The term conversion therapy strikes a note of fear in many people’s hearts, calling to mind barbaric practices such as electric shock therapy, forced watching of porn, and even “corrective rape.” All decent people denounce these awful, outdated practices, and there is consensus among reputable therapeutic and medical bodies that such abhorrent interventions should never take place.

Given this consensus view and the absence of evidence that conversion therapy is being practised, why are conversion therapy bans suddenly being tabled in so many legislatures and governing bodies worldwide? A scoping paper prepared by the Irish Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth analysed research from Ireland, Europe and the USA and found no evidence of conversion therapy being practised by medical or mental health professionals in those areas. The scoping document did include some evidence of religious practises aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, but none at all among medical and mental health practitioners. So why the “urgent” call for new conversion therapy bans?

Passing a conversion therapy ban provides politicians with a powerful messaging tool. We’re the good guys because we passed this bill outlawing some truly heinous practices! Never mind that no one actually engages in those practices – it still looks good. To illustrate the point, the scoping paper mentioned above, which found no evidence of conversion therapy practices, was never published; apparently, the politician who instigated the study, Roderic O’Gorman, cared less about discovering whether there was an actual problem than bringing forward an unnecessary bill that would make him appear “progressive.” For voters, too, supporting such a bill or candidate is an easy way to signal virtue. Unnecessary conversion therapy bans that cost nothing feel like a win for everyone.

Of greater concern are bans that expand the meaning of conversion therapy to cover much more than barbaric and obsolete practices aimed at changing sexual orientation. Increasingly, these legal bans will define conversion therapy in broad terms, such as: “any practice or treatment that seeks to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of a patient or client, including mental health therapy that seeks to change, eliminate, or reduce behaviours, expressions, attractions, or feelings related to a patient or client’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”[1] Such language is so broad as to exclude even basic insight-oriented interventions that promote growth and development, if result is confused with intent.

The shift from narrow conversion therapy bans to ones with more encompassing language is a product of trans rights activists (TRAs) working to exploit sympathy for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals and their long struggles for acceptance. Liberal-minded people don’t want to be on the “wrong side” of history this time around, and so when TRAs say “, we deserve the same protections as the LGB community,” everyone enthusiastically agrees. Thus the bans now make it illegal to try changing a client’s sexual orientation OR gender identity. TRAs have appropriated sympathy for the LGB community and made it their own.

They enlarge upon their claim for sympathy by painting trans people as the most marginalised and persecuted minority in the world as if they currently hold no legal rights even in modern democracies. In truth, trans people have the same human rights and legal protections as everyone else in the West. But TRAs loudly proclaim that they are persecuted, and the media dutifully support their demands for further legal protections and more robust conversion therapy bans. Leary of public disapproval and being labelled a bigot, politicians have complied with those demands and passed ill-considered, overly broad legislation to ban all forms of “conversion therapy.”

Appropriating sympathy for the LGB cause depends on the false assumption that protecting gender identity and preventing coercive efforts to change one’s sexual orientation are no different, and legislators should therefore cover them in a single bill. This forced alignment of gender identity with sexual orientation obscures the fundamental differences between them and the very different goals of their advocates. The campaign for gay rights argued that those who are same-sex attracted should be accorded the same rights as those granted by society to heterosexuals; it asked for freedom from persecution and the right to live one’s life married to the person of one’s choosing. Gays and lesbians never challenged the reality of biological sex, binary in nature, or the long-accepted belief that one’s sex is immutable.

By contrast, TRAs have a long list of demands, all of them implicit in the expansive language of these new conversion therapy bans. First of all, in addition to the protections they already possess under existing anti-discrimination laws, TRAs require everyone else to adopt a new belief system that has no scientific support – that each human being possesses a unique gender identity knowable only to that person, independent of and overriding her or his biological sex. They demand that we suppress the verdict of our own senses and align our internal responses to conform with their expectations. They insist that we forget their former names and consistently use their new ones, along with their “preferred pronouns.” Anything less than full compliance is transphobic.

In short, the expansive new bans which seek, on their surface, to shield minority groups from persecution actually enforce a dramatic revision of biological reality and force every last one of us to alter our own perceptions and beliefs. It has been a highly effective sleight of hand, sneaking enforcement of a new ideology into law by inserting only two words: gender identity. The audacity is breathtaking.

Because TRAs insist that validating a person’s self-identification as trans is “life-saving,” they advocate for “affirmative care” – an approach compelling therapists to agree with and affirm a client’s self-perceptions. Affirmative care has been in existence for little more than a decade, with no long-term studies conducted to demonstrate its efficacy, but TRAs have nonetheless convinced many governmental bodies to ban anything outside their preferred approach. If you examine the legislative code section quoted above, you will see this pernicious intent at work. The language is so comprehensive as to define virtually everything other than affirmative care as “conversion therapy.”

