BACP Signs up!

I was delighted to learn that the BACP Board of Governors decided to sign up to an inclusive Memorandum of Understanding to extend protections to trans people and asexuals.  This still hasn’t been published on their website but will be soon.BACP MoU statementI am grateful that to everyone who played a part in lobbying the Board with their views, research and concerns.  I think this has been immensely helpful in helping the Board decide that these protections are needed.

All the signatories to the MoU need to follow their due process and consider the implications for signing up and extending the protections.  BACP were doing just that.  It had been reported elsewhere that they had refused to sign, and this was a distortion of what I had been stating, that the Board were to meet in Early March and the indication I’d had was that they might decide not to sign based on “a lack of evidence & research.”  This research was then supplied and the Board of Governors were able to make an informed decision.

I’ve been mulling over whether to still resign over my broader dissatisfactions with BACP. However, I think to resign at this point might look like this queen has had a hissy fit.   

BACP ought to be well aware of the significantly higher rates of mental health problems within the LGB and T community based on research they commissioned in 2007.  However, I am saddened that they’ve not used their considerable resources to ensure that counsellors are adequately trained to support LGBT people.  Their signing up to the Memorandum of Understanding makes this an obligation and I am hopeful they will be auditing their accredited courses more closely on their attention to issues to GSRD issues.

I had hoped that having been made a Fellow in 2007 for my “distinctive service to the field”  that this might signal an opportunity to collaborate in improving the mental health of Gender, Sexual and Relationship Diversities (GSRD). BACP also published my article Not in Front of the Students about the absence of training in their journal in the same year.  But nothing has changed and I’ve felt quite dispirited. Instead, BACP have promoted workshops on treating sexual addiction which is a highly contested and controversial issue which many of us in the field of clinical sexology would dispute See Marty Klein who has blogged extensively on this or the excellent book by David Ley Ley, 2013, Flanagan 2013 and my post Davies, 2013) Sexual Addiction or Hypersexual Disorder failed to be included in the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (the bible for mental health disorders compiled by the American Psychiatric Association) on the grounds of lack of robust evidence for diagnosis and effective treatment.

One of the positives that has come from my having taken stance is that MANY therapists and members of the GSRD communities have been having a conversation about therapy and it’s need to catch up with the rapid evolving field and address the mental health needs of our communities.  [Over 80 concerned therapists and sexologists signed an open letter to the Board.]

It always surprises non-counsellors when I tell them that in what can be between a three to seven year training to become a therapist there is virtually no training in basic human sexuality and relationships let alone in working with people whose sexuality is different to the mainstream. Unless one trains to be a sex therapist, one is unlikely to be able to engage in explicitly sexual conversations.

Perhaps all of this activity over the past few weeks can pave the way for a closer dialogue between all of us who are concerned to see better mental health for our communities. We’ll see!

Dominic Davies
CEO/Founder Pink Therapy

Following up on BACP

PINK4646 DD Portrait

I wanted to say how incredibly moved I am by the level of support I’ve received since announcing my resignation from BACP yesterday.  I had no idea that my social media influence was quite so effective and I’ve been overwhelmed by the positive comments of gratitude for taking a principled stand and raising awareness of their failure to address the mental health needs of our community.

Concerned colleagues and BACP members have written an open letter to the Board of Governors.  If you wish to join the Pink Therapy closed Facebook group (aimed at therapists working with GSD clients) and follow the discussion click here.

I have also been deeply saddened by seeing the high level of disaffection with BACP – the largest counselling and psychotherapy body in the UK.

“..Removing yourself from such an organisation and doing so publicly gives a voice to all those lgbtq people who have suffered from BACP’s heel dragging and it also empowers the new Society by having you give authority and credence to its stand on issues of sexuality, orientation, and expression.”

I’ve sat by for almost 35  long years hoping BACP would do the right thing and address the issues of improving the quality of mental health provision for LGBT people. 

It’s not as if there are no gay people working in the highest echelons of BACP. But it’s largely cis white gay male privilege reinforcing the status quo from within. I recall in my early days of attending BACP annual conferences (when they had such things) that I’d be largely avoided by ‘discretely’ gay/bi senior officials – fear of guilt by association.  But it gave me some sense that BACP might be alright and looking out for us.

