to be the largest, if we assume even 5000 for the others, that’s about 85,000 therapists (the SCoPEd announcement says 75,000), and more joining every year.

An ‘EDI impact assessment’ was commissioned to (one presumes) look at the impact of SCoPEd across all demographics.

This impact assessment was conducted by a company called Eastside Primetimers, who state: “The strategic objectives that the Partners set for SCoPEd draw our attention to the dependency of its success on equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) considerations”. Before they started on this project, Eastside Primers were calling SCoPEd a ‘groundbreaking project’ and a ‘pioneering project’. We wonder how easy that would be to turn back on if you were to find significant issues with the project.

The report states that it has struggled to get any information about those who might be in protected characteristics from the membership bodies (MBs) and they state at the start of the document that they cannot say (yet) what the impact on those people who might experience less privilege will be. None of the data collected is cited as being race/ethnicity, cis/trans status or sexuality, or disability (pg 13). In those where gender was collected, the average number of men in the profession is 16%. The report suggests (pg 11) that should SCoPEd NOT go ahead, that this will disadvantage people who have less privilege. It does not seem clear on why this is so.

The EDI report acknowledges that the framework is not a public-facing document so it asks ‘a small number’ of the public (12 people who’d had experience of counselling) to consult with it about SCoPEd. They approached six counsellors, 3 of whom were men (meaning that men proportionally have more of a voice as a reflection of the profession here), five were white, five didn’t identity as disabled, and none stated any LGBTQIA+ identity. There is no suggestion of their socio-economic status either. Four people interviewed were in private practice. Again an interesting choice, as those in private practice are potentially least likely to be impacted by SCoPEd.

They gathered six people for interview. There is no suggestion that, in this ‘equality and diversity impact’ consultation, they interviewed six people who might be qualified to speak about these topics. In fact, their report states “Some communities (such as those identifying beyond the gender binary) are not represented due to factors, such as not responding to the invitation to interview or not meeting the survey criteria in some way, such as not being a member of a registered professional body” (pg15). Dominic Davies from Pink Therapy, “the UK’s largest independent therapy organisation working with gender, sex and relationship diverse clients” has stated that he was not contacted for any help, and that had he been so, he would have facilitated the reaching out. There are over 200 people listed on the Pink Therapy directory who have a specialism in LGBTQIA+ topics, and at the time of the consultation, 45 of these have ticked the ‘trans’ box as part of their own identity, suggesting that at a minimum there were 45 people listed with an MB who might have been open to being contacted. Several of those people are TACTT members and were not asked

We do not know for certain that The Black, African and Asian Therapy Network (BAATN) or Black therapy matters had a similar experience, but we’re willing to take a guess. This EDI ‘consultation’ didn’t try very hard to find a trans person (or any LGBTQIA+ person), interviews ONE disabled person, and ONE person from a minority racialised background, and gives no real impact on what SCoPEd might mean for therapists with marginalised identities.

We do not really see any EDI impact in this 27 page document until pg 19 when we find “There is a risk that Partners’ membership data systems do not facilitate EDI-relevant analysis of progress in widening access to and progression within the profession, and so in turn ensuring that the framework does not exacerbate barriers to access and progression”. This says to us that there is no way that we can know if SCoPEd will have an impact on the most marginalised counsellors because MBs don’t collect that data.

Page 20 of the EDI assessment suggests that without the ability to move between columns with further training (rather than only ‘core training’, which would require a qualified counsellor to start again as if untrained), that this will compound the difficulties those therapists with ‘protected characteristics’ hold, and make higher columns inaccessible.

Despite the information given above, this consultation sees no reason why SCoPEd can’t go ahead as it stands and we can iron out the details later. A profession based on expertise especially in one’s own process should never be mediated by privilege. It is an impoverishment of the profession as well as injustice to practitioners with marginalised identities.

There is an interesting point in the data, which is that single women are less likely to support SCoPEd than partnered women, and we cannot help but wonder if this is part of the reason that SCoPEd votes are going through – that if you think it doesn’t affect YOU, PERSONALLY, you don’t necessarily consider the impact on other people. Those who are in a relationship will generally (we know, not always) have a second income coming into the family. Those who only have one income coming in have to be much more aware of SCoPEd and how this might impact. This ‘awareness of how all counsellors might be impacted is, in our opinion, what an EDI assessment would do.

This EDI assessment says: as SCoPEd stands, you can’t move across columns without investing in more training; those who are more marginalised can’t afford more training; some organisations have already said they will start to stratify therapists according to columns, thus ensuring that column A therapists can only do ‘lesser’ qualified roles (which presumably one then gets paid less for, or the thing that we CURRENTLY see, which is that someone is ‘good enough’ to volunteer, but not good enough to be paid), thus meaning that they earn less money and therefore have less income to be able to afford more training that might push them across columns. But please, feel free to get started and iron out these ‘small’ details later.

Trans folk, queer folk, disabled folk, folk with racialised identities, folk who are working class, will all find it difficult to move into the top two categories and are at risk of being pushed into lower paid jobs as a result, and kept there. For those people who are multiply marginalised this will be even more more likely and this ‘EDI impact assessment’ does not recognise intersecting axes of oppression in its report whatsoever.

When is a person not a person?

Answer: when you’re under 16.