Abiding by these new guidelines, how would a therapist work with LGB clients, afflicted by internalised homophobia, who identify as “trans” in a bid to escape from it? A 14-year-old girl might initially come out as a lesbian and become increasingly uncomfortable with the way she is perceived; then, some months later, she might abruptly identify as a heterosexual boy. In such a case, a therapist might fear charges of practising “conversion therapy” if they were to explore homophobia in that child’s environment and its relation to her internalised homophobia. The therapist will feel conflicted about how to proceed and may ultimately feel unable to carry on effective therapy. It might seem easier simply to avoid working with this cohort.

The fear that one accusation could ruin their reputation has already had a chilling effect on therapists, with many now refusing to work with LGBTQ+ clients altogether. “The stakes are too high,” as one colleague recently put it; as a result, there’s a terrible shortage of mental health professionals willing to undertake this much-needed work. At the same time, the rising number of young people with gender dysphoria means that waiting lists are growing exponentially longer while qualified therapists stay away.

As practised for decades, conventional psychotherapy includes probing, thoughtful questions that seek to bring about a deeper awareness of the self. One regular feature is a technique called “Socratic questioning,” a disciplined and thoughtful dialogue between therapist and client that gradually reveals and unravels the deeply held values and beliefs of the individual. This can be a powerful intervention that helps the person understand themselves more deeply, uncover unrecognised motivations, and discover new possibilities for self-expression. Successful psychotherapy helps clients to make fully informed decisions for themselves, which might mean continuing on to medical/surgical interventions, desisting from trans-identification, or finding their way to a unique form of self-expression.

Genspect believes that governments should reject these new expansive conversion therapy bans that make the practice of conventional therapy a crime or leave so much doubt that therapists will avoid working with an underserved population for fear of putting themselves and their professional license at risk.

[1] Utah Occupational and Professional Licensing Code, R 156-60-102.

The post Saving Psychotherapy from Conversion Therapy Bans appeared first on Genspect.

On April 2^nd 2022 a hit-piece about Genspect director and psychotherapist Stella O’Malley was released by Lee Leveille of “Health Liberation Now!”. This article entitled, ‘Leaked Audio Confirms Genspect Director as Anti-Trans Conversion Therapist Targeting Youth,’ is filled with malicious inaccuracies and outright lies. These claims are blatantly – and provably – false.  However, we have decided to show how each claim made by Leveille is demonstrably false. We do this by providing verifiable evidence so that readers can be aware of the level of malevolence Leveille reveals in his/her attempt to mislead readers. 

For contextual background, this is how Lee Leveille describes himself/herself on her/his website:

Leveille’s article references a Twitter space that took place in December 2021, which can be listened to in full here. We would like to emphasise that this was an open forum and the audio is available for anyone to listen to. Nothing was “leaked” as the headline of Leveille’s articles implies. Of course “leaked” gives the shock and awe that Leveille is looking for. The topic of this Twitter space which was organised by a feminist called Lorelei in a bid to discuss the impact of autogynephilia on women and how they respond to this. For those who don’t know, autogynephilia is listed as a clinical disorder in the DSM-5 and is characterised by a male’s propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female.

In the DSM-5, autogynephilia is mentioned six times; on p.457 in the DSM-5 it is described as “gender dysphoria (adolescence, adulthood), include habitual fetishistic transvestism developing into autogynephilia (i.e., sexual arousal associated with the thought or image of oneself as a woman)”. Then on p.703: “The presence of autogynephilia increases the likelihood of gender dysphoria in men with transvestic disorder… Transvestic disorder in men is often accompanied by autogynephilia (i.e., a male’s paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman). Autogynephilic fantasies and behaviors may focus on the idea of exhibiting female physiological functions (e.g., lactation, menstruation), engaging in stereotypically feminine behavior (e.g., knitting), or possessing female anatomy (e.g., breasts).”

Leveille chooses not to mention this as doing so would have heavily impacted the shock and awe appeal of his/her piece. This vital detail adds much needed clarity to O’Malley’s statements during the discussion. Instead, Leveille resorts to smearing O’Malley’s character by selecting, editing, and manipulating her quotes to lead the listener into thinking O’Malley is saying something different. To achieve this, Leveille clips the quotes mid-sentence.  This is a maliciously crafted hit piece based on a careful framing and manipulation of statements made by O’Malley.

If you want to better understand the statements made by O’Malley, and her views in general, we recommend that you listen to the full audio clip and read the following examination of the claims made by Leveille.

Claim One: “[O’Malley] tells a room filled with extremists accusing her of not being harsh enough to trans people that she doesn’t think they “should have empathy or sympathy” for adolescent trans girls like those in her care.”

