WHO AM I

WHO AM I

 

DUE: TOMORROW JULY 28th

 

Everything explained in the upload

For the WHO AM I assignment, I already informed the class that im a white, black irish, caucasion American. I also mentioned that I have a small bit of Italian in me. Other then that you can say whatever you want. ** BE NICE ** lol

Identifying and Correctly Labeling
Sexual Prejudice, Discrimination,
and

Oppression

Shannon B. Dermer, Shannon D. Smith, and Korenna K. Barto

•To effectively work with and advocate for iesbians, gay men, and their famiiies, one has to be aware of the individual,
relational, and societal forces that may negatively affect them. The focus of this article is to familiarize the reader with
terminology used to identify and label sexual prejudice, discrimination, and oppression. The pros and cons of both
historically used language and newer terminology are discussed.

Coined nearly 40 years ago, the word homophobia is arguably
the most recognized term used to describe the marginahza-
tion and disenfranchisement of lesbians and gay men (Herek,
2000). Those who stigmatize homosexuality frame it as an
individual pathology originating from problems in psychosexual
development, abuse, or a sinful lifestyle. Harley, Jolivette, Mc-
Cormick, and Tice (2002) noted that “the practice of discussing
minorities in terms of pathology has had a continuous history
in the United States” ¿ . 218). With the invention of the term
homophobia, Weinberg (1972) and other researchers pushed
to depathologize homosexuality and refocused conversations
to include the prejudice embedded in individuals and society
(Herek, 2000). The consequence of Weinberg creating a label
to recognize irrational fear about homosexuality opened the
door to recognizing oppression based on sexual orientation
and sparked a movement within mental health professions to
normalize nonheterosexual orientations.

Although the term homophobia was originally created in 1967
to embody the irrational fear of lesbians and gay men (Weinberg,
1972), the meaning has expanded over time to encompass any
negative attitudes toward sexual minorities. Sexual minorities
are a group composed of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
intersex individuals, as well as people questioning their sexual
or gender identity. In essence, the term sexual minority includes
anyone whose sexual orientation, sexual identity, sexual behav-
ior, gender orientation, or gender identity fall outside of what is
considered “normal” or typical by dominant society. Because
both sexual minorities as a group and the attitudes toward them
are quite diverse, some researchers have questioned whether the
concept of homophobia is still useful for describing attitudes
toward sexual minorities (Herek, 2000).

Although Weinberg’s (1972) naming of homophobia was
a tremendous step forward in advocacy for certain sexual mi-
norities, this single term cannot account for the continuum of
prejudice, discrimination, and oppression that sexual minori-
ties face. Consequently, other terms have been created. For
instance, Herek (2000) proposed the use of the term sexual

prejudice for the scientific analysis of all negative attitudes
based on sexual orientation, including heterosexuality, bi-
sexuality, transexuality, and homosexuality. In addition, other
concepts such as homonegativity, antigay hostility, heteronor-
mativity, heterocentrism, heterosexual ism, sexual stigma, and
internalized homophobia have been created to capture a more
complex picture of the individual, relational, and societal op-
pression with which sexual minorities contend.

A larger pool of language now exists to describe nega-
tive attitudes and actions toward sexual minorities, and it
is important for clinicians to understand the various terms
and the possible consequences of particular language. Part
of being sensitive to working with lesbian and gay clients is
the ability to be aware of, identify, and name the multifac-
eted face of oppression. The term homophobia is no longer
precise enough to encapsulate the manifest and surreptitious
facets of sexual prejudice. In addition to knowledge about
sexual development and the coming-out process, counselors
should have a more nuanced vocabulary to be able to name
and externalize both covert and overt expressions of sexual
intolerance. It is important for counselors to be able to identify
and understand oppression to help intervene with clients and
advocate for sexual minorities within the counseling profes-
sion and society.

The role of a professional counselor goes beyond being
a sympathetic ear for an individual client. The standards of
the profession compel a counselor to understand oppression,
develop her or his own cultural awareness, promote social
justice, advocate for the elimination of bias and prejudice,
struggle against intentional and unintentional discrimination,
and advocate for the overall Wellness of clients (Constantine,
Hage, Kindaichi, & Bryant, 2007; Council for Accreditation
of Counseling and Related Educational Programs, 2009; Her-
mann & Richter, 2006; Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992).
Part of reaching these lofty goals is having awareness and
understanding of the language used to encompass oppression,
privilege, discrimination, and prejudice.