That is, at least, according to the ex-chair of UKCP in an October 2025 Telegraph article. He claims to have been unaware that the use of the word ‘person’ in the Memorandum of Understanding on conversion therapy included those under the age of 16.

So, how are children and people different, and what is being set up by and in us as therapists that lets one of the ‘top therapists in the UK’ (as posited by the Telegraph, at least) walk around for potentially their entire life, believing that children are somehow not people?

Dictionary.com gives its first definition of ‘child’ as “a person between birth and puberty or full growth” and we would be the first to acknowledge that the legal definition of ‘child’ has differed across ages and cultures, and situations. A 16-17 year old can get married or join the forces with parental permission, may have sex and procreate without parental permission, but may not smoke or vape, even with parental permission. A 16-17 can’t vote, but can have a job and pay taxes. These numbers have changed across time, and have not always had parity between genders (two people of different sexes could have sex legally at 16 since 1885. Before that it was 12, then 13. There was no consideration of an age of consent for sex between those identifying as men until 1967, when it was set at 21, and then lowered in 1994 to 18, and again to 16 in 2000. There was no equivalent for those identifying as women). None of this takes away from that child being a person, however. A person (also as defined by dictionary.com) is “a human being, whether an adult or child”, which also also suggests that the legal definition of person is “Law., a human being natural person or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity artificial person, or juristic person recognized [sic] by law as having rights and duties”. Yep – even not actual people are legally people in some instances.

The main psychological theories in existence posit that there is a linear and progressive route to achieving stable and enduring gender certainty, and that children and adolescents are naturally in a state of flux. It is this state of flux that seems to create a line between children and adults (or children and people, depending on who you’re talking to). Once you’re an adult (or a ‘person’), you’re assumed to have ‘achieved’ a stable identity. There is a huge amount of double-think going on here. “Everyone changes”, but children don’t know who they are and might change (and therefore can’t be known as trans whilst they are in this place – however long it lasts). At the same time, “adults have a stable identity”, and that’s what makes an identity more trustworthy, but they come to therapy to explore (and potentially stay with) some hitherto un(der)explored aspect of their identity. That is what the jobs of so many therapists is; to work with adults with a stable identity, as they seek to change. That is our livelihood.

Which is it? Are adults and children both capable of fluidity of self? And if it’s not the notion of fluidity that creates the issue with children being seen as people with agency, what is it?

The difference that seems to be held in popular areas of discussion is this: adults know, and children might think they know, but they do not (and cannot). And therefore by extension, until they know who they are, they cannot be a person. Adults however, may change as much as they wish, because we (who is this ‘we’?) know that they/we have a stable identity.

When working with children and young people, as when working with adults, we would do well to remember that we are not inside the heads of the person in front of us and therefore can not presume to know better than them what their experience is. Our methods of communication are partial at best. Sitting in a room with a counsellor and talking involves multiple steps. As a client, I have a thought/emotion process, and try to translate this into the 2D experience that is words that capture some of my experience. My therapist then receives my interpretation of my experience and interprets that through their own lens (even as some of us attempt to stay within the frame of reference of the other). The therapist then has their own internal process about my words, and then they offer me back their own 2D experience as it relates to my 2D experience of what is at least a 3D experience. As much as we try to be empathic, and sometimes we can do this much better than others, there are too many layers of interpretation happening here, to be right all the time. Whilst we have all been children, a crystal clear understanding of the processes we were going through at any moment in that childhood simply isn’t available to us in the present moment.

We are all human beings in flux, whatever age we are. Most of us who go to therapy go to explore some aspect of ourselves that we’d like to at least understand more fully, so that our deeper understanding might change something in our environment. No children know fully who they are yet. However, no adult does either. We allow adults not to know this, as long as their wondering about themselves don’t fall too far from an acceptable norm, or start from a marginalised place. Those who are marginalised know only too well what it is to have their personhood and agency stripped from them over and over again throughout history. We have a long history of ableism, racism and misogyny, in the same way that we have a long history of not allowing children agency. We are at risk of treating anyone who is not a white, cisgender heterosexual, able-bodied adult as someone incapable of agency, as somehow a ‘thing’, not a person, capable of wonder. And that results in their dehumanisation.

There is an argument that we should not affirm the right of children to be themselves because this somehow leads them down an ‘irreversible changes’ route – that by affirming them, we somehow cause children to become trans (read: delusional), which somehow forces them to get blockers, then hormones, then surgery. The first problem with this is that very little of this treatment is available for under 16 year olds, and so medical treatment such as hormone blockers (let alone what is often called ‘cross-sex hormones, or surgery) is simply not accessible to under 16s (and with NHS waiting lists in place, once a child moves on to the adult wait list it’s still going to be a significant time – the TransActual website shows that the longest wait time for hormones from referral is 8-10 years and in England and Wales the shortest waiting times for adult services are 2 years). Secondly, any therapist who tried to persuade a client to a cause of action would likely be working outside of their code of ethics (should they be registered with a membership body), because attempting to force anyone into anything in therapy is unethical.

We believe the recent article statement from the ex-chair of the UKCP makes clear that either there is a level of deliberate obtuseness, with the argument that he did not know that ‘children’ were included in the category of people (or, to put it another way, ‘didn’t know that children were human beings’), or that somehow, he does not see children as people, with agency, with the right to explore who they are. To suggest (or believe) that children are not people, is to exercise control over them without their consent. We are not ok with this.