This is perhaps the most egregious and callous lie told in this hit piece and so we’ll deal with it first. Leveille has chosen to purposefully manipulate the audio to pretend that O’Malley doesn’t have empathy or sympathy for trans people. Anyone who listens to the entire audio exchange will understand the scurrilous deception on Leveille’s part when s/he chose to edit this audio clip.

O’Malley is speaking with a group of Radical Feminists who are very angry with autogynephiles who have entered female spaces such as female prisons and rape crisis centres. This is why she is not telling this group of women that they must have empathy or sympathy for them. But this is not the same as encouraging women not to have empathy or sympathy. Rather it’s that she is not demanding empathy or sympathy from these women who are already uneasy about the idea of women’s spaces being open to trans women with male genitalia (rape victims in women’s shelters for example, and convicted rapists in women’s prisons). Instead she is acknowledging their right to make their own minds up as individuals.

Requiring others to hold certain attitudes or opinions goes against what makes for a free society, as such, O’Malley’s response was very appropriate given the specific question from this specific audience.  O’Malley explicitly says – see below in bold – that she herself does have empathy and sympathy. You can read more about this here.  The journalist Mick Clifford also describes what happened as a result of this lie in the Irish Examiner: ‘the clip quoted misrepresented her position.’ Leveille’s decision to jerrymander the text reveals his/her nefarious intentions.

Stella O’Malley on the question of what she expects of radical feminists toward AGPs (an audio version can be listened to here):

Lorelei: well, I think your work is very important and I think we disagree about certain aspects of Autogynephillia, or at least we come at it from a very different prospective.  I think it’s really important to learn about it, but not that women should have to, but having learnt about it, it has only made me more concerned about the risk in women’s spaces and to children. So, when we have sure of calls for empathy for autogynephiles, I still don’t really know what exactly that entails or means.  Like what kind of empathy are you asking for from women and girls – or just women toward these people, because a lot of us have human empathy for them anyway but we’re very concerned with women’s rights and children’s rights, and all of these things that are intersecting with this because of Autogynephillia, or at least is being driven by autogynephillia. So, what part of our energy? What sort of energy do you want us to give to that sort of empathy? What is the request here?

Stella O’Malley: I don’t think you need to give any empathy at all, none, zero.  I think I should because I’m trying to understand them – and because I’m working with children who are autogynephilic.

Lorelei: When you say children, what kind of ages are you talking?

Stella O’Malley:  Anything from puberty onwards. Its porn induced.

Lorelei: Does that mean that –

Stella O’Malley: Teenage, teenage, 13, 14, 15, and it seems to be porn induced. Is it porn induced? I don’t know. Would it have arrived anyway? I don’t know. Are the numbers shockingly high in the teenage boy population? They seem to be to me.  But is this just something that was always under the covers? I don’t know.  But I don’t think you should have any empathy and I haven’t asked anybody to have any empathy and I don’t think you should have empathy or sympathy. I think you – I think definitely feminists need to fight their corner and I’m delighted they do, and I’m behind them all the way, I’m not leading because that’s not my focus but I’m behind them all the way. You’ve got to and I sent some tweet along to that effect, like the feminists need to be protecting their spaces and they do it well.

Claim Two: “Within the Space Stella O’Malley, a prominent psychotherapist in Ireland faced allegations of conversion therapy”

This is pretty disingenuous. There have been no genuine allegations of conversion therapy made against O’Malley. The only allegations of conversion therapy are made by activists such as Leveille and repeated by other trans activists. Stella O’Malley has released an official statement on conversion therapy which can be read here.

Claim Three: “[O’Malley] reveals that she has made it her life mission to prevent trans youth from accessing any form of gender affirming care.”

This wholly misrepresents O’Malley’s work. O’Malley is a psychotherapist who has advocated tirelessly for many years for better quality care for gender-distressed young people (whether they are transgender or not). O’Malley values psychotherapy in this context and does not believe that irreversible medical interventions for children are helpful. The following is a random selection taken from the hundreds of hours of content on TV, radio, podcasts and other media showing O’Malley consistently advocating for the need for high quality therapeutic care for gender-distressed young people:

Stella O’Malley’s film: Trans Kids: It’s time to talk

Stella O’Malley discussing why she is worried about gender-distressed youth

Stella O’Malley explores Gender Dysphoria

Stella O’Malley speaks about the experimental nature of puberty blockers 

Stella O’Malley advocates for a high-quality approach to gender-related distress

Stella O’Malley explains how vulnerable kids can benefit from a therapeutic process

Stella O’Malley answers parents’ questions about gender

Claim Four: “she inadvertently confesses to seeking to suppress or change trans youth’s gender identity, the very definition of gender identity change efforts (GICE, i.e., conversion therapy/practices), despite her past denials. The audio proves the legitimacy of the allegations put towards O’Malley by trans people and concerned health professionals and, consequently, the allegations towards Genspect and other organizations or projects she leads or is affiliated with.“

This is a lie. With gender exploratory therapy, O’Malley promotes self-awareness and self-exploration. This is the very opposite of seeking to suppress or change a person’s gender identity.