Sadly this is not the case.  They’ve done very little over these three decades to raise the standards of counsellor training to help therapists feel more comfortable discussing sex and relationship issues let alone anything less mainstream like Gender, Sexual and Relationship Diversities (GSRD).  I’ve written about this before: Not in Front of the Students in 2007.  Nothing’s changed as Meg-John Barker and I reported last year in an article on the UKCP Journal The Psychotherapist 

Meanwhile I’ve ploughed my own furrow and made way for a new generation of GSRD therapists and had the privilege of training and working alongside many of them. Developing courses to fill the gap left by the heteronormative mainstream has failed to address.

As Audre Lorde said:
“For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. Racism and homophobia are real conditions of all our lives in this place and time. I urge each one of us here to reach down into that deep place of knowledge inside herself and touch that terror and loathing of any difference that lives here. See whose face it wears. Then the personal as the political can begin to illuminate all our choices.”

It’s fascinating that BACP has never sought to create a division around gender and sexual diversity issues.  The old PSRF (Personal, Sexual, Relationship and Family) division got rebranded ‘Private Practice’ and there was, for a few years a RACE division but that limped along poorly supported and so as Lorde predicted, the queers and those of colour created their own spaces for support, training and development.  The Black and Asian Therapists Network (BAATN) is a thriving active body which meets regularly in London (co-incidentally in the same building as we run our training workshops).

Over the years, largely because of the lack of attention to diversity, I have programmed many large conferences addressing gender, sexuality and relationship diversity issues.  Personally taking the risk of financial loss if they’re not well enough attended (and one of these cost me £3k of my savings).  I am enormously committed to improving the quality of therapy available and the training of therapists has been a major focus of my career. Pink Therapy receives no grants or external funding.  It’s entirely funded from training course fees and directory membership fees. We’ve also followed BAATN’s lead and developed a mentoring scheme because of the endemic homophobia, biphobia and transphobia many counsellors feel in their training courses. 

So it feels a kick in the teeth when I hear from people whom I’ve always respected that they feel there is a lack of evidence that Conversion Therapy is being practiced on trans and gender variant people and on asexuals.  They may not know of it happening, they may not have seen the research, but that DOES NOT mean there is no evidence!  (yesterday I cited several studies).  Those of us closely connected to the Trans and Asexual communities are hearing all the time about how crappy therapists have been, how inappropriately they’ve treated them. It’s unfortunate that BACP are so out of touch and uninterested in learning from our communities.

Conversion therapy in the UK is also on a pretty small scale and I’m not sure there has been much ‘evidence base’ for that apart from Bartlett et al who found appalling levels of ignorance amongst mainstream counsellors responding to requests for reduction in their same-sex attractions.  But these therapists wouldn’t have said they were doing “conversion therapy” which is a term largely used by fundamentalist Christians or the Orthodox Jewish organisation Jonah.  Conversion therapy IS big business in the USA but here in the UK it’s more that well meaning, under-trained therapists agree to try to help a distressed client manage their same sex attractions by encouraging them towards heterosexuality.  This is highly analogous to CAMS and other therapists working with children and families who present with gender non-conforming behaviour brought by their concerned parents worried that their child might be gay or trans and being advised to discourage cross gender play. 

I am looking forward to taking up membership of what seems a much more supportive and progressive, albeit smaller counselling body – the National Counselling Society who have a policy of accepting members who are already accredited elsewhere in at the same level as they were.  So in addition to my existing membership and Senior Accreditation with the National Council of Psychotherapists (who few people seem to know about), I will become enjoy Senior Accreditation and continue to be on the PSA Register.  It was tempting to consider joining one of the more renegade groups of therapists like the Independent Practitioners Network, whom I have enormous respect for, but actually I want to be able to try to influence the profession by being a member of a larger body where we can hopefully raise awareness of equality and difference.

I was very troubled to hear though, how BACP seem to be holding a monopoly on who employers recognise as being THE accrediting/registering body for the profession.  One person commented on my post that he didn’t feel he could leave BACP as the NHS (in Wales) wouldn’t recognise membership of any other professional counselling/therapy body.  

