Talk:Homophobia/Archive 6

message: Both examples provided were of American politicians opposed to equal civil rights for LGBT people: as suggested above, I added Reagan, and edited the title.
The previous version of the section was too one-sided, strongly implying that no opposition to LGBT civil rights could be called homophobic.  While it has been argued that people oppose equal civil rights for LGBT people for some other reason than homophobia, there is currently no example of this in that section or on the page: it would be better to provide an example of such opposition than to leave it as a theoretical case. (Note: this is an open-ended request to *find* such an example and include it on the page itself, not to start arguing that in principle such examples exist.)
The Reagan sub-section needs more sources, or link to the article on the AIDS epidemic on the main Reagan page. Yonmei 14:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to the LGBT civil rights movement in the United States 

message: Please sign your comments - I'm left unclear who wrote what. Thank you. Yonmei 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of that is being created by you propensity for point-by-point insertions into earlier contributiions, which separates them from the signatures already present. Mangoe 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's very difficult to follow the threads when comments are inserted in the midst of another's post. CovenantD 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i probably have the original guilt for doing that.  but when some person makes several disparate points, all of which are deserving of comment, i can't think of a more appropriate place to respond. and i try to indent in such a way that it is clear that all insertions come from the same person. r b-j 03:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Argh. I try to clarify when responding point by point by cut-and-pasting signatures to the paragraphs I am responding to: like r b-j, I thought it was clearer that way. But, if there's a general feeling against this practice, I will try to avoid it for the future. Yonmei 11:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It breaks up the chronology of the comments, which I find particularly disorienting, and it's frowned upon in some guideline or other. Thank you both for understanding. CovenantD 11:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I started to add some comments to the section below and realized that it may have happened there. I hope I've correctly attributed the first paragraph of each thread to Mangoe, based on indentation and tone, but if I'm wrong please remove or correct them. CovenantD 12:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And one for Dan in the Popular Culture thread. CovenantD 12:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identifying comments 

message: There is a simple way to largely avoid POV trouble in these sections - we report notable accusations and discussions of homophobia by third parties. We do not, ourselves, describe beliefs or actions as homophobic or endorse the judgments of others. We simply say what has been said by notable people about notable people. DanB†DanD 04:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an issue with this entire article: The word "homophobic" is, in and of itself, obviously biased.  The word shouldn't even exist.  Since it does, any article on it is going to be POV.  Here's what I mean: Many people who would be labeled as homophobic by certain other people, would not label themselves as such.  I doubt that a so-called "homophobe" would even recognize that there is such a thing as homophobia.  Worse yet is the construction of the word, which literally means "fear of the same".  The only way this article might avoid Point Of View would be to start out with an introduction such as this: " 'Homophobia' is a common vernacular term used to describe anti-homosexual sentiment and activity.", and maintain the article with that non-biased idea in mind. I'm having trouble describing why I think the term is biased.  I suppose that it is because many people do not believe that it is even possible to be prejudiced against homosexuals (At least, not in the same way that it is possible to be prejudiced against someone of a different ethnicity.); the term in and of itself thus begins with an assumption of opinion. Is there anything we can do about this? Zebraic 03:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Including, where appropriate, the response to the accusation? It would go a long way to showing how context is used to frame the debate over its use. CovenantD 04:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That works for me. Yonmei 11:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  avoiding POV in popular culture and politics 

message: I have been doing some looking-up on Google Scholar for the past few days - hence my absence from discussion here, as it was becoming clear that we needed to begin to do what we had agreed to do and cite arguments with academic discussion only - and have consistently been running into one major problem:
I keep finding academic articles I can't use because they're pay-per-view or subscription-only.
I assume this is a problem for everyone, not just me - so if anyone's got answers about how we get around this, I would appreciate it.
It's possible, always, to contact the author/s of an article and ask to be sent a copy. In my experience, academics are usually willing to oblige a polite researcher if they have the article available in PDF form: and I have done this before when I wanted to use scholarly references in a published article but didn't want to pay for a subscription to a journal's web page. Effectively, however, this means using non-linkable references in the article - citing by author name, page number, etc. People who want to follow up on the references will *also* have to write to the author and/or pay for a subscription to the journal. How acceptable is this? Yonmei 14:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is also reflected in policy/guidelines which basically state that references do not have to be on the web, nor even easy to find, just that they must be available for others to find. CovenantD 19:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The price of academic research (rueful smile) 