Claim Five: “nor will we [Health Liberation Now] be linking to the audio in full due to its graphic nature and Stella O’Malley’s rather blatant defenses of rape culture”.

Leveille doesn’t link the audio in full as it reveals the truth, however we’re keen to encourage everyone to listen for themselves here.  Leveille doesn’t return to the lie about ‘blatant defences of rape culture’ and so we can’t figure out what s/he is talking about.

Claim Six: “O’Malley makes explicit confessions to enacting conversion therapy/practices on trans youth in her care, with a particular emphasis on trans girls in this context, and connecting it to the transmisogynistic concept of “autogynephilia” (occasionally referred to as AGP) that is supposedly “porn-induced”.

This is a lie. O’Malley provides a full analysis of her understanding of autogynephilia and how keen she is to fully understand her clients so that she can help them appropriately. She does not inadvertently make a “confession” but instead clearly states her position about Autogynephillia which is a recognised diagnosable condition listed in the DSM 5. 

Selective editing is used to make it appear as though O’Malley is stating that transgenderism in teenage boys is ‘porn induced.’  However, she is speculating specifically over a subset of Gender Dysphoria: Autogynephillia (AGP) in teenage boys. Historically this condition presented in middle aged men however in the last decade there has been a sudden and unexplained rise among teenagers. The below recording adds much needed clarity that Leveille chose to omit by cutting the clip at ‘and I think the AGP is porn induced.’  Leveille chose to omit that O’Malley speaks passionately about her desire to understand what is happening in this population of teenage boys, so that she can be best placed to help them, saying that she is ‘willing to talk to anybody who can help her understanding.’  O’Malley further broadens the conversation out by pointing out that autogynephillia is not the only condition that can cause gender distress in teenage boys and she alludes to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria as another potential cause. 

Leveille’s blatant misrepresentation of this is revealed in her/his decision to edit the recording so that it stops at the words “porn induced” and she/he didn’t include the rest of the sentence. For further clarity we have highlighted the bit that Leveille suppressed in bold below.

Stella O’Malley outlining why she is interested in the topic of AGP (an audio version can be listened to here):

Stella O’Malley: Why am I interested in Autogynephillia? Primarily because I’m meeting teenage autogynephiles and I need to be able to understand what’s happening with them, and I am more and more – very interested when Debbie Hayton was speaking with us on the podcast because I thought; well, the way she’s talking, it’s a compulsion.  This is a compulsion and came over her like a compulsion (and I know people will be very annoyed with me using pronouns but then I’m very annoyed with people when they try to compel my speech.  So, I’m going to do me and let everybody else do them).  And so yeah, I was very, very interested when Debbie was talking about that and I thought this is key to my understanding when I’m talking to somebody who is maybe 15 years old and is autogynephilic and has no idea of what’s going on, except “get out of my way, I need to be a woman.”  And that child is not able to articulate what the hell is going on.  They don’t have the verbal ability; they don’t have the conceptual maturity and I have to try and figure out how do we help this fast-increasing number.  This is not like the Ray Blanchard numbers. This is a very fast, very quickly increasing number of boys.  Now are they ROGD? Are they AGP? Or, frankly are they what I think, a mix between AGP and ROGD? And I think the AGP is porn induced.  And I’m really, really, interested in this and I think this s crucial.  I think many of us here will have seen the video of that boy talking to the therapist and he had transitioned and it was devastating.  These are the kids – those kids are all over the place and they need help, and they need a lot of help and I’m willing to talk to everybody who can help my understanding of that, and if people say, well you shouldn’t talk to somebody, I just look at them straight back in the eye and say, yes, I should because my job is to try to understand things so that I can help people.  That’s my job and for some people to say that offends me, I’m like – well I’m not forcing you to listen to me talking. I’m just very much interested in promoting knowledge, so that we can understand a massively under researched and misunderstood condition, and so yeah, I think, give me it all, give me everything! 

Claim Seven: “Later, she [O’Malley] reveals that her interest in the debunked concept of “autogynephilia” is because there is supposedly a “very quickly increasing number” of teenage trans girls where this concept is the “root” of their dysphoria either in junction with or in contrast to “ROGD”.

There are two lies in this sentence. Autogynephilia is listed as a clinical disorder in the DSM 5; it has not been debunked. For further information you can listen to the transwoman, Debbie Hayton, speaking about it on this episode of O’Malley’s Gender: A Wider Lens podcast and/or this transwoman, Dr Anne Lawrence, speaking about autogynephilia on this episode of the podcast.