Another respondent said: I’m a referral counsellor for a therapy centre based on my BACP accreditation, it would mean losing my livelihood unless I could persuade the therapy centre to accept the National Counselling organisation that Dominic mentioned…certainly needs to be thought through before I make any moves as I’m not in a financial position just to leave here not to mention all of the clients I currently see here, many of whom are trans or LGB…

Finally one last significant peeve I have with BACP is how they have been actively promoting the concept of “Sexual Addiction” by holding training events around this subject.  Sexual Addiction is a highly contentious and controversial subject – where there is no treatment evidence base or even any widely accepted diagnostic criteria and was declined inclusion in the DSM V on this basis.  Yet BACP seems to be happy to encourage their members to treat something which most informed clinical sexologists are highly sceptical of.  If you wish to read more about The Myth of Sexual Addiction see David Ley’s helpful book

Dominic Davies
18 Feb 2016

Why I am resigning from the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy


I feel incredibly let down by my professional body – an organisation I have been a member of for almost 35 years and where I am a Senior Accredited Counsellor/Psychotherapist and a Fellow.  They have indicated that they are likely NOT to be signing up for a revised Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy which would be extended to include trans and asexuality.

I am so frustrated by their constant inaction and lack of understanding the issues that I am resigning.  Here are some of the reasons why:
As LGB and T people are over represented in the therapy-consuming population, due to demonstrably higher levels of mental distress and self harm there is an obvious and urgent need for counsellors to be able to provide skilled therapeutic support. 

This is a rapidly changing field in terms of our knowledge about gender and sexual minority groups, language and concepts are continuously shifting especially with regard to trans issues.

There has been fairly recent legislation affecting LGB and T people’s rights, which therapists are likely to be unaware of.  BACP has an obligation to ensure that therapists are to be kept up to date on all this.

Consistently research has demonstrated that LGB and T people have felt poorly served by therapists.  As BACP is the largest counselling professional body it’s likely to be the case that there will be a great many members who have not responded appropriately. 

In case you’re interested: Cordelia Galgut researched lesbians experiences of therapy, Iggi Moon conducted research into therapists attitudes to bisexuality, Tina Livingstone did a similar study but exploring therapists attitudes to trans people.  Karen Pollock researched how comfortable suicidal trans people felt about seeking counselling. Bartlett et al did a large study on the response of mental health professionals to clients seeking help to change sexual orientation ALL found appalling attitudes by counselling professionals to gender, sexual and relationship diverse groups.

The MoU v1 items 18 and 19 make it an obligation that members of the signatory bodies i.e. BACP counsellors should be adequately trained to know how to best respond when someone presents with confusion over their sexual orientation or is seeking a reduction in their same sex attraction or a ‘cure’.

“18 Those with a responsibility for training will work to ensure that trainings prepare therapists to sufficient levels of cultural competence so they can work effectively with LGB clients;

19 Training organisations will refer to the British Psychological Society guidelines on working with gender and sexual minority clients when reviewing their curriculum on equality and diversity issues;”

BACP took two years to resolve a case where someone (an undercover journalist investigating gay cure therapy in Britain) sought the help of a BACP Senior Accredited therapist (Lesley Pilkington) and was offered ‘gay cure’ therapy.  One of the major obstructions in the complaints process was to be able to find an unbiased/neutral complaints panel. I think BACP were also very scared that Pilkington was being defended by the Christian Legal Centre. BACP subsequently wrote to all members making it clear members were not to engage in reparative therapy, but have done very little to improve the confidence of therapists to know how best to respond to such requests from clients since then.

“14: For organisations with practitioner members, each will review their statements of ethical practice, and consider the need for the publication of a specific ethical statement concerning conversion therapy”

Today, I was informed in a “courtesy call, as a Fellow of BACP and someone very involved in these issues” that BACP don’t want to create an ever growing “list of orientations and conditions” [my emphasis], when the Ethical Framework already has principles which make unprofessional and incompetent practice unethical. 

They want to just rely upon their Ethical Framework (and there is a new one out in July) which is based on ethical principles, currently they are: autonomy, trustworthiness, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice and self respect. to ensure members act appropriately and ethically.

However, how are therapists supposed to be able to deliver competent and ethical therapy without specific training about gender, sexual and relationship diverse clients?  For example, without knowledge of the specific mental health needs and socio-cultural contexts in which minority stress and micro aggressions contribute to much higher rates of depression, suicide and self harm, (with bisexuals and gender variant people having significantly poorer mental health than lesbians and gay men).  Research into self harm amongst trans people shows that over 40% of trans people have attempted to take their lives or self harmed, about how relationship dynamics are often different amongst LGB people; about working with gender variant young people.  There has been a 400% increase in referrals to the child and adolescent Gender Identity Development Unit at the Tavi and many therapists in community settings are working with young people and their families around gender identity issues.  We are increasingly hearing stories from trans people about poor understanding of their issues.  Including accounts from gender non-conforming young people being encouraged to follow to gender roles appropriate to the sex they were assigned at birth (i.e. boy’s shouldn’t play with dolls or dress in female clothing etc).