Either way, we would suggest that the statement is ridiculous, and it seems clear to us that the definition of ‘people’ should never have needed special explication of just who was included in the category of ‘human’. Nor should children be used as pawns in a fight to withdraw one of the country’s main PSA-registered bodies from the Memorandum of Understanding on conversion therapy. Furthermore, children (and adults!) should be affirmed in their right to explore who they are, whether they come to a cis, or trans identity. At TACTT, we want people to be who they are at every age, and support full and open exploration of self that allows freely for all possible responses.

Inspiration for inclusive practice and creating safe(r) spaces

This book review comes from another of our members.

Supporting Trans People of Colour: How to Make Your Practice Inclusive. By Sabah Choudrey

London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2022

Paperback, 208 pages, £16.99. ISBN: 978-1787750593

I begin by acknowledging the lens through which I read this book and am writing now: I am a trans/non-binary psychotherapist; I am white, in my 50s, middle-class and neurodivergent.

On beginning to read Supporting Trans People of Colour: How to Make Your Practice Inclusive, I was struck by the author’s approach: Choudrey combines their own lived experience with voices from the community (via an anonymous survey) and with the voices, frameworks and tools of elders, researchers, leaders and organisations (for example, BARC Collective, adrienne maree brown, Brené Brown, Justice Founders and many more). This was a very powerful thread throughout the book and I experienced the writing as though it was flowing from a broad collection of lived experience and wisdom.

My second impression was of the holding and educating that is done by Choudrey. While the first section (Identity and Intersectionality) provides an extremely helpful resource on terminology, language, white privilege, cis privilege and the experience of trans people of colour in the UK in various areas (criminal justice, healthcare, faith, etc.), I wish that such education did not fall on the shoulders of those within the community and I acknowledge the effort it must have taken to put this book together.

The chapter Creating a Safe(r) Space was illuminating to me. Safety is such an important theme for the trans community and the encouragement to think about not being able to guarantee safe spaces but to “be accountable to harmdoing and transparent to risk taking” (p.67) in order to create safe(r) spaces, was very helpful for my own thinking about safety and the spaces I offer as a therapist, raising my awareness of my own responsibility. Equally, asking the question: “safer for whom?” (p.67) has already proven helpful to me in group and institutional settings to think more deeply about privilege and how I inhabit spaces.

Similarly, the chapter Holding a Safe(r) Space outlines the need for us to be active in this endeavour, especially given the fact that trans people are often not allowed by society to take up space. Choudrey continually encourages us to think about intersectionality and overlapping areas of oppression, and this chapter offers helpful sections to understand not just race and gender, but also sexuality, dis/ability, language, access, and class. I admit that class is not an area that I have given a lot of thought to, and this section highlighted my hesitation to think about class privilege, providing me with a great starting point for doing some personal work in this area. The recommendations and discussion in this section have helped me to begin my reflections on how class and classism might impact my work.

Any topic around oppression can feel overwhelming to tackle, but this book offers many practical and manageable starting points for professionals and organisations (therapists, healthcare professionals, charities, educators, and others). The range of subjects covered is broad but always comes back to lived experience and meaningful actions. For example, there were some small actions I could immediately take in my therapy practice, even as I was reading the section on Agreements, contracts and policies. I reviewed my contract and added more detail to provide greater transparency. I also added a task to my calendar to review it regularly because, as Choudrey reminds us, inclusion is an ongoing process. In the chapter Celebrate and Commemorate, I found the calendar of cultural, historical, and social events useful – I know how isolating it can feel if a significant day is not acknowledged by those around us, and educating myself about events important to other communities feels like an easy, supportive step to take.

The book contains moments to pause: breaks in the text in the form of boxes with points to reflect on. I found these challenging, inspiring, interesting… There were parts that raised questions requiring deeper self-examination and ongoing work, such as: Where do I hold influence in my life? How can I take responsibility for widening my circle and experience? Where is my collusion? What do I not see in my much-valued trans spaces?

The other chapters in the book include one entitled Practice (especially helpful for organisations, covering tokenism, visibility, and accessibility – whether your spaces are online or in-person – advertising and recruitment, and partnerships and funding) and one called Exclusion and Inclusion, which includes a 10-point summary for making your practice inclusive.

The care I have experienced in the trans community is something that is very precious and supportive to me, it helps me thrive in life. This book brought into sharp focus the whiteness of my trans spaces, and I realised with sadness that I do not think enough about how these spaces could be safer for trans people of colour. I want our community to be accessible and welcoming to all. Supporting Trans People of Colour provided me with practical ways to think about transforming my community spaces, as well as a wealth of information and points for further reflection. I ended the book feeling empowered.

Ahead of UKCP’s meeting this evening

Ahead of tonight’s UKCP meeting members about the Board election with we wanted to give a loose timeline and comments on UKCP’s withdrawal from the MoU.

