Dr Anne

Dr Anne Woodhouse, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, specialising in expert Family Law reports

[Tamara Sears @TamaraSearsUK]

The UK psychological organisations serving the public are not currently fit for purpose.

The regulatory and registering bodies for practitioners, @BPSOfficial, @BACP, @UKCP_Updates and @The_HCPC have censored debate and information surrounding the controversial topics of sex and gender for years.

Following are testimonies from:

1. Pat Harvey, the Former Chair of the BPS Division of Clinical Psychology and co-founder of https://t.co/flSGWNEB86 and @psychsocwatchuk.

2. Peter Jenkins, the Former Member of the Ethics Committee for both BACP and UKCP, and member of @ThoughtfulTs.

3. Tamara Sears, a former media representative for the UKCP.

4. Freya Papworth (@FreyaVanadiss), who is currently in training and provides the evidence of other students who are also currently in training.

5. Dr Anne Woodhouse (@Woodmoose), the HCPC registered Clinical Psychologist who endured a spurious three-year Fitness to Practice investigation by the HCPC before being cleared of wrongdoing.
https://t.co/5N03xqbv3m

@andyburnham must not ignore this.

@prof_standards must not ignore this.

Parliamentarians must stop the Conversion Practices Bill, the Puberty Blocker Trial, and the censorship of the entire profession.

We need your help. Please share widely and bring it to the attention of your MP.

This cannot continue.

1/7

[Julie Bindel @bindelj]

I wrote, for @unherd, about the almost total capture of the world of clinical psychology, and the disastrous results for gender confused kids: https://t.co/49iPCTwawU

[Julie Bindel @bindelj]

Clinical psychology is captured by insidious gender ideology, except for a brave few:

[Sex Matters @SexMattersOrg]

The draft Conversion Practices Bill would silence therapists, harm children and divide families.

That is the warning of our new report, which is based on 30 in-depth interviews with mental-health professionals.

Read it here: https://t.co/8nSn4dNUDf

[FakeBPSCommentary @psychsocwatchuk]

SEEN in Publishing, Transgender Trend, and Biology in Medicine have launched "Through the Looking Glass," a major report examining trans activism in children's literature and UK library services. [1, 2]

Download and read the full PDF report here: https://t.co/XlH8TVSenf

[TransgenderTrend @Transgendertrd]

"Most of the children treated by the practice...also had possible neurodevelopmental issues."

"None of them had a clear diagnosis of gender incongruence of gender dysphoria from a specialist."

"Harm has been happening in plain sight."

https://t.co/Qi1susFtNL

[Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender @CanSG_org]

Book now. https://t.co/9yVjoJoMst

[Emma Bateman @EmmaBatemanGPW]

"Professor David Strain, the chair of the BMA’s board of science: “the baroness has been vindicated in the way she approached the data”.
When asked to name a single one of Cass’s 32 recommendations which the BMA opposed he said: “I can’t.”
https://t.co/4kwKTARkLA

[TransgenderTrend @Transgendertrd]

Calling all parents!

Please read this and respond to the updated Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance for schools this weekend 👇

[FakeBPSCommentary @psychsocwatchuk]

The Finnish Study?
The ABSOLUTE SCANDAL of the behaviour of the British Psychological Society and its gender stance and guidelines over a decade. AND IT CONTINUES WILFULLY
https://t.co/52zTMGBP3m

[Margaret McCartney @mgtmccartney]

given what we know about the benefits of palliative care, the lack of access to it, the inequalities in the Canadian experience, and the fact that we have incredibly vulnerable people at risk of abuse and exploitation - this bill is fundamentally unsafe. and PS @Sandeshgulhane/

[Margaret McCartney @mgtmccartney]

v pleased to see this. more medics speaking up about bad science, the influence of lobbying, and the need to properly evaluate what we should already know. https://t.co/SSqVFh8kvq

[Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender @CanSG_org]