I think BACP are failing to support their members in learning how best to respond to gender, sexual and relationship diverse clients.  The occasional article in the Therapy Today does not count as adequate attention to the training and development needs of it’s members.

It’s my view that BACP has become a large bureaucracy which has failed to use it’s power and resources to address the failures of the counselling profession to improve the quality of therapy for gender, sexuality and relationship diverse clients. 

The decision as to whether to re-sign for an revised MoU inclusive of Trans and Asexuality has been referred to the Board of Governors who meet in March.  It’s been indicated to me that it’s likely they will feel signing up will not be consistent with BACP’s policy and practice.  I seriously doubt the Governors of BACP will be a particularly well informed group of individuals who will have their finger on the pulse regarding trans and asexuality issues so this a great way for the Executive of BACP to pass the buck. I’d be curious to see any briefing papers they have prepared for the Board on the issues involved in whether to sign back up to MoU v2.

I was proud to be made a Fellow of BACP back in 2007 for my “distinguished service to the field” but that award has been pretty hollow given how BACP have rarely sought advice and guidance on what they might need to be doing to meet the needs of their membership with regard to helping counsellors improve the mental health of our communities. 

My BACP membership is due for renewal next month, but I will not be renewing and I will instead be taking up membership of a smaller but much more responsive professional body – the National Counselling Society who have indicated that they have voted for an inclusive MoU v.2 and that my status of a Senior Accredited member can be transferred to their organisation and that their Professional Standards Committee would welcome my application for a Fellowship.  They are also keen to have have my expertise contribute to the way the organisation might support their members.

Perhaps other disaffected members of BACP might want to consider whether they want to continue their membership!

Dominic Davies

17 Feb 2016

Authentic sexual needs

Our work as therapists can at times be about helping our clients discover, explore and express their needs. Like the need to be loved, supported or understood for instance. And so, we stay in the moment, with what it means to have needs and to acknowledge their authenticity and realness.

When it comes to sexual needs, how can we stay with the authenticity and realness of what the client brings? Indeed have we confronted our shadows around sex, or do we jump into trying to determine what makes sexual needs appropriate, moral, pathological… Have we found the special ruler to measure a piece of string? Who can establish that one’s sexual needs are problematic but the person themselves (sometime after long exploration).

Yet hypothesis or “diagnosis” of sexual addiction are becoming main stream and money earners for some ‘specialists’. Whilst diagnosis of hypo sexual desire disorder are undermining and patronise the asexual population. How helpful or accurate are these formulations?

Looking at couples, infallibly their own level of sexual desire will differ and may vary with time. Which one has the right level? The one who wants more sex or the one who wants less? ‘Sex specialists’ state that a six months period with no sexual activity is problematic. Peer pressure to have sex is also rife, specially within sexual minorities where a sense of identity and belonging is often built upon ‘sexual identity’.

So we are trapped between a cock-measuring attitude (who has the most of it) and a normative approach (average, statistics and research).

How can we affirm our clients authentic sexual needs, whether they’d rather hold hand and cuddle their partner in front of the TV with a nice slice of cake or have fun in sex clubs and saunas twice a week?

Dominic Davies and TIm Foskett explore the misconception of sexual addiction in Gay and Bisexual men in their training day “I am too sexy” (16 November 2013) whilst on the following day I will explore our understanding of low sexual activity and desire across sexual preferences on a day called “Asexualities: intimacy and desire” (17 November 2013).

So why don’t you join us in this learning, get your rulers out and break them.

Olivier Cormier-Otaño MBACP Accred, AASDT
Clinical Associate

An introduction to Gender and Sexual Diversity Psychotherapy

A Pink Therapy Summer School in London, July 8-12, 2013

Editor’s note: this is a guest post from André Helman, MD; a relational psychotherapist from Paris.

Pink Therapy is an independent therapy and training institution devoted to LGBT people and to gender and sexual diversity. Located in London, it was created by Dominic Davies, a psychotherapist and sex therapist, who runs it together with a team of fifteen or so therapists and trainers.