In short: UKCP withdrew citing concerns that the MoU applied to children. The MoU does not prescribe how we work, except that we must start from the premise that no one identity (cis or trans) is better than the other. The UKCP’s clarification letter then says more about this, but draws on irrelevant things to support its point (which is a concern about working with children). Then a letter from the UKCP’s board cites legal actions as a reason. We were aware of one legal action involving UKCP, which they settled early this year. We are aware of one other legal action which also does not specify children. However, the clarification letter now states legal actions (and resultant increase in insurance) as a significant reason. Whether children are covered under the MoU2 is irrelevant to the claims, as this disctinction would not have stopped either legal action (which began in 2022 BEFORE the re-signing of the MoU2). The long UKCP letter claims “we couldn’t directly engage with you all due to the content of some of the organisational risks”. NCPS also failed to engage with its members on this. However, when approached, NCPS were open about their reasons (financial). If UKCP was also struggling with the financial aspect, they too could have been transparent from the start. Pink Therapy, who were forced to withdraw from the MoU (for insurance reasons) were transparent about this aspect.

We argue that the insurance premiums, whilst perhaps a genuine concern, are a red herring for the real issue here, which is that the MoU SHOULD cover all people. We also argue that if it was explicit that children were not covered, UKCP would be facing the same issue of finances.

Conversion therapy kills. The view put forward by people describing themselves as “gender critical” is that trans people are at best deluded about their experiences and at worst, predatory. Gender critical therapists apply the term “exploratory therapy” to their work with trans clients and trans clients only, which in the context of gender critical views and the limited application of “exploratory therapy” means that this can only be conversion therapy by another, more palatable name. The legal cases mentioned by UKCP have BOTH been in place since before the UKCP re-signed the MoU in 2022. This would also mean that the insurance company would have been aware of these cases for over a year.

At length:

UKCP initially withdrew citing the following reasons:

“The UKCP Board of Trustees reached this decision following concerns it held regarding whether the MoU applies exclusively to adults, or if children and young people are included in its scope. UKCP has received clarification that the MoU does indeed relate to all ages. Upon investigation, it became evident that there are historical concerns held by a number of UKCP colleges that regulate psychotherapeutic work with children and young people relating to this subject, and which have yet to be addressed – hence our decision to withdraw at this time.” (UKCP update on conversion therapy (psychotherapy.org.uk))

It seems clear from this statement that the issue for the UKCP here is about conversion therapy and children.

Their clarification states:

“Children and young people require and deserve careful support, that is often different from what is required for adults.

UKCP has been concerned for some time that this is not reflected in the current MoU. The current MoU was drafted to apply to adults and was retrospectively applied to children and young people without consultation with the relevant bodies and child therapists with the specialist and regulatory knowledge of working with children and young people.” (UKCP withdrawal from MoU on conversion therapy (psychotherapy.org.uk))

UKCP has not raised concerns suggesting this is the case in the past. The current MoU has consistently been accepted as a document that would protect LGBTQ+ youth as well as adults from conversion therapy since its inception. In particular, UKCP as a signatory agreed to the BPS Document ‘Guidelines and Literature Review for Psychologists Working Therapeutically with Sexual and Gender Minority Clients’ as the basis for their work in relation to the MoU as early as 2012. The document incorporates adults, young people and children.

In 2015 the UKCP agreed to the following as part of the publication of MoUv1 under the section: ‘Roles and Responsibilities’ that:

“Training Organisations will refer to the BPS guidelines on working with gender and sexual minority clients when reviewing their curriculum on equality and diversity issues”.

Within this document Children and young people are mentioned in Part II.

At several points along the way and between 2012 to date there have been ample opportunities for UKCP to move from the inclusion of children and young people and they have not. Trustees of UKCP have attended and been a party to discussions within the MoU about inclusion of young people as ‘members of the public’ who might be impacted by conversion therapy. UKCP Trustees have always been party to the knowledge and decision making surrounding MoU1 and 2, and the spirit, aims, and wording of these documents were unanimously aimed at safeguarding LBGTQ+ youth from conversion therapy. This is well documented and witnessed by those in attendance as signatory members. UKCP Trustees have attended meetings and been part of the decision making process.

As late as 2019 the MoU2 released a position statement to the press, agreed by all members including UKCP, which states clearly that:

“… a legal ban should not divert our attention from the fact that education and professional training remain essential in order for practitioners to be able to work competently with LGBT people of all ages and to provide them with a safe and respectful environment in which they can explore who they are without judgement or fear”.

UKCP has always been part of the decision making process surrounding the MoU2, and have always been aware that conversion therapy involving LGBT members of the public of all ages is harmful. As a signatory to the MoU2 UKCP have previously agreed that an adequate description of the MoU Coalition submitted to Parliamentary members is that the Coalition ‘acts on behalf of’ children and young people as well as LGBT people of all ages’ as part of its brief to government consultations.

It is not clear what the concern actually is. UKCP says it is against conversion therapy and the MoU states that:

“’conversion therapy’ is an umbrella term for a therapeutic approach, or any model or individual viewpoint that demonstrates an assumption that any sexual orientation or gender identity is inherently preferable to any other, and which attempts to bring about a change of sexual orientation or gender identity, or seeks to suppress an individual’s expression of sexual orientation or gender identity on that basis.”