message: A thoughtful view on the subject the controversial article “homophobia”: 
Foundation:  There are three different schools of logical thought on the very simple subject of fraternal anogenital copulation (AKA; homosexuality, gay sex, androphilia, sodomy, buggery, anal sex, or what ever one may prefer to call this phenomenon. [There is often orogenital copulation and osculation involved as well, but for brevity’s sake I shall not attempt to address those under this subject.]   At its simplest and most basic level, “it” is a conduct that a significant number of human beings engage in and indicate that they enjoy with great fervor and as a result, many of these same humans also endorse it as an enjoyable practice for others to join in on either with them personally or with a partner of their own choosing. Logically speaking there can be no denying that engagement in the conduct of this practice is the defining criteria for who is, or is not labeled by others as a participant in this conduct.  If one is known to freely engage in this conduct or professes such, one is also assumed to be an endorser of its practice.  There are also those who do not engage in, or who are not known to engage in, such conduct, but who non-the-less endorse its practice (albeit for others) in what is often described as a person’s “lifestyle” choice. 
More specifically the above mentioned three schools of thought are as follows:
 
1.	That such conduct is a good, natural, and nurturing expression of love and commitment between two people who just happen to be of the same gender and that the resulting diversity in society is a benefit to everyone; and also that there are no negative effects to the participants or to society in general as a result of its practice.  This is often called the “progressive” school of thought.
2.	That such conduct is a bad, unnatural, depraved and lascivious form of vice and abuse and that it puts  participants at high-risk for communicable diseases, mental and emotional distress, suicide, and may lead to other destructive behaviors such as drug use, alcoholism, sado-masochism, prostitution, pedophilia and pederasty and other vices.   Included in this school of thought is the assertion that such conduct also leads to negative effects upon society in general such as divorce, the breakdown of the family, recruitment, predation upon vulnerable members of society, and political and anti-religious oppression upon those who oppose it as a matter of faith, morality, or principal and consequently its practice should be discouraged as much as possible by social, political, legal, and/or economic means.  This is often called the “traditionalist” school of thought.
3.	That such conduct is no one’s business and is a personal private choice and that anyone who so desires should be allowed to engage in such conduct without fear of discrimination, sanction, or reprisal; and that there are no inherently negative aspects to its practice.  This is often called the “libertarian” school of thought.
Correlation:  “Homophobia” is a word that has been used to describe those who oppose the conduct we are discussing, mainly those who ascribe to the “traditionalist” school of thought.  Its etymology would suggest that it characterizes the “sufferer” as displaying or harboring a “fear” of those who practice such conduct. This terminology (if understood in this light) appears to “explain away” the moral, religious, or principled opposition to this practice. Used in this way, it can and often is (and I cannot stress this strongly enough) regarded as deeply offensive to those who hold to the “traditionalist” school of thought.  It says to the “traditionalist” that the speaker apparently believes that the “traditionalist” to be a fool, a dupe, a rube, or in denial because the application of the emotion of “fear” leaves the “traditionalist” no room or opportunity to express his or her opposition in a logical or intellectual dialog because he or she is not being consulted about his or her opinion or beliefs, but is rather being “diagnosed” and “labeled” as being emotionally defective, and therefore beneath the speaker and as such any further discussion becomes pointless because the speaker has already established his or her own mental superiority over the “homophobe” and any further opinion or protest from the “traditionalist” can thus be disregarded. “Traditionalists” understandably feel that the term is being used in a pejorative way against them and that the term “homophobe” is then a psychoanalytical epithet and may even be considered tantamount to blasphemy by religious “traditionalists”.  Regardless of whether any dictionary defines “homophobia” contrary to this usage, “traditionalists” point to the history of abuse that they have suffered by supporters of the other schools of thought on this subject and continue to regard it as a deeply offensive term.
Conclusion: By accepting that the offensiveness of the term “homophobia” effectively shuts down debate on the “traditionalist” school of thought regarding the greater subject of the conduct generally termed “homosexuality”, we see that the term indeed qualifies as a pejorative, and that its definition and associated article should therefore be conspicuously labeled as such.  In addition to this I recommend that the more general and less offensive term “anti-homosexualism” be reinstated as a separate article (which still exists  here and was created sometime ago by this author to address this very same growing controversy, but was (unwisely in my view) immediately “redirected” to the “homophobia” article). To my knowledge, the term “anti-homosexualism” is not considered offensive by any of the three schools of thought and better fits much of the subject matter contained in the current “homophobia” article. Splitting the article between the two terms would, in my view, solve the lion’s share of the current controversy by providing a general title that addresses the larger subject matter that cannot be squeezed or coaxed into the narrow meaning of “homophobia”.  Thus a more general term would allow for a more balanced article to be created that addresses a wider scope of the meanings and senses of the concept and the subject matter.  This would allow for an article of greater depth to be created and thereby provide more opportunity for editors to include content without conflicting with other content. --Britcom 17:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A thoughtful view on the subject (also posted at the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-24 Homophobia|mediation page]]) 