I was lucky enough to take part in an international summer school about Gender and Sexual Diversity Therapy (GSDT). Exploring this concept, which was brand new to me, as well as its implications was an opportunity for dramatic breakthroughs and broadening of my field of thought. That is the experience I wish to evoke in this paper. It is not an in-depth reflection about GSD (many books were published about it, and many are still to be written), only a brief report where the author’s subjectivity is freely invited.

The GSD concept

Gender and Sexual Diversity (GSD) and Gender and Sexual Diversity Therapy (GSDT) concepts were elaborated through the recent years by Dominic Davies and his colleagues. The initial book, Pink Therapy, which gave its name to the institute, was directed by Dominic Davies and Charles Neal, and first published in 1996. It dealt with affirmative therapy for gay men. Progressively, the wording evolved: gay affirmative therapy turned into gay and lesbian affirmative therapy, and then sexual minority therapy, until the current term GSDT. Indeed, it appeared that the LGBT concept – even when adding an I for intersex or a Q for queer – would not allow to include all patients who were addressed by this therapeutic approach. For instance, this term excludes asexuals, kinksters, swingers, polyamorous, non-monogamous, flexible heterosexuals, fetishists, “objectum sexuals” (people who experience a romantic attraction to an object), the approach would not be consistent if it added an exclusion to those it intends to stand together with.

Every person related to any aspect of GSD suffers a social oppression, with different degrees and specific forms, which induces an internalized oppression, as an identification to the “norm”, and a counter-oppression, as a reaction. For example, the fight against misogynous oppression – wrongly named sexist – generated diverse types of counter-oppression, among which misandry is a major one.   The common oppression suffered by all GSD persons can be resumed with five injunctions: meet someone of the other sex, get married, have children stay together for your whole life, be faithful… But “the award for conformity is that everybody loves you… but you”. Within the LGBT(IQ…) “community itself, discrimination and difference rejection are common practice. To be oppressed does not prevent you from being an oppressor.

Group dynamics

Our group consisted of twelve persons, originating from 11 countries: Benin (West Africa), Catalonia, Denmark,  Finland, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Scotland, USA and France – and representing many diversities : gays, lesbians, bisexuals, asexuals, flexible heterosexuals, transmen… All of them where psychotherapists, either active or about to complete their training, all of them were very motivated and involved in the process. The course was presented by the same pair every morning (Pamela Gawler-Wright and Olivier Cormier-Otaño), while a different trainer intervened every afternoon, according to the topic.

As soon as the group met first for the time, the leading pair, tactfully and lightly, installed a climate of confidence, mutual respect and freedom of speech which greatly contributed to the quality and profoundness of our sharing throughout the course. Their interventions were rich with information and experiences. Together with the proposed exercises they both inflamed me and confronted me with my limits, my questioning, my fears. Each afternoon trainer, in their own special way, contributed to these dynamics. 

Each participant was invited to share in how they experienced the exercises as well as their own personal and professional experience, as related to the discussed topics. They all did so with a great sincerity, which allowed me to discover some aspects of GSD, I knew nothing about, to be confronted to my own stereotypes and prejudices, and, eventually, to dramatically change my viewpoint about some of them.

The course main lines

Many issues were developed, discussed and deepened through practical exercises. Below, I mention the main ones and what I experienced when tackling them.

Stereotypes and prejudices

As with everybody, our patients carry all kinds of stereotypes and prejudices, which partly contribute to generating and/or maintaining their unwellness. Therapist do too! This contributes to narrow our vision of our patients, our capacity to accept them fully as they are and, consequently, the quality of our support. Without taking the expression “The cobbler’s children go barefoot” at face value, we all should continue to explore and challenge our own stereotypes and prejudices, aiming at getting free from them. As far as I am concerned, this course greatly helped me in this respect. Work is still in progress…

Is my therapist GSD?

Choosing a therapist one considers as heterosexual or, on the contrary, as identically oriented is not neutral. It’s worth exploring what such a choice implies. For instance:

  • The fear a GSD person may experience about confiding in a heterosexual therapist may come from their own heterophobia: to believe a heterosexual therapist is deductively unable to support a GSD patient; conversely, the belief that choosing a same GSD oriented therapist is a sufficient condition is limiting too: it cannot be the only criterion for a successful therapy.
  • As regards a same oriented therapist, there is a risk of collusion (I understand them as I experienced the same thing as they do) or identification (I experience the same thing as they do so what they say relates to me personally).
  • To say or not to say whether I’m GSD: it was very helpful for me to participate in a discussion about this issue. Is it right to answer the patient’s question “Are you gay?” and how to do it?

Lesbianism and lesbophobia

Through “life stories” of Anglo-Saxon lesbian celebrities, illustrated by animated and musical presentations, Pamela Gawler-Wright lightly introduced us to the yet awful word of social persecutions which lesbians experienced since some of them started to claim their visibility and right to be themselves.

Coming out

Half a day was devoted to the coming-out issues. In particular, the following topics were addressed:

Coming out is multiple: one experiences as many coming outs as there are situations and persons one has to face throughout one’s life; thus, it’s repeated many times, in a different way every time.
As the consequences of coming out are unknown, it necessarily makes the person feel unsafe.
  • It’s hard to resist the belief “It should be known” (transparency as a moral value).

Shame, vulnerability and internalized oppression

Another half-day permitted to develop and deepen this issue, through exercises in which participants got very involved. As far as I am concerned, it was overwhelming and it taught me a lot. In particular, it presented me with an opportunity of experiencing a real breakthrough about the self-maintained process of superego injunctions.

I feel internalized oppression is a core issue for many of our patients, specially – but not only – our GSD patients. It’s likely to be one the most widely shared psychological processes. Even white heterosexual men cannot escape it (at least not all of them…): many of them have internalized the oppression of sexual performance obligation or that of aggressive machismo as inseparable from their manhood (a young male, smart, open-minded patient recently told me “if I climb stairs behind a woman – as any gallant man should do – and she wears a miniskirt, what will she think about me?”)

For many GSD persons, social oppression is very deep as it is rooted in gender difference. Internalizing it induces the shame of being oneself as well as radical judgements about one’s own desires, thoughts and acts. This shame causes vulnerability and hypervigilance regarding anyone or anything that could question this aspect of the person’s identity. But to be vulnerable does not mean to be weak: on the contrary, accepting one’s vulnerability is a major strength which contributes to coming out of shame and of internalized oppression.

In any case, the psyche authority that judges and pronounces irrevocable condemnations – whether you call it cruel superego or “top dogs” – plays a major part in maintaining shame, especially by justifying it endlessly. If we consider it as a major target of the therapeutic process, it can only benefit to our patients.


Discovering asexuality was one of the highlights of the course for me, particularly as we could take advantage with direct testimonies. Furthermore, Olivier Cormier-Otaño presented us with an enthralling study he conducted via a questionnaire that reached 310 persons considering themselves as asexual. In our hypersexual society, asexuality stands as a very strange, incomprehensible phenomenon.  For us, psychotherapists, it shocks our “knowledge” about sexuality and its issues… where it finds no place. It’s our responsibility to give it its right place if we want to be able to support asexual persons along their way to feel at peace with themselves and get integrated in their environment.


Here again, direct testimonies were a major contribution to the course. I had already read books and articles on this topic, but coming to meet persons who experience transsexuality is irreplaceable. 
We heard a presentation about the activity of the Tavistock Clinic service dealing with children and teenagers who question their gender – the only service of this kind in the UK. It threw light on how to welcome and answer their questioning, both on a human and medical level.

“Help me not be gay!”

Conversion therapies, even though in loose momentum, still exist in Anglo-Saxon countries – maybe in France, as well, I don’t know. Without going so far, all of us may have to face a person whose request is to help them stop experiencing feelings and emotions related to GSD. How should we meet this request? How can we support them in their quest for an inner harmony, without letting ourselves being carried away by a “pro-GSD” ideology?

Behind such a request, as behind any request concerning identity, there are beliefs, grounded on stereotypes, and which appear to the person as truths, as certitudes. The suggested approach aims at helping the person to see truths as beliefs and to realise that beliefs are not the truth (my simplification…).

As a provisional conclusion

A word imposes itself to me after this experience: empowerment. I could say, feeling confident and deeply free, because of the recognition of my responsibility towards GD persons and my capacity to face it.

I never so clearly realised the pressing urge to acknowledge, accept and welcome human diversity, whatever its form and expression, as well as to challenge the stereotypes and prejudices it inevitably reveals to me.

The GSD concept is just emerging. It’s hardly starting to contribute redesigning the outlines of our ‘community’ and to influence the way we look at our patients, and perhaps at our practice. Meeting GSD persons who embody some GSD aspects I didn’t know, or about which I had rather bulky prejudices, helped me a tremendous lot in accepting them better, hence feeling better with myself and more open to my patients.

André Helman, MD; a relational psychotherapist from Paris.