Shannon B. Dermer, Division of Psychology and Counseling, Governors State University; Shannon D. Smith, Department of
Counselor Education, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Korenna K. Barto, Department of Counseiing, The University of Akron. Cor-
respondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shannon B. Dermer, Division of Psychology and Counseling, Governors
State University, 1 University Parkway, G308, University Park, IL 60484-0975 (e-mail: s-dermer@govst.edu).

© 2010 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

Journal of Counseling & Development • Summer 2010 • Volume 88 325

Dermer, Smith, & Barto

The focus of this article is to familiarize the reader with
terminology used to identify and label sexual prejudice, dis-
crimination, and oppression. We discuss the pros and cons
of both historically used language and newer terminology.
Because sexual minorities encompass a diverse collection
of marginalized people, it may do an injustice to individual
groups to try and discuss them homogeneously. For this rea-
son, our discussion of terminology is specifically directed at
lesbians and gay men, although some of the following concepts
relate to all sexual minorities.

•Oppression, Privilege, and

Empowerment

Before we discuss specific terminology, a discussion of domi-
nant groups and the processes of oppression, privilege, and
empowerment is pertinent. Individuals who belong to dominant
groups are those within a society who by birth or by attainment
are members of groups that are seen as normal or have the abil-
ity to influence the definition of normal. Those with dominant
group memberships gain cultural power, which is a privileged
status based merely on one’s cultural identity (Hays, Dean, &
Chang, 2007). Individuals with a heterosexual orientation (or
lesbian, gay, and bisexual people who do not correct the as-
sumption that they are heterosexual) reap the benefits of being
part of a dominant group. Lesbians, gay men, and other sexual
minorities must deal with oppression based on their sexual
minority status and the consequences of heterosexual privilege.
Additionally, for heterosexual individuals, advocating against
oppression and helping to empower lesbians and gay men
necessitates becoming aware of one’s own privilege based on
heterosexuality (Smith & Chen-Hayes, 2003).

Oppression

Oppression is the exercise of power to disenfranchise, mar-
ginalize, or unjustly ostracize particular individuals or groups.
Systematic oppression occurs through repeated integration of
prejudice and discrimination into societal institutions (e.g.,
law, social policy, schools, language, media) and through
threats of violence, removal of rights, and exclusion from
decision-making processes. In addition, oppression can be
intentional or unintentional and exists in any society in which
there are dominant and subordinate groups.

Hanna, Talley, and Guindon (2000) described oppression
on a continuum that includes the concepts of primary oppres-
sion, secondary oppression, and tertiary oppression. Primary
oppression is directly committed by a person with privilege.
Secondary oppression occurs when a person or group remains
silent about another person or group perpetrating oppression
through force or deprivation. Finally, tertiary oppression hap-
pens when a member or members of a marginalized group
seek acceptance irom the dominant group at the expense of
others in the marginalized group.

Oppression and privilege may be more easily under-
stood in terms of targets and agents (Crethar & Dermer,

2005). Targets are members of social identity groups that
are disenfranchised, exploited, marginalized, victimized,
and made powerless in a variety of ways by oppressors and
by oppressors’ systems and institutions (M. Adams, Bell,
& Griffin, 2007; Young, 1990). Agents are members of a
dominant social group that is privileged either by birth or
by attainment. Whether deliberately or unwittingly, agents
exploit or gain an unfair advantage over members of target
groups (M. Adams et al., 2007).

Privilege

The benefits, advantages, and immunity fi’om prejudice and
discrimination afforded to agents are known as privilege.
Privileged people gain power “because of the entitlements,
advantages, and dominance conferred upon them by society.
These privileges were granted solely as a birthright, not
because of intelligence, ability, or personal merit” (Black
& Stone, 2005, p. 243). Privilege contains five core compo-
nents: (a) it is a special advantage, (b) it is granted because
of dominant group membership or as a birthright, (c) it is
related to a preferred status, (d) it benefits the recipient and
excludes others, and (e) entitled status may or may not be
outside of the privileged person’s awareness (Black & Stone,
2005; Mclntosh, 1998).