message: it appeared that they protected the page right when the active editors, who were previously hotly disputing content and motive, were just starting to really get along (i count myself in this group).  in fact, this was protected very soon after i reverted Mangoe's edit to one of Yonmei's which was quite remarkable, i think.  also, the mediation page says that the mediation is "closed".  it's not in arbitration, it's been protected way longer than Wikipedia policy (unless the ArbCom makes a special ruling otherwise, which they haven't to my knowledge).  Note to admins:" this should be unprotected as per wikipedia policy.  at least until another bona fide edit war sparks up. r b-j 08:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woo, the page is unprotected! Fight! Fight! Fight! DanB†DanD 18:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is the page still protected?? 

message: I think it's pretty misleading to be lumping in Concerned Women for America, a political lobby group with a giant anti-gay axe to grind, in the same category as George Herek, an academic who prefers the terms "sexual prejudice" and "heterosexism" because they more accurately depict the institutional nature of anti-gay prejudice than does the psychological focus of "homophobia." As the section is written, the CWA are sort of piggybacking on Herek's academic standing and neutrality -- when in fact their points of view could not easily be further apart. 
To make this clearer, I think there ought to be a separate section for use of the term by political groups like CWA, distinct from academic discussion of its meaning.
DanB†DanD 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Critics of the term" polemicists vs. non-polemicists 

message: Could this be classified as a regular phobia, such as fear of spiders, or lightning, etc., or is it seen more in the sense of racism and sexism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnathanZX4 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phobia 

message: I would like to request the Template:Discrimination sidebar be added to this page. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Children cannot consent to sex.  Adults can consent to sex.  I hope you are capable of understanding that there is a profound difference between consensual sex between adults, and an adult raping a child.  You may not agree with certain kinds of sex between adults, you may consider them to be wrong.  Even if that is your belief, it is wrong to lump in adult behavior with child abuse.  You're comparing apples and oranges.  Joie de Vivre 21:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is that children can consent to sex, they do it all the time.  A corrected statement would read, "Children cannot legaly consent to sex."  This fact is very often overlooked.  It is the law that decides what is right and wrong, not nature. And as we know, at least in a democracy, the people make the law.  Therefore it is a circular argument if on the one hand something should be made legal, because it happens in nature, verses on the other hand something should be considered good because it is legal.  Just because a thing happens, does not make it good, neither is a thing good just because it is legal.  Ultimatly we all must decide what is good and what is bad.  Where we look for guidance is often telling about who we are politicaly. Some look to precedent, some look to scripture, some look to nature, some look to emotion, and some look to society.Britcom 08:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, some children masturbate, and some children engage in sexual and bodily exploration with their peers.  What I meant is that children cannot consent to sex with adults.  Are you going to contest that?  Joie de Vivre 14:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in a certain sense. Children are minors. Minors cannot legally concent though they often do give illegal concent to sex with adults. Let us use an example.  In one of the US states, a girl of 16 can give legal concent, however a boy 17 cannot. If the two both voluntarily have sex, who is the statutory rapist? OR, if a boy of 18 (the age of consent for boys in said state) and a girl of 15 both have voluntary sex, who is the rapist?Britcom 19:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that some countries separate under-age sex laws from rape laws. For example someone having sex with a 15 year old in the UK is not the offence of rape. It is an offence of having sex with a minor. However, having non-consensual sex with a 15 year old would be rape. The US has the concept of 'statutory rape' which blurs the line between actual consent and legal consent. But I'm not sure this lenghthy discussion in respone to a fairly obviously trolling anon comment is helping much... WJBscribe -WJB talk- 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't say "minors", I said children.  The original reference was to the word pedophile, which refers to an adult who is primarily sexually attracted to prepubescent children.  The continuum between childhood and adulthood, and whether or not it is appropriate to engage in sexual activity with people along that continuum is not the point I was trying to make.  Your willingness to skew the meaning of the word "child" to include older teenagers shows your unwillingness to respond to my original point.  Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality is inappropriate, because animals and prepubescent children are not capable of giving consent to sex with an adult.  Child rape and animal abuse are not comparable to consensual sex between adults.  Joie de Vivre 19:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, this isn't going anywhere. Let's remember how this debate started (with a troll). It doesn't seem to me to have much to do with editing the article on Homophobia however and probably should be drawn to a close. WJBscribe -WJB talk- 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-dispute related add