It also states:

“this position is not intended to deny, discourage or exclude those with uncertain feelings around sexuality or gender identity from seeking qualified and appropriate help.” And “Nor is it intended to stop psychological and medical professionals who work with trans and gender questioning clients from performing a clinical assessment of suitability prior to medical intervention. Nor is it intended to stop medical professionals from prescribing hormone treatments and other medications to trans patients and people experiencing gender dysphoria.

For people who are unhappy about their sexual orientation or their gender identity, there may be grounds for exploring therapeutic options to help them live more comfortably with it, reduce their distress and reach a greater degree of self-acceptance. Some people may benefit from the support of psychotherapy and counselling to help them manage unhappiness and to clarify their sense of themselves.

Clients make healthy choices when they understand themselves better. 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.”

It is completely unclear as to why this wording would provide a problem when working with children and young people. As therapists we should be seeking to help all clients understand themselves better. We should be able to help clients clarify their sense of themselves.

When challenged, UKCP have not been able to answer this question. Their concerns are listed as:

“No safeguarding distinctions between adults and children and young people”.

Trying to work out if you’re trans is not a safeguarding issue, if you work from the basis that being trans is not a ‘worse’ position than being cis. It simply means that you work ethically with children to allow them to explore their identities, INCLUDING the possibility that they are trans.

Applying adult-focused legislation and guidelines to children and young people which overlooks their unique developmental requirements.

There is no adult-focused legislation in the MoU. The MoU is not a legislatory document and the guidance is to remain open

Children and young people need a unique therapeutic approach that acknowledges their developmental stage and capacity for informed consent.

Agreed. However, the MoU leaves explicit space for professionals to work in the ways in which they work ethically with children. The MoU does not prescribe an approach; it says we have to work ethically.

The family and social context of children and young people, which is a vital source of information to understand the child/young person, is not taken into account.

Again – this is not what the MoU is trying to achieve here. It does not say that professionals cannot do this.

Due to the lack of child-specific guidance, child therapists face legal risks, including the possibility of lawsuits if a child detransitions in the future.

Any therapist who works with anyone is at risk of a lawsuit. We are not infallible and will make mistakes. The MoU does not say “YOU MUST TELL A CLIENT THEY ARE TRANS” it says “accept that trans is a valid identity”. It explicitly asks us to allow clients to clarify their sense of themselves.

Policy changes in the Department for Education (DfE) and the National Health Service England (NHSE) and safeguarding implications from emerging evidence and research relating to gender incongruence has not been taken into account.

We would argue again that this is irrelevant. Whatever NHS and DfEE policy say, this does not mean that counsellors/psychotherapists cannot allow clients the space they need. To suggest this is to suggest that we are in some dystopian future where thoughts should be policed. Stopping a person from having space to fully explore their identity will not stop people from coming out as trans. It *will* potentially lead to poorer mental health outcomes when children are being pushed into one particular outcome (“not trans”)

In a lengthy email to UKCP Members on 11th June, the focus shifts from instead of leaving because of safeguarding concerns (although this is still mentioned) to UKCP being named in legal action and this being expensive. UKCP suggests they could not consult with members in advance.

This may be true. However, there is nothing in any of the minutes available online for trustee meetings in 18 months that even mentions the MoU, leaving us to wonder just how important this was, when the UKCP has been named and implicated in legal action across that entire timeframe.

However we feel about whether or not UKCP should remain in the MoU (and of course, it is TACTT’s position that they should), the UKCP has not engaged in its stated objectives – the organisation should be consulting with members. It should have a clear narrative on why it has done what it has done. It seems clear that when faced with the backlash, the focus of the UKCP’s story has slowly changed to reflect a more palatable version of the reasons why. This is unacceptable and not how a board of trustees should be acting.

Statement by TACTT on UKCP Board ‘no confidence’ vote (full version)

Context

The UKCP has announced a removal election of the Board of Trustees in response to a call from some of its membership through an open letter petition initiated by UKCP members who are also members of Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia (TACTT). The petition was signed by the required threshold of at least 2% of the UKCP membership, and also garnered support from over 1500 professionals and trainees from across the sector.

The open letter and petition came after the UKCP Board decided to withdraw the UKCP as a signatory of the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy (MoU2) (and as a member of the Coalition) earlier this year, without consultation with the UKCP membership.

In this statement,TACTT want to take the opportunity to clarify the origins of the petition, and its rationale for calling a vote of no confidence.

Who Are TACTT?

TACTT is a collective of therapists, counsellors, psychotherapists, psychologists and other therapeutic practitioners, including trainees in these fields, who oppose conversion therapy and transphobia in the therapy profession. TACTT members belong to a number of professions, and those who are counsellors, psychotherapists, or psychotherapeutic counsellors are members of a number of different professional bodies, including the UKCP. TACTT holds members of all genders.

What is the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU2) on Conversion Therapy?

The MoU2’s main aim “is the protection of the public through a commitment to ending the practice of ‘conversion therapy’ in the UK” (MoU2, point 1), viewing conversion therapies as unethical and harmful. By signing they are committing to ending the practice and ensuring their members are working ethically, based on training, within that principle.

Anyone seeking therapeutic support deserves a safe, trained professional who is truly acting in their best interests. This assurance has now been removed for LGBT+ people approaching UKCP members for such support.

What led to the petition?