These benefits of privilege are assigned to members of
dominant groups whether they want them or not. Merely by
being a member of a group that is considered privileged,
one inherits the rights and benefits ofthat group. Mclntosh
(1998) argued that privilege is not only a state of being
favored over other groups but also a set of conditions that
selectively empowers particular groups while not empower-
ing others.

Empowerment

Empowerment is a process through which subordinate groups
attain greater decision-making power and greater access to
resources, as well as a process by which dominant groups
share their power and control. According to Lindskog and
Crethar (2005),

empowerment can be defined as the course of action by which
individuals, groups, and broader systems that are compara-
tively powerless, disenfranchised, or marginalized: (a) increase
awareness of the power dynamics at work in their life context,
including institutional and social barriers; (b) develop the
skills and capacity for gaining some reasonable control over
their lives and life context, given the constraints of their en-
vironments; (c) recognize areas in their lives where they can
begin to exercise individual control as well as areas where they
need to begin building allied support to confront institutional
barriers. People become truly empowered when they do the
above (d) without infringing on the rights or freedoms of oth-
ers (e) while actively supporting, encouraging and developing
the empowerment of others in the community, (p. 7)

326 Journal ofCounselingSc Development • S u m m e r 2010 • Volume 8 8

Identifying and Labeling Sexual Prejudice, Discrimination, and Oppression

Through identifying and naming patterns of oppression based
on sexual orientation, heterosexual counselors can become
aware of their own privilege and help empower lesbians, gay
men, and their families.

•Language
Following the tradition of narrative therapists and social lin-
guists, correctly identifying, naming, and then externalizing an
interactional process not only gives that process power but also
gives others the power to fight against it. Specifically, naming the
processes of prejudice, discrimination, and oppression against
sexual minorities helps to question society’s values, categories,
and rules about sexual orientation. Even in the simple act of nam-
ing society’s prejudice and hostility, counselors help “identify it
as a problem for individuals and society” (Herek, 2004, p. 9).

The term homophobia extended Churchill’s (1967) concept
of homoerotophobia, a construct encompassing the societal
fear of erotic or sexual contact with people of the same sex.
Homoerotophobia targeted societal or cultural proscriptions
against same-sex attractions and sexual behavior. The notion of
homophobia, however, highlighted individual discomfort with
homosexuality rather than focusing anxiety embedded at the
societal level (Smith, Dermer, Ng, & Barto, 2007).

Additional views of homophobia have evolved over dme, ex-
panding the original notion of homophobia (H. E. Adams, Wright,
&Lohr, 1996;Fyfe, 1983; Hudson &Ricketts, 1980; Lehne, 1976;
Levitt & Klassen, 1974; Morin & Garfinkle, 1978). For example,
Hudson and Ricketts (1980) described homophobia as a unidi-
mensional construct composed of several emotional responses
(e.g., fear, anger, disgust) that persons experience while interacting
with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ)
individuals (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980). A three-dimensional view
of homophobia consisting of negative attitudes, culture-bound
commitments to traditional sex roles, and personality traits has
been proposed (Fyfe, 1983). In addition, O’Donohue and Caselles
(1993) outlined an interactive model of cognitive, behavioral, and
emotional components with situational determinants in producing
homophobia-driven aggression. Other researehers have suggested
that homophobia is a construct that consists of negative attitudes,
aflfective regulation, and malevolence toward lesbians and gay men
(H. E.Adams et al., 1996).

Although the word homophobia brought prejudice against
sexual minorities to the forefront, the term itself was critiqued
in later years (Herek, 1988,2000,2004; Hudson & Ricketts,
1980; Lehne, 1976; Morin & Garfinkle, 1978; O’Donohue &
Caselles, 1993; Shields & Harriman, 1984). One such critique
was that phobia is a diagnostic term, even though Weinberg
(1972) did not intend to use it in a diagnostic sense. Most
antigay prejudice does not rise to the level of a true phobia
(Herek, 2004; Shields & Harriman, 1984). The central emo-
tion involved in phobias is fear, whereas the central emotion
in most prejudice is anger (Herek, 2004; Shields & Harriman,
1984). Also, homophobia is a term that tends to highlight

individual, microlevel prejudices rather than focusing on
prejudice, discrimination, and oppression at the macrolevel.