Cass says children are 'weaponised' by both sides of trans debate. Demonising trial critics as extremists who want to "weaponise" children is a way of not having to deal with what the critics are actually saying about the trial. It shuts down the debate and excuses trial advocates from having to address the substantive criticisms of the trial. These include: little or no understanding of aetiology of gender related distress and therefore no rational basis for "treating" it with puberty blockers; basing research on the poorly defined diagnosis of "gender incongruence" that has no predictive value and which will inevitably lead to children whose distress would have resolved naturally being put on irreversible medical pathways (most of whom likely to grow up to be gay or lesbian); significant risks, especially irreversible harms to identity development, cognitive function, fertility, sexual function, and bone health minimised and not balanced by possible benefits; short term subjective wellbeing outcomes unrelated to long term health and wellbeing; poor scientific design subject to strong placebo and confounding factors and incapable of answering any critical questions, especially long term harms; no rationale for why blocking puberty rather than psychological support is best way to help children who are distressed about pubertal changes; no explanation for why less risky ways to acquire relevant knowledge, such as outcomes of children who already received PBs are not being researched as a priority. Those who have serious concerns about the trial are motivated by concern for children's health, safety and wellbeing and don't want them to be subjected to a harmful and useless experiment. Is that an extreme position?

[TransgenderTrend @Transgendertrd]

Genspect's letter to Wes Streeting about the Pathways puberty blocker trial:
"the clinical trial you defend rests on a diagnostic concept—gender incongruence—whose origins are political rather than scientific, rendering it an inappropriate basis for medical intervention in young people."
https://t.co/YYpB9ZAexy

[Dr Anne @SolutionPsych]

This made me laugh

[Susan Dalgety @DalgetySusan]

Thank you to the wonderful Margaret Gribbon, lawyer for the really amazing Sandie Peggie, who chose The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht as her favourite book in her @thetimes Lawyer of the Week Q&A @LucyHunterB (share token)
https://t.co/nROaN8sthE

[FakeBPSCommentary @psychsocwatchuk]

With the agreement of ScotPAG, we reprint in full their account of Dr. Woodhouse’s experience and tribute to her persistence and courage... therein are additional links to all the documentation of Dr Woodhouse’s (HCPC) Tribunal papers.

https://t.co/rufePfOT9X

[Dr Anne @SolutionPsych]

You can add my name to the list. Psychologists have had their careers threatened for prioritising good practice, evidence and safeguarding over ideology for too long.

[FakeBPSCommentary @psychsocwatchuk]

The Rt Hon Wes Streeting
Secretary of State
Department of Health and Social Care
14 December 2025