There is a demonstrably “very quickly increasing number”, see here: https://segm.org/

The rest of this sentence is unclear and so we will not comment.

Claim Eight: “O’Malley presents genuine distress from gender dysphoria among trans youth as a kind of “porn induced” compulsion that needs to be controlled by anti-trans parents and clinicians. No room is given for the youth’s experience or how they are interpreting their experiences; if anything, O’Malley is quite explicit in how she believes that teens are incapable of self-reflection or understanding of their own mind and body.”

This is a clear lie. O’Malley makes it explicitly clear in the above transcription in bold and in the many links above that she is seeking to inform herself about these issues by listening intently to everyone about this issue.

Claim Nine: “This isn’t the only time compulsions are mentioned. In fact, a few minutes later, O’Malley draws a direct connection between “AGP” and paedophilia while claiming that they’re both “a compulsion that actually seriously, negatively wrecks other people’s lives”. In doing so, she repeats transmisogynistic tropes of trans women being sexual predators while simultaneously making light of childhood sexual abuse. No real consideration is put into the high rates of childhood sexual abuse among trans people including trans women, or the impact that it would have on the wellbeing of survivors to have their trauma used against members of their own community. Instead, her big question is “how do we stop that [meaning: trans women from existing as themselves]?”

Leveille apparently doesn’t understand that compulsions are mentioned because autogynephilia is a paraphilia and paraphilias are often associated with compulsive behaviour. It is dishonest of Leveille to suggest O’Malley draws a direct connection between AGP (autogynephilia) and paedophilia: O’Malley clearly explains how paedophilia is a compulsive paraphilia that has a sexual component.O’Malley has never made light of childhood sexual abuse and most certainly nothing was said during this Twitter space that could be even remotely considered as ‘making light of childhood sexual abuse.’

At no point does O’Malley claim that transwomen are sexual predators.  This was a wide-ranging conversation about autogynephilia and O’Malley offers some thoughts on AGPs, wondering whether its innate or developmental, and highlighting how it is still a widely misunderstood and under researched condition.

Stella O’Malley commenting on the public conversation around Autogynephillia (an audio version can be listened to here):

Stella O’Malley: For people to say kind of – lets say with full confidence that they know AGP isn’t innate and stuff like that – I’ve no idea whether AGP is innate or not. Why? Because I don’t have Autogynephillia, I never had it so I’m kinda going, if some people are saying it is and some people are saying it isn’t: my feeling is its developmental.  I don’t really care if its innate or not, because I don’t think that absolves anybody. I don’t think that’s the point, the compulsion is a much more important psychological point – because if you look at paedophilia, it’s a compulsion, it ‘gets’ them. And how do we get in the way of somebody who has a compulsion that actually seriously, negatively wrecks other people’s lives?  How do we stop that? And that’s why I’m very much seeking to absorb all the knowledge available and I don’t think anybody – anybody who thinks they know their stuff about this should take a deep breath and do a bit more reading because, you can’t. This is one of the most under researched, misinterpreted, misinformed concepts that’s out there.  So you know, if you think you know it, I think that’s basically – you’ve got a lot more to learn.  it’s a suggestion immediately that you don’t know how complex it is because this is a significantly – very difficult concept to understand.

Claim Ten: “After her previous confessions of her campaigns to stop medical transition for trans youth, combined with calling gender dysphoria among trans girls and trans women a compulsion that people like her need to “get in the way of”, she inevitably exposes herself as attempting to suppress the gender identity of trans teens – the definition of conversion therapy.“

We have already explained how O’Malley has consistently tried to improve gender healthcare and this article which explains how and why O’Malley is in favour of exploratory therapy that seeks to build self-awareness and personal insight within an ethical therapeutic process.

Claim Eleven: “O’Malley contrasts their eliminationist approaches with her efforts to roll back expansion of gender affirming care. She begins to describe the pioneer series on Gender: A Wider Lens (which at the time of recording was still in development, since released) in which she interviewed Ken Zucker and Ray Blanchard. She details how she believes that trans health care has been taken over by activists between the 1990s and 2010s, suggesting that clinicians made “mistakes” that resulted in the “keys” being given to trans people. The podcast, Genspect, and other such programs of hers are simply some efforts to take those keys back, thereby removing trans people’s autonomy and capacity to consent to our own care on our own terms.”

Some of this is true! Yes indeed, WPATH and thereby trans health care has been taken over by activists. As evidenced here in the Gender: A Wider Lens podcasts interviews with pioneers such as Dr Ray Blanchard, Dr Ken Zucker,  Dr Mike Bailey, and Dr Stephen Levine.

It is widely understood that medicine is usually not patient led. However trans health care is the notable exception, being the only field in which patients tell the doctors what they want and when.  O’Malley is correct in assuming that something has gone terribly amiss in trans health care for the patients to be leading the clinicians.  O’Malley favours expertise while Leveille favours “lived experience” over expertise.