Homophobia

Identifying and giving a name to individual, social, and cul-
tural processes of discrimination and prejudice helps “crystal-
lize the experience of rejection, hostility, and invisibility that
. . . [lesbian and gay individuals] feel throughout their lives”
(Herek, 2004, p. 8). The first widely accepted term used to
externalize discrimination toward lesbians and gay men was
homophobia. The term homophobia was initially coined in
1967 to signify an irrationally negative attitude toward lesbian
and gay people (Weinberg, 1972). The definition included the
notion of dread of being in close quarters with lesbians and
gay men, as well as an irrational fear, hatred, and intolerance
by heterosexuals.

Heterosexism

The term heterosexism was created as a parallel to language
that externalized other isms, such as racism and sexism
(Herek, 1990). Whereas homophobia has been defined as an
individual’s negative, fearful emotional response to homo-
sexuality, heterosexism has been defined in ecological terms,
that is, as a systematic process of privilege toward hetero-
sexuality relative to homosexuality based on the notion that
heterosexuality is normal and ideal (Herek, 2004; Palma &
Stanley, 2002; Pharr, 1998).

Heterosexism is also referred to as cultural heterosexuality
because of the presumption that individuals are heterosexual
unless there is evidence to the contrary. The intended or un-
intended (Braun, 2000) result of viewing heterosexuality as
the social, cultural, and behavioral norm is that this stance
implies that all other sexual orientations and related practices
are abnormal or deviant. The implication of heterosexism is
that nonheterosexuality automatically becomes open to ques-
tion and subsequently the object of various forms of prejudice
and discrimination.

D’Augelli (1998) discussed the heterocentric bias in the
United States and the contexts in which same-sex affection
is acceptable. In general, Americans are socialized into a het-
erosexual model of sexual privilege and oppression. Societal
institutions are created in a culture that favors heterocentric
scripts related to gender conformity and heteroerotic attach-
ments. Nevertheless, same-sex displays of afïection may be
deemed acceptable under certain, prescribed conditions. The
term homosociobility has been used as a way to identify socially
acceptable same-sex displays of affection within a heterosex-
ist society. At first, homosociability may seem to expand the
boundaries of acceptance. Nevertheless, by its very nature,
homosociability tends to maintain heterosexual privilege.

Homosociability is the only acceptable way to express same-
sex interests, but there are clear social scripts for its expres-
sion. For boys, sports participation is the socially sanctioned

Journal of Counseling & Development • Summer 2010 • Volume 88 327

Dermer, Smith, & Barto

script for ritualized (and thus controlled) same-sex affection.
For girls, traditional female sex role development contains
same-sex affection in a way that diffuses its erotic elements.
By the end of elementary school, children in American society
have learned that heterosexuality is natural and that homoeroti-
cism is shameful. (D’Augelli, 1998, p. 190)

The idea that satne-sex expressions of sexuality are deviant
and unacceptable is integrated into the micro-, meso-, and
macrolovels of society. The insidious nature of heterosex-
ism in cultural institutions means that it is all around, while
simultaneously rendered invisible. The group that holds a
privileged status in a particular society goes tinquestioned
and unnoticed and is the assumed group membership for all
individuals unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Whereas homophobia refers to individual beliefs and
behaviors emanating from personal ideology, heterosex-
ism refers to the cultural ideology that maintains societal
prejudice against sexual minorities (Herek, 2004). The term
heteronormativity has also been suggested to represent this
idea. The advantage of using concepts such as heterosexism
and heteronormativity, as opposed to homophobia, is that they
acknowledge the collusion in antigay attitudes at all societal
levels. These terms underscore the exclusion or invisibility of
sexual minorities; the disadvantage is they fail to acknowledge
overtly intolerant attitudes and behaviors.

Sexual Prejudice

Herek (2004) suggested that the term sexual prejudice be
used to represent negative attitudes based on sexual orienta-
tion. He posited that using the term sexual prejudice would
enhance study of antigay attitudes because it does not fall prey
to some of the disadvantages of using the term homophobia
and links hostility based on sexual orientation to research on
other forms of prejudice. Prejudice is defined as an attitude
based on judgment or evaluation directed at a specific social
group or its members and involving negativity, hostility, or
dislike (Herek, 2004). Furthermore, the term sexual prejudice
does not involve the implied value of irrationality or fear
encompassed in the term homophobia.