(i) No consultation of membership for major policy shift

While much of the TACTT membership was alarmed by the Board’s decision to withdraw from the MoU2, we were further shocked that this was done without any consultation with the membership or Articles-mandated Member’s Forum which “should be consulted on the future direction and strategy of the Charity and advise and collaborate with the Board of Trustees.”

(ii) Contravening UKCP’s Code of Ethics point 32

Furthermore, we are appalled by the contradictions and lack of clarity found in the UKCP’s Board statements:

The stated reason for the withdrawal given by the Board included concerns about how it specifically applied to children and young people. This contradicts the facts of the MoU2 (which states in point 10 that it does not provide these specifics to signatories and leaves each organisation within their own purview to determine the specifics of how that training, and working practice is managed to achieve the commitment of ending the practice of conversion therapy). The Board also stated the UKCP had not known, when signing, that this statement applied to children. This cannot be squared against their years of membership supporting the MoU and its re-signing of the Memorandum in its second version.

Unfortunately the statement put out by the UKCP Board thus contradicts itself as well as the facts of the MoU2. Especially when their withdrawal statement still speaks to the same end purpose of the MoU2 that they are now disavowing.

This all stands to confuse the wider MoU2 membership, the UKCP membership, and the wider public about the expectations of therapy they can receive from counsellors and psychotherapists.

Furthermore, the nature of the comments the Board makes in its withdrawal statement imply that the MoU2, and by extension every other signatory organisation, is failing to sufficiently safeguarding the interests of young people. In doing so the UKCP Board is calling the practice of the wider psychotherapeutic community into disrepute and contravenes the UKCP’s Code of Ethics point 32, which states that members must “act in a way which upholds the profession’s reputation and promotes public confidence in the profession and its members.”

In addition to this, the Chair of the Board of Trustees has in TACTT’s view, publicly contributed to this misrepresentation in the national press and on social media accusing the signatories of the petition and TACTT of “bullying” the Board, comparing UKCP’s members’ legitimate and constitutional call for a removal election with a ‘coup’, and further suggesting that those who support the petition are somehow not interested in the “safety of children”.

We point out once more that in calling for a removal election, the UKCP’s Articles of Association have been adhered to and members are entitled to exercise their democratic right to vote on the continuation or removal of the Board of Trustees, without being defamed by the Chair of their Board. In TACTT’s response statement, TACTT reminds readers that being held accountable through a democratic election is not bullying.

(iii) Lack of response and dialogue

Following the UKCP’s withdrawal from the MoU2 and their statement, UKCP members of TACTT individually and TACTT as an organisation, have tried on numerous occasions to contact the UKCP to discuss their decision and try to talk to them about reconsidering. All attempted contact has been ignored. The open letter/petition is a response to this lack of engagement by the UKCP.

Concerning views about gender and invalidation of trans identities

The open letter/petition was not TACTT’s first attempt to raise questions about the UKCP’s seeming policy direction and its lack of consultation around this. In late 2023, a previous open letter, raised major concerns about how the UKCP’s position was moving towards one that re-pathologised trans identities- in ways that seemed resonant of outdated, homophobic positions-, and how it seemed to promote so-called ‘exploratory therapy’ (a practice which typically ‘explores’ all possible meanings of a trans client’s gender identity experience other than that they are actually trans) for ‘gender-critical’ therapists (i.e. those who typically do not believe being trans is a valid state of being). Here again, the UKCP repeatedly refused to respond to invitations for dialogue about serious concerns raised by multiple UKCP members, Members’ Forum Representatives as well as over a thousand signatories of Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia (TACTT)’s open letter (last updated in January 2024).

From this lack of dialogue, engagement and reassurance, we do not have the confidence that the UKCP Board is supportive of trans voices, trans clients, trans students, trans therapists, as now embodied in its unconstitutional withdrawal from the MoU. Again, many other UKCP members outside of TACTT, along with professionals who are members of other therapeutic bodies, agree.

Conclusion

The public discourse around transgender people in the UK is currently toxic, with relentless political and media attempts to smear and misrepresent them. This has left the small UK trans community in deep distress. TACTT sees this in the lives of some of its members and in the anxiety it encounters from many trans and gender expansive clients. This said, TACTT wants to make clear that the grounds for this vote of no confidence lie in the UKCP’s own Code of Ethics, as the authors and signatories of the letter believed that the UKCP Board’s decision did not meet point 32 and they have not been “acting in a way which upholds the profession’s reputation and promotes public confidence in the profession and its members.”

We point out that the Board has made a major policy decision without consultation with individual, college or educational members and note that its communication of its decision to psychotherapy professionals, the wider public, LGBTQIA+ people as potential clients is at best confusing, at worst incoherent. In this confusion they are damaging the reputations of other MoU2 signatory bodies and their professional members by implication.

Further, whilst the UKCP’s statements still claim its opposition to conversion therapy, this confusion stands to harm and reduce the safety of LGBTQIA+ clients and potential clients.

We cannot believe that these actions are in the interest of the fee-paying members or of our clients. Numerous LGBTQIA+ students and trainees from within and outside TACTT have shared their concerns, including students on UKCP accredited courses who are required to be members of the UKCP or to remain members after completing their courses for qualification until they can be able to even consider transfer to a different professional body. That they may be required to remain members of a professional body that leaves them feeling this unprotected and unvalued is unconscionable.