Claim Twelve: “O’Malley has carefully constructed what she calls “public information campaigns” – in other words, disinformation campaigns – to reshape the social narrative surrounding trans women in public spaces and gender affirming care for trans youth. These disinformation campaigns allow her to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of parents with trans kids and connect with media and government officials.”

O’Malley – and Genspect – believe that a public information campaign about the issues related to gender and gender-related distress would be the most appropriate way to manage this controversy. The truth is our North Star. All we seek is permission to speak about this issue rationally and openly without being the subject of smear campaigns of abuse.   

Stella O’Malley speaking on how to raise awareness of the prevalence of autogynephillia (an audio version can be listened to here):

Stella O’Malley: How should we manage the issue of AGPs in society? Where should they go? How should we manage them? This is the thing I’d really like to get out of this conversation. How should that be managed in society? How should I? How should you? How should anybody? Because of the different, I suppose needs and I suppose my need is not only to understand but also I really truly believe that the only way we are going to get out of this whole, huge, massive identity, ideology mess is with public information. I don’t think it’s going to work any other way. We have to have a public information campaign around I believe – that if you trans children, it goes very badly wrong.  I also think that there is a need to get out in the world – there is a concept called gender identity and there is also a developmental model, and they are two opposing sides and I believe in the developmental model and I think therefore all child transition falls on that model and I think it’s really important that we let the public know about these concepts because they don’t. I meet them all the time and these are parents of kids that don’t know that there is two beliefs, that there is two different theories. Then the other thing that I think we really need to know – I was only telling the Irish minister a few days ago about this concept but that there is a thing called Autogynephillia and this is as you all know, the erotic fixation to be a woman, and this spaces a huge amount of the issues around say trans women in jails, trans women in refuges, trans women all sorts of places that they shouldn’t be. It’s shaped the entire breastfeeding, the kind of birthing movement. It’s shaping a huge amount of parts of society. So, it’s really, really problematic in the world. So, we’ve got this huge problem and how do we deal with this? How do we deal with those people? I know lots of people who are listening here may be saying, well it’s not my problem so I don’t deal with it and I’m like yeah, but I think its society’s problem so we have to.  I don’t know how we should deal with this fact but people can develop this fixation, what do we do with them when they develop it?  I’m interested to know what you think?

Lorelei: I don’t really know what we do except that if everyone knows about it and understands it, then we don’t say that they are women. We don’t open up women’s spaces and we don’t – I mean it’s not like-

Stella O’Malley: And how do we get everyone to know and understand it?

Lorelei: It’s very hard because people don’t want to talk about it and its almost taboo and people don’t believe in it, so, I think we just all have to talk about it, we all have to be willing to discuss it and we have to be willing to. We do on Twitter anyway but like it has to make it outside of Twitter, right? All of the people-

Stella O’Malley: Yeah, but then when we discuss it, I think you are right, public information is the only way forward. I actually don’t think there is another way. I wish there was but I think it has to be public awareness campaigns.

Conclusion

On and on Leveille goes, descending into a crazed tinfoil hat “ Anti-Trans Network Map of Influence” that is as paranoid as it is self-absorbed. We simply haven’t the energy or time to continue any further. This hit piece, filled with lies and smears, attempts to blame O’Malley for the comments and actions of others.

Genspect seeks better quality care for gender-distressed youth and favours Gender Exploratory Therapy over Gender Affirmative Care. That’s it – that’s the big crime according to Lee Leveille and his/her colleague in Health Liberation Now, Ky Schevers, the “Genderweird human passing as a transmasculine butch dyke”. According to Leveille and Leveille’s friends this is “committing literal violence”.

It’s not though.

Genspect consistently hold a rational, middle ground seeking better quality healthcare for everyone with gender concerns. Currently the field is a mess. Baseless accusations of transphobia are flung around with wild abandon. We work in a heightened atmosphere where online bullying and smear campaigns mean that most people are afraid to dip the top of their big toe into the water. We soldier on because at Genspect we believe that anyone who truly cares about the wellbeing of trans people should be hard at work discussing, analysing and researching the most appropriate treatment approaches for all gender-related distress. We are interested only in the truth because we believe that the truth will improve gender healthcare.

In 1918 Nicholas Klein gave a speech to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America and told the workers: “First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.” This statement is often misattributed to Gandhi in a slightly different form but the sentiment remains: sometimes the truth tellers are attacked viciously.

We don’t seek monuments built to us at Genspect what we want instead is something much more ambitious: we want the truth.

The post Telling the Truth in a Time of Deceit (Part 2): Genspect’s Response to a Hit Piece appeared first on Genspect.