Herek (2004) believed that the concept of sexual prejudice
should replace the use of the terms homophobia and heterosex-
ism. Homophobia is not £m accurate description, as discussed
previously, and heterosexism focuses so much on the societal
level that it leaves out individual attitudes. Unlike the aforemen-
tioned terms, sexual prejudice is able to integrate micro-, meso-,
and macrolevel attitudes. Nevertheless, sexual prejudice refers
to attitudes rather than behaviors; therefore, it fails to account
for the outcomes resulting fi’om the attitudes.

Sexual Stigma

Stigma is the societal shame associated with a person based on
an identity or characteristics that the dominant group devalues
or finds unacceptable. According to Herek (2004), “sexual

stigma refers to the shared knowledge of society’s negative
regard for any nonheterosexual behavior, identity, relationship,
or community” (p. 15). Once a group is stigmatized, the stig-
matized portion of a person’s identity “trumps all other traits
and qualities…. Others respond to the individual mainly in
terms of it” (Herek, 2004, p. 14). Stigma is seen as something
within a person rather than as a socially constructed label that
others affix to that person or group (Link, 2000).

Sexual stigma devalues sexual minorities and may lead to hos-
tility (from either the dominant or marginalized group), restricted
identity, exclusion, discrimination, and less access to power and
resources (Herek, 2004; Link, 2000). In addition, when individu-
als are brought up in a society that stigmatizes membership in
a particular group, the shame, rejection, and associated group
stereotypes may be internalized by the minority group. Sexual
stigma is perpetuated through rejection of LGBTQ people, same-
sex relationships, and the LGBTQ community (Herek, 2004).
Sexual minorities adopting these negative, dominant beliefs are
labeled as having internalized homophobia.

Internalized Homophobia

Although homophobia was previously described as a pro-
cess external to sexual minorities, it can also manifest itself
internally (Reynolds & Hanjorgiris, 2000). Simply put, inter-
nalized homophobia refers to negative feelings about one’s
own homosexuality or bisexuality resulting from stigmatized
status. It involves negative self-attribution about one’s sexual
orientation based on societal values that heterosexuality and
opposite-sex relationships are more healthy, intimate, com-
mitted, and normal than are other types of sexual orientations
or relationships. Overall, internalized homophobia entails
accepting the dominant society’s prejudice against sexual
minorities and turning those values and attitudes inward.
Internalizing societal attitudes and beliefs may manifest it-
self within sexual minorities as a threat to self-acceptance or
even as self-hate (Herek, 2004; Loiacano, 1989; Reynolds &
Hanjorgiris, 2000). Individuals who have not disclosed their
sexual minority status are more likely to experience internal-
ized homophobia. Nevertheless, even those who are osten-
sibly gay-affirmative and self-accepting may have lingering
societal messages of inferiority. The term covert internalized
homophobia has been used to label the enduring effects of
internalized homophobia in those who have struggled against
societal stereotypes.

Again, the term homophobia may not be technically
appropriate in that phobia connotes fear of self rather than
highlighting the feelings of shame, guilt, or anger. Other
researchers have differentiated between homonegativity and
homophobia. Homonegativity is seen as multidimensional
construct that includes antigay attitudes, beliefs, and judg-
ments (Herek, 2004) and could be used concomitantly to
denote external and internal components of societal attitudes.
The terms internalized homonegativity and covert internalized
homonegativity are more accurate descriptions of this process

328 Journal ofCounselingôc Development • Summer 2010 • Volume 88

Identifying and Labeling Sexual Prejudice, Discrimination, and Oppression

than is homophobia. Nevertheless, the term homophobia is
so ingrained in the literature and in society that it may make
such a transition difficult.

Sexual Orientation Victimization (SOV)

Internalized homonegativity may contribute to developmental
opportunity loss, self-doubt, constriction of affect, social vigi-
lance, turning away of social opportunities, and inauthentic
heterosexual role-playing or relationships (D’Augelli, 1998).
Typically, as children and adolescents develop, they become
aware of sexual attraction and experiment with this attrac-
tion through various forms of dating behavior. Because of
internalized homonegativity, youth and young adults who
have same-sex attractions may shy away from dating op-
portunities or engage in opposite-sex dating to fit in with
societal expectations (Smith, Dermer, & Astramovich, 2005).
In addition, LGBTQ individuals may restrict their expression
of affect and hypervigilantly monitor their own behaviors so
as not to transgress gender or sexual norms. Social vigilance
involves monitoring one’s own behavior (on the basis of the
apparent perceptions of others) to make sure one conforms
to gender and sexual orientation norms. Sexual minorities
often develop acuity at assessing others’ awareness of their
sexual orientation.

D’Augelli, (1998) believed that these restricted or inau-
thentic experiences are all forms of SOV SOV results in both
the internal effects of not feeling comfortable in one’s own skin
and the inability to forthrightly express sexual attraction and
affection without fear of stigmatization or retribution. There
are four manifestations of victimization: (a) developmental
opportunity loss; (b) self-doubt induced by cultural hetero-
sexism; (c) institutional victimization; and (d) direct attacks
by those who know, suspect, or assume the victim is a sexual
minority. Direct attacks may take the form of verbal abuse
(e.g., threats, harassment), property attacks (e.g., vandalism,
arson), physical attacks (e.g., chased, kicked, hit, beaten,
murder), or sexual attacks (e.g., sexual assault, rape, incest)
as a result of revealed or suspected membership as a sexual
minority. These direct attacks may emanate from family mem-
bers, friends, peers, or strangers. Institutional victimization
ranges from an invisibility in societal institutions (e.g., school,
legal, governmental, religious) to an outright criminalization
of homoerotic behaviors.

SOV ranges from seemingly innocuous jokes, to hostile
verbal comments, to physical or sexual attacks. It results in a
normative victimization in which heterosexuality is viewed
as normal and attraction to members of the same sex (homo-
eroticism) as abnormal and deviant. Normative victimization
has also been referred to as heterosexism.

Minority Stress

Coping with the constant bombardment of negative attitudes
from society can be overwhelming and draining. Minority
stress stems from the prejudice, discrimination, and oppres-

sion associated with being a marginalized group in society
(Meyer, 1995,2003). Stress may emanate from both external
and internal sources.

Lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals represent a sexual minority,
and like other minorities, they are often treated by the majority
with much disdain and discrimination. Yet, unlike most other
minority groups, they are often not recognized as a legitimate
minority group deserving of constitutional protections against
discrimination. (DiPlacido, 1998, p. 138)

Additionally, unlike most minorities who share experiences
with their families and rely on family support in the face of
marginalization and victimization, many sexual minorities
do not have similar experiences as their families (D’Augelli,
1998). Sexual minorities are usually raised in heterosexual
homes, so they do not share that particular minority status
with their families. In fact, the family may be purveyors of
some ofthat abuse and victimization.

The antidote to internalized homonegativity and minority
stress is not a realignment or alteration of sexual orientation
toward the dominant society’s view of normal sexuality;
rather, the antidote lies in advocating for cultural change
while assisting clients toward a resocialization that leads to
self-acceptance (Meyer & Dean, 1998; Pearson, 2003). Meyer
and Dean (1998) argued that sexual minorities must shake off
the ill effects of a “heterosexist opportunity structure: norms
and institutions that promote opposite-sex relationships and
devalue and discourage same-sex intimate relationships” (p.
165). Individuals must create space in their hearts and minds
for a new structure that defines sexual minorities as normal,
valued, and accepted. Only in creating and integrating such a
structure can sexual minorities critique sexual prejudice from
an empowered position (Meyer & Dean, 1998) and combat its
deleterious effects on LGBTQ individuals, same-sex relation-
ships, and the family members and organizations that love
and support them. Contesting the insidious effects of sexual
prejudice without adopting a new value structure opens the
door to covert internalized homonegativity.

•Conclusion
The advent of specific language to encapsulate society’s
prejudice against sexual minorities opened the door to seeing
prejudicial and homonegative views of society as the ill to
be combated rather than seeing homosexuality as individual
pathology. Naming sexual prejudice allows it to become a so-
cietal issue capable of scientific study and intervention (Herek,
2000). The act of naming also gives activists, advocates, and
allies the ability to externalize and battle against negatively
valenced attitudes that may, at first, seem nebulous but result
in real, systematic oppression.

To effectively work with and advocate for lesbians, gay
men, and their families, one has to be aware of the individual.