The Board’s Chair has chosen to stand by his comments and the Board’s decision, even after TACTT raised its concerns, and how, in TACTT’s view, they risked casting many UKCP members, and/or members of the wider professional community, into disrepute. We remain puzzled about the Board’s claim to be in discussion with other organisations about the creation of alternatives to the MoU2, when the largest of these organisations, the NCPS, have just announced their intention to rejoin the MoU2, having confirmed that their previous withdrawal was solely on the grounds of being subject to potential legal action by hostile actors which would have been prohibitively expensive to defend.

We ask all the UKCP members with voting rights to consider what, in TACCT’s view, has been done in your name and how, by the Board :

Ignoring the concerns of professionals
Making large policy changes without consultation of educational, college, or individual members
Implying that large swathes of our profession, including UKCP members are failing in safeguarding responsibilities for continuing to support a document, which continues to have the support of 23 other major mental health and related organisations (soon to be 24 once more), whilst claiming confusion over a core aspect of the agreement, eight years after having first signed and then later resigned it.
Breaching the UKCP Code of Ethics
Claiming to be in discussion with other organisations about a successor agreement to the MoU without providing evidence of this, and offering no response to recent NCPS actions which seem to clearly contradict this.
Betraying and abandoning LGBTQIA+ members, many of whom now feel unsafe within the UKCP, and LGBTQIA+ clients.

As a UKCP member, we believe that you deserve better than this. If you agree, then you have the right to vote to remove the members of the Board who enacted this in your name. If you are happy with these actions then you too must vote with your conscience.

Statement by TACTT on UKCP Board ‘no confidence’ vote (Summary Version)

Context

Last month, the UKCP announced a removal election of the Board of Trustees in response to a call from some of its membership through an open letter petition initiated by UKCP members who are also members of Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia (TACTT). The petition was signed by the required threshold of at least 2% of the UKCP membership, and also garnered support from over 1500 professionals and trainees from across the sector. The petition followed UKCP’s decision to withdraw from the Memorandum of Understanding on conversion therapy.

UKCP’s decision to withdraw from the MoU2 on conversion therapy

On 5th April 2024 the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) advised its members and the public that it had withdrawn its signature from the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy in the UK v2 (MoU2). The major decision to withdraw from the MoU2 was made by the UKCP Board of Trustees, without consultation nor notice with its wider membership.

In the statement, UKCP asserts itself as “fully committed in its belief that conversion therapy is harmful and must not be practised” and later confirmed that to do so would also breach of the organisation’s Code of Ethics, while at the same time advising its members to “discount the MoU as a published policy of UKCP”. In effect, UKCP asks its membership to discount as policy a document of which its entire purpose is ensuring conversion therapy is understood as harmful, unethical, and should not be practised.

These actions and statements are contradictory and potentially confusing, especially for a Board who is informing their membership and the public about major changes they have enacted without consultation.

Who are TACTT?

TACTT is a grassroots collective of therapists, counsellors, psychotherapists, psychologists and other therapeutic practitioners, including trainees in these fields, who oppose conversion therapy and transphobia in the therapy profession. TACTT members belong to a number of professions, and those who are counsellors, psychotherapists, or psychotherapeutic counsellors are members of a number of different professional bodies, including the UKCP.

Why is the MoU2 important for LGBT+ people?

Responses to UKCP’s decision to withdraw

While much of our membership was alarmed by the Board’s decision to withdraw from the MoU2, we were further shocked that this was done without consultation with its members.

Following the UKCP’s withdrawal from the MoU2 and their statement, UKCP members of TACTT individually and TACTT as a collective tried on numerous occasions to contact the UKCP to discuss their decision and try to talk to them about reconsidering. All attempted contact was ignored.

UKCP members from TACTT then decided to try and bring our concerns to the Board’s awareness, as well as other UKCP members, through public conversation via an open letter: Open letter to UKCP on their recent withdrawal from the MoU2 on conversion therapy

Why has a ‘vote of no confidence’ in the Board been called within UKCP?

UKCP members of TACTT created the above letter, and were joined by UKCP members within and outside of our group as signatories, to trigger the call for a removal election. Together we reached the 2% of the UKCP membership who are eligible to vote on matters within the professional body, that is sufficient to trigger an election for a vote of no confidence in the Board.

These authors and signatories believe that the current Board’s actions around the MoU2 membership have not been in keeping with UKCP policies that seek to “[act] in a way which upholds the profession’s reputation and promotes public confidence in the profession and its members.” (point 32 of the Code of Ethics).

The way UKCP’s Board have made this decision and communicated about it will be confusing to psychotherapy professionals, the wider public, LGBTQIA+ people as current and potential clients.

In that confusion they are damaging the reputations of other MoU2 signatory bodies and their professional members by implication. They are misleading the public and the professional community about the MoU2 either on purpose or by misunderstanding.

In addition to this, the Chair of the Board of Trustees has in TACTT’s view, publicly contributed to this misrepresentation in the national press and on social media comparing the UKCP’s members’ legitimate and constitutional call for a removal election with “a coup” and “bullying” of the Board.

Whilst TACTT’s opinions on conversion therapy are clear from our name as well as our work, any breach of UKCP’s Code of Ethics and its policies (regardless of the subject matter and related opinions) must be taken seriously.