Certain trans activists have engaged in an extended campaign of online bullying against me and have inaccurately labelled me as a “conversion therapist” (see below). They have carried out this campaign because I chose to speak out about my serious concerns that vulnerable children are not receiving quality care for their gender-related distress. Ad hominem attacks are common in the digital world and I usually ignore them. However, now that trans activists have redefined what “conversion therapy” actually means, I decided it would be appropriate for me to clearly set out my stall so that anybody who wants to can figure out my position on this issue.

I’m not a conversion therapist as I think conversion therapy is abhorrent. Indeed I have made my position on conversion therapy very clear many times. Just recently I wrote an analysis of conversion therapy to try to shed some light on this issue. Last summer I was a signatory for an article that asked some questions about the proposed Prohibition to Conversion Therapy Bill in Ireland. I spoke about the issues related to this bill on Newstalk FM. It is my view, and also the views of many others, that the current Irish bill is very badly worded as it is open to misinterpretation and needs improvement. I gave a submission to the Select Committee voicing my concerns about the similarly worded Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation in New Zealand. I continue to seek better services for gender-distressed kids  – just yesterday I was quoted in the Sunday Times about the “unsafe” gender services that are currently available in Ireland.

I know what it’s like have gender dysphoria because I experienced it for years when I was a child. I know how hard it can be. And this is perhaps why I care so much about providing high-quality care for these kids. My concerns are not unusual and have recently been echoed by the independent Cass Review and Dr Paul Moran, consultant psychiatrist at the National Gender Services in Ireland. These very same concerns are also the reason for the class action that is being taken by “at least 1000 clients”  against the Gender Identity Development Services at the Tavistock.

The fact that I favour one therapeutic approach – the gender exploratory approach – over  another approach – the gender affirmative approach – to treat gender dysphoria does not make me a “conversion therapist”. The reason why I am against conversion therapy is because I don’t think any therapist should have an agenda and nor should they have a planned outcome for therapy. I think ethical therapy should be exploratory where therapists and clients work collaboratively to engage in a thoughtful and compassionate therapeutic process.

The reason why I favour Gender Exploratory Therapy is because I think it is a much better approach than the new, experimental and narrow-minded gender affirmative model. Gender exploratory therapy is based upon well-established, conventional, therapeutic approaches that hold with the common sense idea that it is more beneficial to have reflected upon our inner motivations before making any big decisions. This approach recognises that therapy can be valuable when self-awareness is increased and insight is improved. Gender Exploratory Therapy brings about a deeper understanding of the person’s sense of self within a compassionate therapeutic process. As it prioritises the least-invasive-first approach, I believe it has a valuable role to play for anybody exploring their gender identity.  

For someone like me, who has worked as a psychotherapist for many years, trying to explain why conventional talk therapy approach is more useful than blind affirmation is like trying to explain that water is wet. I get the splutters. For example, if a client seeks therapy for their fear of flying, I wouldn’t mindlessly nod along as he tells me that he should avoid all aeroplanes, and nor would I actively help him to try to remove aeroplanes out of the sky for fear that it might be triggering for him. Empathy comes very easily to me and I think my empathy is the trait that I value most in my psychotherapeutic work. So if a client had a fear of flying, I would gently engage in a collaborative therapeutic process that would work through the inner workings of his psyche. It is through reflective dialogue that helps the client to make their own decisions and this is why exploratory therapy is pretty much a fundamental aspect of every therapeutic approach – other than the affirmative approach.

The gender affirmative care model is an experimental approach to gender identity that has only been in existence since 2012. The Cass Review has recently described this approach as “not a safe or viable long-term option” for children. Gender affirmative therapy has been described as the “nodding-dog approach” where therapists act only as facilitators, without offering any exploratory thought or thought-provoking analysis, or encouraging the individual to consider their unconscious motivations. The gender affirmative approach is child-led rather than child-centered and promotes early and aggressive medical intervention for children. Advocates for this approach tell us that children between one and two years old can give a “pre-verbal communication” about gender. There are four stages to this approach: first the child socially transitions whenever they want, which entails a name change, a pronoun change and going to different toilets. Then puberty blockers are offered when the child reaches puberty. After that, cross-sex hormones are offered, and then finally when they’re an adult, surgery is offered.

Genspect, the organisation I founded, seeks higher quality care for gender distressed young people that takes a holistic view of the individual, as recommended by the Cass Review. This ensures that all their needs can be taken into account. Genspect has a programme called Beyond Transition that also provides support to many detransitioners who are very angry with the damage caused to them as a result of the gender affirmative care that they received. I know too many detransitioners who believe that the affirmative approach failed them. Keira Bell is a friend of mine – she is very angry about the gender affirmative care model that prescribed her puberty blockers when she was a distressed 16-year-old living on her own in a hostel.  Keira subsequently had a double mastectomy and then, when she hit her early 20s, she came to regret these decisions and she now wishes that she hadn’t been affirmed mindlessly by clinicians when she was young and vulnerable.