Dear Secretary of State,

Plea to halt the Pathways Puberty Blocker Trial

We, the undersigned 20 clinical psychologists, have personally noted and experienced the censorship of open debate in academia, educational and health service settings and in the media. Clinicians and other professionals have been silenced and feared for their jobs and reputations. It is only now that more of us feel able to speak out, and we are doing so to ask that the Pathways Puberty Blocker trial be halted.
There are many possible psychological, familial, cultural and social reasons why some children show signs of feeling unhappy with the sex they were conceived with and born as. This distress is not the same as suffering an inborn constitutional condition or a serious life-threatening illness such as cancer, hence the ethics and the cost-benefit weighing of the medical risks of clinical trials is completely different. It is neither ethical nor is it possible to conduct a legitimate randomised controlled trial on puberty blocking for psychologically based distress. The actual purpose of the Pathways Puberty Blockers trial is ill-defined, and its methodology cannot answer questions beyond "what happens if we do this to one group and do it a bit later to another?”. With such an unsound rationale it is clear that the medical and developmental risks are not justifiable.
It seems only political intervention at this stage can pause the trial so that the many serious questions can now be raised by clinicians. There is not a current professional or clinical consensus in this area of practice and many clinical experts have grave reservations. We are concerned, as you are, about the sociopolitical context that has influenced previous decision making and we strongly question the assumptions that underpin the rationale for this trial. Our concerns include ideological agendas and vested interests. Past research in this area has been heavily scrutinised and weaknesses, bias, suppressed and inadequate research exposed. The current trial risks repeating and replicating these issues again in its flawed research design.
Key psychological and clinical considerations are central to our grave concerns. Young children do not understand the essential nature of their birth sex until they are older, or the nature and fluidity of the concept of their identity which is still forming. At the age at which it is being proposed they receive puberty blockers they cannot validly consent to risk their fertility, their ability to experience sexual pleasure and other aspects of adult sexuality. Parents cannot validly consent on their behalf as this is not the same as their sanctioning risky treatment for potentially life-threatening diseases.
Politicians on all sides of the House would support you to act with courage and responsibility.  Halting the Pathways Puberty Blocker trial will allow these seriously problematic issues to be fully and more widely considered before more children are subjected to medical interventions that we already know interfere with normal maturational processes and which are likely to result in serious lifelong changes to their bodily functions and their brains.
We welcome your openness where you acknowledged that you have concerns with, and deep discomfort about, medications that interfere with puberty. As clinicians we share that discomfort. Leaving behind the heated ideology which to date has interfered with debate, the reality is that previously suppressed profound lack of consensus remains within the clinical community and that the trial should therefore not proceed. We are happy to engage in further discussion or assistance.
Yours sincerely,
Ms Patricia Harvey Consultant Clinical Psychologist (rtd)
on behalf of 19 Consultant Clinical Psychologists/Clinical Psychologists signatories

[Dr Anne @SolutionPsych]

Not in my name.

[Bruce Bowman @boswelltoday]

🧵1/10
The British Psychological Society has submitted a response to the @EHRC that reads less like science and more like scripture. Their sermon? Biology is offensive, truth is cruel, and women asking for boundaries must be shamed into silence.
@BPSOfficial
🔽
https://t.co/qK2EzWvj1x

[louis appleby @ProfLAppleby]

Astounding report by @ProfAliceS. Case after case of academics intimidated & silenced. With universities complicit.

An affront to academic freedom. And from August, unlawful.

[Martin Lewis @MartinSLewis]

IMPORTANT PLS SHARE. It's rumoured the English £9,250 tuition fee cap may be raised this pm for the 1st time in 8yrs, as University's finances are strained. As student finance misunderstandings abound, I've bashed out a few notes to help...

1. Higher tuition fees WON'T change what most pay each year. For most, they're paid for you by the student loans company and you repay afterwards only if you earn over the threshold. The amount you repay each year (9% over the threshold) solely depends on what you earn not on what you borrow.

2. Increasing tuition fees will only see those who clear the loan in full over the 40yrs pay more. That is generally mid-high to higher earning university leavers only, so the cost of increasing them will generally be born by the more affluent. Most lower and middle earning university leavers will simply pay 9% extra tax above the threshold for 40yrs (and higher tuition fees won't change that)

3. The rise is tuition fees is likely to be trivial compared to the changes the last govt made for 2023 starters. 2023 starters had their repayment thresholds dropped to £25,000 (from £27,295/yr) and had the time they had to keep repaying for (unless cleared) extended to 40years from 30years.

So these higher annual repayments for longer, increased by over 50% the amount many graduates will eventually have to pay back for going to university. Yet they were almost stealth changes because people can't intuitively feel the seismic impact.

Changing tuition fees is a more obvious rise, but in reality has far less of an impact on the amount most will repay (though combined with the 2023 changes it does certainly up the cost).

4. The biggest practical problem for students isnt tution fees (even if raised) its the fact maintenace loans aren't big enough. English maintenance loans have not kept pace with inflation. I'd urge the govt to couple the tuition fee loans with bigger living loans - if not it is a real risk to social mobility, with those from the poorest backgrounds likely to be worse affected.

I could write more, but will stop here, hopefully this gives an idea the issues are less straightforward than many feel.