Next steps

We ask all UKCP members with voting rights to consider what has been done in your name and in making use of your membership fees. Is this what you expect from a Board who represents you?

· Vote for what you believe is correct conduct for your membership group’s Board members: https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/about-ukcp/elections/

17th June, 6:30pm (online): Hear from the Board.

20th June – 3rd July (5pm): Voting opens.

All eligible UKCP members will receive an e-mail to vote.

TACTT members who are eligible to attend the 17th June event: consider reading the full version of this statement at the event, if this is safe for you. At the time of writing, we are asking UKCP for space to read a statement.
Submit questions for the Board of Trustees (by 6th June) to: communications@ukcp.org.uk
Consider standing as a candidate for potential inclusion in the UKCP Board: https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/ukcp-members/get-involved /
Submit an individual complaint to UKCP about this matter, including what support you need from them to work with LGBT+ clients: https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/ukcp-members/complaints/make-a-complaint-about-ukcp/
Want to join TACTT? Details here: https://therapistsagainsttransphobia.org/joining/

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

How to take action to oppose conversion therapy

The current UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) leadership has today (Friday 5th April) announced its withdrawal as a signatory of the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy (MOU), and from membership of the Coalition Against Conversion Therapy. (To read more here about their rationale, and our refutation of it, please see our open letter)

This is devastating news for everyone who wants to see an end to conversion therapy and create safe and better therapeutic options for all LGBTQIA+ clients. We call upon UKCP’s board to reverse this decision. UKCP did not consult with its membership or stakeholders before making this announcement, so we are encouraging everybody impacted by this decision to join us in making your thoughts and opinions known. There are many ways to do so, and every little bit counts!

We have put together this post as a response to questions from people asking what action they can take to oppose UKCP’s move, and to support the push to end conversion therapy for all – whether or not they are a therapist or a member of UKCP.

Below, we outline options for opposing this move by UKCP and supporting the MOU – for all therapists and trainees as well as for clients and other interested stakeholders.

We will update this with more information and ideas for action as we are able to – please do contact us if you would like to suggest any. And please share these ideas widely and encourage your colleagues, friends and peers to get involved!

Scroll down to read our suggestions for:

UKCP members (individual)
UKCP members (organisational)
All therapists and trainees
Members and employees of other MoU signatories
Other interested parties (including: clients, potential clients, parents, charities, stakeholders, employees of other MOU signatories)

UKCP members (individual)

Call for a vote of no confidence in the board and demand the resignation of board members by signing our petition/letter to the UKCP and share it with your network.
Contact UKCP to raise a complaint.
Raise your concerns with the UKCP EDI committee, UKCP Ethics Lead, Membership team or communications team. (Contact details and writing tips)
You may wish to cancel your membership or you may prefer to remain a member of UKCP and oppose this action. At this stage TACTT are not advising either way – but we do recommend that if you decide to cancel your membership you contact the memberships team and tell them why.
Post or tweet on social media your concerns and/or your support for the MoU and the Coalition Against Conversion Therapy.

UKCP members (organisational)

Please approach the UKCP with your concerns as an organisational member.
Consider writing a public statement raising your concerns and/or opposing the UKCP’s decision and your support for MoU and the Coalition Against Conversion Therapy.
Raise concerns to the Charity Commission.

All therapists and trainees

Sign our letter to the UKCP, and share it widely.

If you are training or working at a UKCP-accredited organisation, you can raise this with the training organisation via your student reps / DEI reps or ask your training institution directly to clarify whether they support this move by UKCP and if not, to publicly oppose it and/or actively approach the UKCP.
Raise this / ask your tutors for advice / support if you are a student on placement and this decision by UKCP would impact your work with LGBTQIA+ clients.
Speak to your supervisor about this and your concerns about the impact of this decision on your work.
Speak to colleagues and peers who may not know this is happening (not everyone reads UKCP mail)
Post or tweet on social media your concerns and/or your support for the MoU and the Coalition Against Conversion Therapy.

Members and employees of other MoU signatories

The MoU has been signed by 25 health, counselling and psychotherapy organisations, and supported by another four (see the list). If you are a member or employee of one of these organisations we urge you to write to them and express your support for the MoU and your desire to see a continued coalition of support to oppose conversion therapy.

Other interested parties (including: clients, potential clients, stakeholders, employees of other MOU signatories)

Raise a complaint with the UKCP, as someone who is impacted by the service they deliver (this includes as someone who could potentially use their directory to look for a therapist).
Contact UKCP’s communications team (could include your concern about you or relatives finding safe therapists on their online directory)
You could raise concerns to the Charity Commission.
Post or tweet on social media your concerns and/or your support for the MoU and the Coalition Against Conversion Therapy.
If you are a member of PCU (Psychotherapy and Counselling Union) / PCSR (Psychotherapists and Counsellors for Social Responsibility) or other therapy organisations ask them to pass a motion to write to the UKCP to raise this as a matter of concern.
If you are a member of any charity / client organisation that works with clients potentially impacted by this decision, you could ask them to send a letter of concern to UKCP / the Charity Commission.
Let the Coalition Against Conversion Therapy know you are concerned and let them know your organisation supports their work.

Please all take action where you can and open dialogue with allies, colleagues, family and friends!