On March 12^th this year, Genspect held a webinar to highlight Detrans Awareness Day and if you watch this you will hear many different stories from detransitioners who are furious about the gender affirmative care model. When I first followed detrans reddit in 2019 there were less than a thousand members. Now there are 37k members. Please take a few minutes to read their stories; the gender affirmative care model did not help these people.   

There are literally hundreds of hours of content freely available about my views on gender which is why I didn’t think I would have to protect myself from the dishonest accusations that are outlined below. Sadly many people use Wikipedia as a way to educate themselves, even though Larry Sanger, the man who co-founded Wikipedia, has cautioned that this website cannot be relied upon to give people the truth. Wikipedia can be gamed and trans activists use Wikipedia as a way to attack Genspect and myself. We are not given the opportunity to argue the points as the moderators always side with trans activists, no matter how many quality references they are supplied with. Consequently, articles by gender extremists such as Lee Leveille, are favoured over the more conventional Sunday Times.

Thankfully nobody needs to rely upon Wikipedia in this context – Genspect’s views are freely available on our website and the podcast that I co-host, Gender: A Wider Lens, gives a comprehensive account of my views. The following is a selection of interviews I have done with people who have medically transitioned who are also very unhappy with the gender affirmative care model:

• Debbie Hayton, transwoman: https://gender-a-wider-lens.captivate.fm/episode/51-clearing-of-the-pink-mist-a-conversation-w-debbie-hayton  
• Helena Kershner, detrans woman: https://gender-a-wider-lens.captivate.fm/episode/45-helena-part-1-social-justice-fandoms-ftm-gay-boys  
• Helena again: https://gender-a-wider-lens.captivate.fm/episode/46-helena-part-ii-advice-for-parents-from-a-former-trans-kid
• Anne Lawrence, transwoman: https://gender-a-wider-lens.captivate.fm/episode/67-pioneers-series-men-trapped-in-mens-bodies-with-anne-lawrence  
• Aaron Michael Terrell, transman: https://gender-a-wider-lens.captivate.fm/episode/44-multiple-meanings-of-gender-dysphoria-a-conversation-with-aaron-terrell  
• Carol, detrans woman:  https://gender-a-wider-lens.captivate.fm/episode/15-one-detrans-voice-a-conversation-with-carol
• Aaron Kimberly and Aaron Terrell, two transmen: https://transparency.podbean.com/e/a-good-bad-craic-with-stella-o-malley/
• BUCK ANGEL, transman: https://gender-a-wider-lens.captivate.fm/episode/8-transgenerational-wisdom-a-conversation-with-buck-angel  
• Corinna Cohn, transwoman: https://corinnacohn.substack.com/p/bully-proofing-the-grown-ups-with-96f#details  
• Zander Keig and Aaron Kimberly, two transmen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxg2tWPRdSA  
• Sinéad Watson, detrans woman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr3z34RW_h0  

The online abuse from the trans activists has been difficult to handle. I have written a book about bullying and so I know this world well. Sometimes it’s better to ignore the bullies, sometimes it’s so toxic that you need to remove yourself from the environment, and sometimes it’s better to fight back. I have chosen to fight back because I think that’s the right thing to do. Of course it is not only me that is being bullied – there is a culture of online bullying on social media that needs to be called out. People who don’t know any better make mindless and offensive statements because they fear the mob of online thugs who are trying to silence everyone who doesn’t agree with them.

Yet the middle ground is full of reasonable people who can handle disagreement. It is said that roughly 85% of people are in the famous middle ground. It can feel scary to speak up when we read about how Salman Rushdie, the great defender of freedom of thought and expression, got stabbed in the neck as he was set to give a lecture, and JK Rowling received a death threat from an extremist telling her “you are next” when she tweeted support for Rushdie. Most people are justifiably horrified by these stories and so they prefer to keep their heads down. Meanwhile the remaining 15% speak up loudly about their views. I look forward to the day when the 85% feel that it is safe enough to speak about controversial issues because right now too many people feel silenced.

This is a flavour of the extended campaign of bullying I have experienced. There are many, many more examples to choose from. Members of the lobby group, well-paid professionals with positions of responsibility, have already been cautioned for their social media use yet they continue to hurl abuse at me and any doctors who don’t agree with them. Some of them have made hundreds of tweets about me – one of them has gone into the thousands. I’m not ashamed to show this as I haven’t done anything wrong: this relentless cruel and vindictive campaign reflects more on the bullies than anyone else.

Any support you can offer is very gratefully received.

The post Telling the Truth in a Time of Deceit (Part 1): Stella O’Malley’s Statement on Conversion Therapy appeared first on Genspect.