Journal ofCounseling oí Development • Summer 2010 • Volume 88 329

Dermer, Smith, & Barto

relational, and societal forces that may negatively affect them
(Pearson, 2003; Pope, 1995). Dominant society influences
views of what is acceptable and typical. Societal messages
about homosexuality may manifest themselves in ideas and
behaviors that range from incorrect or misguided to danger-
ous and violent (Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999). Authors and
researchers have pointed to the importance of studying ways
to reduce or eliminate prejudice against lesbians and gay men
and the importance of finding ways to increase understanding
of the dominant group toward sexual minorities (Herek, 2004;
Herek et al., 1999; Loiacano, 1989; Palma & Stanley, 2002;
Pearson, 2003; Pope, 1995; Szymanski, 2005).

Meyer and Dean (1998) emphasized that although
homosexuality itself is not indicative of mental health
problems, the stress related to a sexual minority status may
contribute to emotional difficulties. Their research findings
on the negative effects of internalized homonegativity
indicated the “need for intervention at the social level to
reduce antigay attitudes and prejudice, and at the individual
level to help lesbian, gay, and bisexual people to develop
healthy sexual identities” (Meyer & Dean, 1998, p. 182).
In addition to legislative and educational interventions,
they suggested that mental health practitioners conduct
gay-affirmative therapy and be sensitive to socialization,
the coming-out process, and the effects of overt and covert
sexual prejudice. Having the proper language to describe,
understand, and research sexual oppression and prejudice is
one step in helping practitioners, researchers, the LGBTQ
community, and society at large create an opportunity
structure that not only accepts but also normalizes same-
sex attraction and relationships.

•References
Adams, H. E., Wright, L. W, & Lohr, B. A. (1996). Is homophobia

associated with homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology, 105, 440-445.

Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (2007). Teaching for di-
versity and social justice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Black, L. L., & Stone, D. (2005). Expanding the definition of privi-
lege: The concept of social privilege. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 33, 243-255.

Braun, V. (2000). Heterosexism in focus group research: Collusion
and challenge. Feminism & Psychology, 10, 133-140.

Churchill, W. (1967). Homosexual behavior among males: A
cross-cultural and cross species investigation. New York, NY:
Hawthorn Books.

Constantine, M. G., Hage, S. M., Kindaichi, M. M., & Bryant, R. M.
(2007). Social justice and multicultural issues: Implications for
the practice and training of counselors and counseling psycholo-
gists. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 24-29.

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational
Programs. (2009). 2009 Standards. Retrieved from http://www.
cacrep.org/doc/2009%20Standards

Crethar, H. C , & Dermer, S. B. (2005, April). Understanding the
role of privilege in empowerment. Paper presented at the annual
spring conference of the Illinois Association of Multicultural
Counseling; the Illinois Association for Spiritual, Ethical and
Religious Values in Counseling; and Illinois Counselors for Social
Justice, Chicago Heights, IL.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1998). Developmental implications of victimiza-
tion of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. In G. M. Herek (Ed.),
Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against
lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 187—210). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

DiPlacido, J. (1998). Minority stress among lesbians, gay men, and
bisexuals: A consequence of heterosexism, homophobia, and
stigmatization. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orien-
tation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and
bisexuals (pp. 138-159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fyfe, B. (1983). ‘Homophobia’ or homosexual bias reconsidered.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 12, 549-554.

Hanna, R J., Talley, W. B., & Guindon, M. H. (2000). The power of
perception: Toward a model of cultural oppression and liberation.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 430-441.

Hariey, D , Jolivette, K., McCormick, K., & Tice, K. (2002). Race,
class, and gender: A constellation of positionalities with impli-
cations for counseling. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
Development, 30, 216-238.

Hays, D. G., Dean, J. K., & Chang, C. Y. (2007). Addressing privilege
and oppression in counselor training and practice: A qualitative
analysis. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 317-324.

Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and
gay men: Correlates and gender difference. The Journal of Sex
Research, 25, 451^77.

Herek, G. M. (1990). The context of anti-gay violence: Notes on
cultural and psychological heterosexism. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 5, 316-333.

Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 19-22.

Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual
prejudice and stigma in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Re-
search & Social Policy, 1, 6—24.

Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (1999). Psychological
sequelae of hate-crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and
bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
(57,945-951.

Hermann, M. A., & Richter, B. (2006). Legal and ethical implications
of refusing to counsel homosexual clients. Journal of Counseling
& Development, 84, 414-418.

Hudson, W., & Ricketts, W. (1980). A strategy for the measurement
of homoçYiohiei. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 357-372.

