The mother of a detransitioned son has accused an Australian Psychological Society board member of ‘outrageous’ behaviour, after he suggested she may have endangered her child following her questioning of trans treatment policies.
The Australian Psychological Society has been forced to investigate one of its own board members, after he suggested a mother who had expressed concern about the peak body’s controversial position on the treatment of transgender patients may have been preventing her son from receiving appropriate support.
The mother, whose 22-year-old son began medically transitioning with hormones at 18 but has decided he is not transgender, has accused APS board member Andrew Chua of “intimidation”.
She said his “completely outrageous” emails had insinuated that parents who dare to question the gender affirmation model “are to be viewed as potentially abusive and dangerous to their children”, and left her feeling “unsafe”.
Earlier this month, the APS issued a position paper which represented an about-face on its previous recommendations for a more evidence-based approach to dealing with gender dysphoria, deleting references in an earlier draft to the groundbreaking UK Cass report and more than a dozen other studies that cast doubt on the mental health claims of the gender-affirming treatment model.
In response, the mother wrote to the APS board on April 11.
Key among her concerns was the society’s support for gender-affirming care for children and teenagers, which in her view denies patients and clinicians the opportunity to neutrally explore their feelings about their gender identity, and puts them on a path towards irreversible medical treatment, such as the hormones her son received.
Mr Chua responded to her email on behalf of the board, stating that a “common misunderstanding in this space is that ‘affirming care’ assumes we accept all information provided without critical questioning”.
The pair then exchanged a series of emails, with Mr Chua at no stage explaining how it was possible for a psychologist to engage in the “critical questioning” he had described when the APS position statement advises them that they must affirm a patient’s self-diagnosed identity.
In his third and final email to the mother, Mr Chua asserted: “It sounds like you chose to prevent (your son) engaging with appropriate medical or psychological care in Australia.
“You have not supplied any details of how he has been treated and what his current state of wellbeing is (now as an adult) and whether he feels supported with sound community around him now,” he wrote. “Your comments have raised my concerns that he might not have the appropriate support he deserves at this time.”
Mr Chua signed all emails “warmly” noting “he/him” pronouns and his location “on Wurundjeri Country”.
The mother wrote to the board to complain about Mr Chua, saying he had left her “feeling unsafe”.
“In response to my entirely natural frustration at the APS’s recent position statement, Mr Chua has chosen to suggest that my child is at risk because of me,” wrote the mother, whom The Australian has agreed not to name to protect her son’s privacy.
“This is not professional discourse; it is intimidation. It sends a clear message to every parent of a detransitioned or desisted child that raising concerns about the affirmation model may result in their parenting being questioned or reported as a safeguarding issue.
“Not only are Australian psychologists being warned away from offering truly neutral, exploratory therapy, but apparently parents of children who have desisted or detransitioned, and who dare to question such a model, are to be viewed as potentially abusive and dangerous to their children. This is completely outrageous.”
The mother asked the board to review Mr Chua’s correspondence and assure her that his statements did not represent the position of the board, as well as providing a substantive response to the concerns she initially raised regarding the position statement.
As of Sunday, she had received no response.
In response to questions from The Australian, APS president Kelly Gough said the society took the concerns of all people who contacted it seriously.
“We expect respectful and professional engagement from APS representatives in all interactions, particularly when people are raising personal or sensitive matters,” Dr Gough said.
“The correspondence in question will be reviewed, and the board will consider whether any follow-up action is required.
“It is not the APS position that parents who raise concerns or seek support for their children are to be viewed disparagingly. We recognise that families often navigate complex situations with care and concern, and that they deserve respectful engagement.
“The APS’s policies and position statements are developed through consideration of available evidence, professional standards and member input.”
Recently retired clinical psychologist Sandra Pertot, who treated trans patients throughout her 50-year career and has previously expressed deep concern about the affirmation model, said Mr Chua had made a “basic mistake” in his email conversation.
“He didn’t ask the critical question: ‘I understand you are upset, what is the best thing I can do to help you right now?’,” she said.
“Instead, he chose to turn the problem back on the parent … which I consider highly inappropriate and the reason why I am prepared to comment.
“Given that he claims ‘a one size fits all’ is not how the (gender affirmative) model works, does he begin a session asking the young person their pronouns and preferred name? What percentage of his clients does he not affirm in the course of his assessment?”
In an opinion piece for online publication Gender Clinic News, published on Friday, Dr Pertot wrote that from the early days of the development of the affirmative model, “advocates have insisted that any young person who states they have gender dysphoria must be supported in that belief, no debate allowed”.
“As a result, an untold number of health professionals have been silenced, had their professional integrity attacked, and some have lost their employment for asking questions or expressing criticism about gender-affirming care,” Dr Pertot wrote. “How can a practice be safe if there is a ban on exploring an aspect of it that is potentially harmful?”
by Rachel Baxendale
Source: The Australian
or archive link:
printed edition:
