In this article I am going to describe the reasons why IFS (Internal Family Systems) Therapy founded by Dick Schwartz is a model of psychotherapy that is well suited for people with gender and sexual diversities.
I could write a whole dissertation on the hidden biases that almost all traditional forms of therapy have towards people who do not identify as cisgender and/or heterosexual. During my many years of training and professional development, I have had various clashes with professionals, teachers and supervisors who would use homophobic or gender phobic expressions towards me or my clients. They were unaware of how they were using language and ideas that stemmed from their privilege. As a matter of fact, their interventions and language might have seemed perfectly appropriate to use according to the textbooks, but what was happening is, technically, a microaggression. For those unfamiliar with the term, Wikipedia describes it as follows
Microaggression is a term used for commonplace daily verbal, behavioral or environmental slights, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative attitudes toward stigmatized or culturally marginalized groups
I am fortunate enough to have parts of me that do not shy away from being assertive and, eventually, confrontational towards authority, but not everyone is like me. Before I go into the reasons why IFS is a good model for LGBTQI* affermative therapy, let me share of my experience of what I encountered during my training years.
The story of the Supervisor who did not like that I came out to a client
As a proud LGBTQI* member, I believe that it is crucial to my wellbeing and my freedom that I have the right to decide whether to disclose aspects of my sexuality when I deem it relevant. I am not taking a political stance here, and I do not feel the need to tell every single person I meet the exact definition of my gender and sexuality. Here is what happened to me.
During my psychotherapy training I worked for a counseling service as a volunteer therapist. The service manager had matched someone struggling with their sexuality with me, and the client asked me if I was gay at end of the session. In those few seconds, I decided that the best way of supporting a client who is struggling with accepting their sexuality was to not hide mine. When I spoke to my supervisor about my decision, they asked me if I had reflected on my actions… I said yes and I explained my reasoning behind it. They were not happy about my answer (probably they expected some guilty parts of me to come up), and they asked again “But, have you reflected on it?”
My angry parts were already bothered by the repeated question… with all the remaining calm I had, I expanded on my reasoning “I have worked for 3 years in another place where all staff and clients are members of the LGBTQI* community, and I am used to being open about my sexuality. I know how important it is to be open within my minority group”. The supervisor’s face did not change… She put her hand on her face, showing off a golden wedding ring, and looked at another supervisee in the room while deciding if my turn was over… but she could not let me off the hook yet. She came back to me and asked “But, are you sure about it?”
At that point, a part of me came up and, before I could think, these words came out of my mouth
“I don’t know what the problem is here, but I have answered the same question twice already, and, if you have any concerns about me revealing anything about my sexuality, please say so clearly. Let me just tell you something: I do not go into a consulting room wearing a wedding ring that shows that - one - I have a partner and - two - that I am married to someone who is 99% of the opposite sex”.
That discussion ended there. The supervisor never asked again about that client, and she never wore her ring when coming to supervise me.
I firmly believe that, if I see a client who has been struggling to accept their sexuality all their life and they dare to ask me if I am gay, if I were to be secretive or to use the common “blank screen” therapeutic stance, I would just reinforce the idea that sharing any element of non-heterosexuality is wrong. Those therapies that reinforce the fact that the therapist should not share anything at all about themselves, fall into the trap of heteronormativity. My message to those who firmly believe in being a “blank screen” is that heteronormativity exists and, when someone is silent, the assumption made is that that person is cisgendered and heterosexual.
Not answering is far from neutral because it affirms heteronormativity; the majority wins as we are in the field of privilege. Heterosexual and cisgender people have the privilege of not having to specify or worry about how people read them. For people who fall into that privileged group, there are no considerations to be taken regarding sharing fact that they are married, have a partner or a family. The vast majority of members of the LGBTQI* community have undergone various degrees of bullying for their diversities, and a blank screen approach can be more punishing than healing.
Then I look at IFS and I see examples of the opposite. I have had the honour of helping Derek Scott in offering some IFS Training to gay men in Canada, and the experience was beautiful. If that was not enough, I have read the latest book by Frank Anderson (called “Transcending Trauma”), in which he openly talks about his husband. I could not be more proud of the honesty and the courage that Frank has shown in choosing to be open about these aspects of his life. Frank Anderson is one of the leading figures on the IFS community and its openness around sexuality is something unheard of (at least by me) in the therapy world.
So, here is the first reason why IFS is a good model for LGBTQI* members
Reason 1: One of the most prominent authors of IFS therapy lead by example and show how sexual diversity is not kept secret by the therapist
The IFS model has diversity at its core
When Dick Schwartz writes about IFS, he makes the courageous claim that our mind is not a unique block, but that we are made of many parts interacting with each other and with the external world. In IFS, we see conceptualise who we are in a new and refreshing way that feels liberating and hopeful.
Once we get around the idea that we all have parts and we free ourselves from the restrictions of being one mono-mind being, we enter a new and unexplored territory. Any trained IFS therapist and practitioner has been taught to be respectful and accepting of any form of diversity that different parts present. In his audio-programme “More than the sum of our parts”, Dick Schwartz describes how he worked with people who had committed crimes and met their murderous parts with compassion.
Within this revolutionary framework, parts can express themselves freely. Each part can either have their own sexuality to it, or not. Within the same individual, parts with different sexual preferences can exist, and the same goes with different gender identities.
Reason 2: being a relatively new form of therapy, the model of IFS is built with acceptance of diversity at its core.
The task of IFS therapy is to welcome and accept all parts as not being bad. As a consequence, the potential for these parts to be at the receiving end of microaggressions is far inferior to any other modalities. A well-trained IFS therapist or practitioner will make sure that they use as much Self energy as possible in the session and, therefore, has been trained to accept with curiosity and compassion every part that the system presents in session.
With IFS, we invite parts to express themselves fully and, whenever this is not possible, we speak to the parts that are stopping such expression. It is not that there are no bad parts, but that there is nothing “bad” that a part can feel, think or express. When parts that hold shame and trauma around their sexuality and gender encounter the acceptance of Self, the magic of IFS happens. At the beginning, the Self of the therapist is key, and, as the therapy progresses, the client’s system will learn how to access their own Self energy. With this process, parts that were initially exiled and could not express themselves start to integrate and allow the person to live a more fulfilling life. This brings us to the final reason
Reason 3: one parts that hold sexual and gender trauma integrate with the system, the person lives a more fulfilling and meaningful life
Are all therapists/practitioners equipped to work with all forms of diversity?
I wish I would say “yes” to this question, but we are all humans and, therefore, limited. I surely have, like everybody, blind spots that I am not aware of, and all I can do is to continue to search and reflect on my work. I am sure my parts have initiated microaggressions towards members of my community or of other communities as I am well aware of my privileges as a white person.
So, in all honesty, the answer is that no one, regardless of their training, can say that they are fully open to all forms of diversity. It is extremely important that the therapeutic relationship is strong enough to allow the client and the therapist to discuss openly about these matters. My message to therapists is to keep on being reflective and strive to become aware of their blind spots and to make all that is possible to allow clients to discuss these matters in sessions.
My message for clients is to not discard difficult and uncomfortable feelings in session and to speak openly to their therapist. If this discussion does not go well, then it might be time to find a new therapist.
On this note, there are types of therapy that give quite a lot of importance to the quality of the relationship between the therapist and the client. These are usually called “relational therapy”, and people trained in these modalities are well equipped to deal with what the client is feeling in relation to the therapist in the session and solve any issues that might emerge.
As safe bet is, regardless of the training, to check whether the therapist belongs to the LGBTQI* community, and/or if the therapist has either worked with this clientele before or, even better, if they have worked at organisations that provide services for the LGBTQI* community. Some therapists might have attended specialised sexual and gender diversity trainings like the ones offered by Pink Therapy (www.pinktherapy.com).
Concluding thoughts
IFS has acceptance of diversities at its core and his representatives are leading by example.
It would be amazing to see more gender and sexual diversity being represented in published work, but I guess this is a reflection of the patriarchal society we live in. I have not found the same openness to sexual and gender diversity in any other therapeutic approach and I hope this also changes in the future.
While I always recommend following your gut feelings when choosing a therapist and a modality of therapy, if you are a member of the LGBTQI* community and you are looking for a therapist, I suggest giving a try to IFS and see how it goes.