Supporting respectful professional discourse

As a long-standing member of the BPS, I have always appreciated our organisation's commitment to fairness, inclusion, and ethical standards. I recently revisited the BPS's DEI policy, noting the presence of a dedicated DEI representative on the executive team. 

This prompted me to reflect on how these principles came to be, and are, interpreted and implemented, particularly in relation to the ongoing societal and professional discourse around sex, gender, and identity.

I would like to ask, in good faith and with professional curiosity, whether the BPS will make its position clear on a number of related matters – specifically, the concept of gender self-identification, the definitions of 'woman' and 'man,' the recognition of trans identities (e.g., whether the BPS considers a trans woman to be a woman and vice versa), and whether you advise the first line of action for children expressing gender dysphoria therapy, to be therapy or acquiescence. 

Given the relevance of these issues to our work and the significant public and legal attention they have received, will the BPS publish any formal guidance or opt for a more silent or evolving stance?

In my role as a trainer with embodiment and self-concept at the heart of my work, I strive to uphold the BPS's standards. However, I've found myself navigating increasingly sensitive territory. For instance, I hesitate to use sex-specific language – such as referring to 'women experiencing menopause'– even when it aligns with established research. My concern is not about inclusion, but about whether our efforts to avoid causing offence may be limiting the clarity and nuance with which we discuss psychological issues.

I was encouraged to see a recent article in The Psychologist on freedom of thought (March 2025). This raised a broader question for me: Does our understanding of fairness within the BPS framework also protect space for respectful dissent, debate, and the open exploration of contested ideas?

Psychology as a discipline has long valued inquiry into identity, embodiment, and the unconscious – from Jung's animus and anima to psychodynamic interpretations of gender and selfhood. I worry that, in today's climate, thoughtful questioning in this area can be misinterpreted or prematurely shut down. 

Terms such as 'Terf' or 'transphobic' are often used in a way that discourages dialogue, and I believe we would benefit from guidance to support respectful professional discourse.

In light of recent legal precedents (such as the Forstater case), many rulings affirming the right to express personal gender beliefs in all domains of work, and the Supreme Court decision, an official position from the BPS would help practitioners like me feel confident in engaging with these topics in a balanced, evidence-informed, and ethical way, without fear of reprisal. After all, evidence-based and reasoned discussion lies at the heart of our profession.

Deanne Jade

On 6 May, the following response to the UK Supreme Court judgment on women and sex in the case of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers was posted on the BPS website, from President Dr Roman Raczka:

We acknowledge the Supreme Court's decision and the interim guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission on this important issue.

As a result of the ruling, we are reviewing our existing guidance to see what, if any, changes or clarifications are needed.

Like many other organisations with an interest in this area, it will take the BPS time to carefully understand the implications of the ruling.

We will be engaging fully with the EHRC's public consultation that will address how the practical implications of the ruling are reflected in the EHRC's forthcoming updated guidance.

While this ruling provides greater clarity in this area of law, it will also bring understandable concern for many people about how their daily lives and access to services and spaces may be affected.

Our Code of Ethics and Conduct highlights the importance of respect and dignity for all human beings. We know that our members will continue to practise with these fundamental principles in mind.

The BPS has rightly made a statement regarding the recent Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC guidance. As an organisation committed to contributing psychological evidence and expertise on critical issues, this aligns with our strategic goal of 'building a world where psychology transforms lives'. Given the significant social and political reaction to these legal and policy changes, psychological insights will be essential.

While I was pleased to see the BPS address this matter, I must express my disappointment on two fronts.

First, the assertion that 'clarity' has been achieved. While this claim has been asserted by the Prime Minister, other government officials, and now by us, I fail to see how greater clarity has truly been established – except perhaps in the narrowest legal sense, such as the question of whether trans women on Scottish Boards contribute to the gender quota. Instead, this perceived 'clarity' is being weaponised to undermine trans people's place in public life.

Second, I was deeply concerned by the language used to describe the distress felt by those facing hostility. Referring to this as mere 'concerns' about how their lives 'may be affected' significantly downplays the very real and immediate dangers they face. The current reality is stark: increased misgendering, deliberate name-calling, online harassment, exclusion from sports and public spaces, and even forced outings – violations that contradict the protections enshrined in the Equality Act, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court ruling itself.

Minimising these attacks risks sending a troubling message to potential clients and service users – suggesting that their experiences are not taken seriously. If we are to uphold our role as a trusted voice in psychological knowledge and ethical leadership, we must challenge the false dichotomy of 'women's rights' versus 'trans rights'. As the BPS statement rightly notes, our Code of Ethics and Conduct affirms the importance of respect and dignity for all human beings. Trans rights are human rights, and they are not in opposition to women's rights.

As we engage with the EHRC consultation and other discussions, it is imperative that we articulate this principle clearly and unequivocally.

Dr Martin Milton 

Chartered Psychologist

Registered Psychotherapist