Lehne, G. (1976). Homophobia among men. In D. S. David & R.
Brannon (Eds.), The forty-nine percent majority: The male sex
role (pp. 66-85). New York, NY: Addison-Wesley

Levitt, E., & Klassen, A. (1974). Public attitudes toward homosexu-
ality: Part of the 1970 national survey by the Institute for Sex
Resea.rch. Journal of Homosexuality, 1, 29-43.

330 Journal ofCounseling& Development • Summer 2010 • Volume 88

Identifying and Labeling Sexual Prejudice, Discrimination, and Oppression

Lindskog, C. M., & Crethar, H. C. (2005). Growing up: Counsel-
ing through the transition of adolescence to adulthood. Illinois
Counseling Association Journal. 153. 6-20.

Link, B. G. (2000, November). The stigma process: Reconceiv-
ing the definition of stigma. Paper presented at the 128th
Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association,
Boston, MA.

Loiacano, D. K. (1989). Gay identity issues among Black Americans:
Racism, homophobia, and the need for validation. Journal of
Counseling & Development. 68. 21-26.

Mclntosh, P. (1998). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knap-
sack. In M. McGoldrick (Ed.), Re-visioningfamily therapy: Race,
culture, and gender in clinical practice {pp. 147-152). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.

Meyer, 1. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 36. 38-56.

Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health
in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual is-
sues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin. 129,
674-697.

Meyer, I. H., & Dean, L. (1998). Internalized homophobia, intimacy,
and sexual behavior among gay and bisexual men. In G. M. Herek
(Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice
against lesbians, gay men. and bisexuals {^pp. 160-186). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morin, S. F., & Garfinkle, E. M. (1978). Male homophobia. JoMr/ia/
of Social Issues, 34. 29-47.

O’Donohue, W., & Caselles, C. (1993). Homophobia: Conceptual,
definitional, and value issues. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment. 15. 177-195.

Palma, T. V, & Stanley, J. L. (2002). Effective counseling with les-
bian, gay, and bisexual clients. Journal of College Counseling.
5. 74-89.

Pearson, Q. M. (2003). Breaking the silence in the counselor edu-
cation classroom: A training seminar on counseling. Journal of
Counseling & Development. 81. 292-300.

Pharr, S. (1998). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism. Little Rock,
AR: Chardon Press.

Pope, M. ( 1995). The “salad bowl” is big enough for us all : An argument
for the inclusion of lesbians and gay men in any definition of multi-
cu\tura\\sm. Journal of Counseling & Development. 73. 301-304.

Reynolds, A. L., & Hanjorgiris, W. F. (2000). Coming out: Lesbian,
gay, and bisexual identity development. In R. M. Perez, K. A.
Debord, & K. J. Bieschke (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and
psychotherapy with lesbian, gay. and bisexual clients (pp. 35-55).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Shields, S. A., &Harriman, R. E. (1984). Fear of male homosexuality:
Cardiac responses of low and high homonegative males. Journal
of Homosexuality, 10. 53-67.

Smith, S. D, & Chen-Hayes, S. F (2003). Leadership and advocacy
strategies for lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgendered, and questioning
(LBGTQ) students: Academic, career, and interpersonal success strate-
gies. In R. Perusse & G. E. Goodnough (Eds.), Leadership, advocacy,
and direct service strategies for professional school counselors (pp.
187-221). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning.

Smith, S. D., Dermer, S. B., & Astramovich, R. L. (2005). Work-
ing with nonheterosexual youth to understand sexual identity
development, at-risk behaviors, and implications for health care
professionals. Psychological Reports, 96, 651-654.

Smith, S. D., Dermer, S. B., Ng, K. M., & Barto, K. K. (2007). From
“homophobia” to “homoemasculation”: A primer for counselors
on sexual language discourse. NC Perspectives, 1, 11-20.

Sue, D. W, Arredondo, P, & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural
counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 70. 477—486.

Szymanski, D. M. (2005). Heterosexism and sexism as correlates
of psychological distress in lesbians. Journal of Counseling &
Development. 83, 355-360.

Weinberg, G. H. (1972). Society and the healthy homosexual. New
York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics ofdifference. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.

Journal ofCounselingSc Development • Summer 2010 • Volume 88 331

Copyright of Journal of Counseling & Development is the property of American Counseling Association and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.