Читать книгу Counseling the Contemporary Woman - Suzanne Degges-White - Страница 15

Previous views of same-gender attractions and relationships as sexually deviant and inherently pathological have been superseded by a more liberal view, emphasizing personal relationships (e.g., “love is love”) and biological determination (e.g., “born this way”). Neither approach fully encompasses the breadth and fluidity of affectional/sexual orientation, which includes sexual attraction, sexual behavior, sexual fantasies, emotional preference, social preference, same-gender or other-gender lifestyle, and self-identity (American Institute of Bisexuality, 2014). To this, there is also a political dynamic that had largely been ignored, particularly in the context of women’s experience. Rich (1980) argued compulsory heterosexuality for women is rooted in a deeply political system of sexism and patriarchy that assumes heterosexuality for women and focuses on the function that women serve to men. Diamond (2005) suggested that media representations of same-gender affectional or sexual behavior are depoliticized, exoticized for the male gaze, and complicit in erasing women’s bisexuality. Many models of sexual orientation identity development focus on individual awareness and experiences in self-labeling. In contrast, McCarn and Fassinger’s (1996) lesbian identity development model emphasizes relational factors that parallel and influence individual identity, addressing individual, relational, and political factors of a lesbian identity. Because the language of affectional/sexual orientation is gender based (e.g., lesbian used for women whose dominant attractions are to other women), trans and gender-variant women commonly experience marginalization and exclusionary practices from cisgender individuals in queer communities (Chang & Singh, 2016; Farmer & Byrd, 2015).