Talk:Homophobia/Archive 8

message: I would like to rewrite the etymology section slightly to be a bit more clear.  After carefully checking the Oxford Shorter English Dictionary (2002), this is what I came up with:
: The word homophobia was rarely used early in the twentieth century to mean "fear or hatred of the male sex or humankind".  In this use, the word derived from the Latin root homo (Latin, "'man") with the Greek ending -phobia ("fear") Oxford Shorter English Dictionary, 2002.
: In its more recent usage, dating from 1969, "homophobia" derives from the -phobia ending applied, not to the Latin root "homo", but to a shortening of homosexual.  (Here, homo comes not from the Latin for "man", but from the Greek for "same"; see homosexual.) The word first appeared in print in the American Time magazine, 31st October edition.English Dictionary entry  It was used by clinical psychologist George Weinberg, who claims to have first thought of it while speaking at a homophile group in 1965, and was popularized by his book Society and the Healthy Homosexual in 1971. When asked about the meaning of the word in a 2002 interview, he said:
:: "Homophobia is just that: a phobia. A morbid and irrational dread which prompts irrational behavior flight or the desire to destroy the stimulus for the phobia and anything reminiscent of it.""George Weinberg: Love is Conspiratorial, Deviant & Magical"
: A possible etymological precursor was homoerotophobia, coined by Wainwright Churchill in Homosexual Behavior Among Males in 1967.
I think this does a better job of clarifying the roots of the two versions of the word.  Comments?  bikeable (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of anything that replaces speculation with documented, historical accounts. Why have folk etymology, when we can actually know the who and when? --Uncle Ed 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to say that a lot of people here who seem to have biases against gay rights are hiding behind the NPOV standard, running with the idea that any recognition that there has been a shift in concept regarding the word homophobia (from "fear of the same sex" to "general prejudice against LGBT people") is tantamount to "signing onto the gay agenda" (a laughable concept in its own right).  I would also like to remind people that, while many people are opposed to homosexuality for sincere religious reasons, this does not automatically render their opinions valid or closed to debate.  The Bible has been used to justify racism (Children of Ham), slavery ("slaves, submit to your master" in the Letters of Paul), and the subjugation of women (basically the entire Garden of Eden story in Genesis).  I'm not saying that this article should be a complete affirmation of all things LGBT (although, no doubt, I will be accused of doing just that); just that we shouldn't equate acknowledging that there are valid arguments in favour of seeing opposition to homosexualtiy as irrational to an NPOV violation, nor should we treat "religious beliefs" as sacrosanct (pun intended).  In fact, it's harmful, as it attempts to squelch any and all debate on the subject (and yes, I would say the same thing about treating the LGBT rights movement as sacrosanct). 192.245.194.253 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bible does not justify slavery, but recognizes it existed - it told both slaves and their owners that they serve Christ, not one of them the other, and in so doing, commands them to love one another (and therefore rules out mistreatment by the owner, dishonesty by the slave), and makes the owner responsible for the well-being of the slave; the Bible tells women to honour their husbands, and tells husbands to honour their wives and present them holy before God, hardly a licence of abuse. Christ and His apostles reformed people's attitudes in a system of social values which would have legally afforded them the right to abuse those under their authority. And Christians fought hard, particularly in the 19th century, to abolish slavery and finally achieved it. I wonder - if Christian slave-owners had freed their slaves, would others have re-enslaved them and treated them with abuse? GBC 05:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Seeing no dissention, I made the proposed change to the Etymology section.  bikeable (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New etymology proposal 

message: I haven't really been keeping up with the discussion. However, I thought this news story was significant in the context of the lengthy recent debate over whether "homophobic" is always used as a pejorative slur rather than a self-identifier. Basketball player Tim Hardaway says he is one:
: "Yeah, I'm homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world for that or in the United States for that. So, yeah, I don't like it."
DanB†DanD 05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-identified homophobe

message: Why has phobia been redefined to mean disapproval, opposition or hatred for...? I think this is a prime example of the use the english language as a weapon to enact change in society and ostracize people who hold their own beliefs. Just as some would want to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder there are others who seek the same for homophobia. It seems like a revenge ploy rather than an effort to be equal. I think Homophobia should be defined strictly as a fear of homosexuals, not a dislike or disapproval. Redefining a word doesn't change the opinions people will hold. Personally, I believe that ALL people should be able to speak freely and hold any belief they choose. --71.192.88.79 12:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Been redefined"?  Who defines words in English?  Since we do not have the equivalent of the Academie Francaise, words in English are defined by usage.  Homophobia is used to mean... well, read the article.  We have no hope of "redefining" it to mean something else, even if that were wikipedia's role.   bikeable (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, User:71.192.88.79, you seem to have uncovered academia's penchant for revision of history through the process of revision of the definitions of words used in history.  With respect to "usage", It is clear that academics seem to think they have clairvoyant access into the minds of "most people" when they refer to them doing, thinking, or saying something. I suspect what they really mean by "most people" is their own minuscule circle of elite holier-than-thou intelligencia rather than the great unwashed masses of work-a-day humanity who may only be addressed in the street whilst covering one's delicate nose with a lace embroidered handkerchief. --Britcom 17:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you need to reread WP:CIVIL?   bikeable (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ya rly :)  Joie de Vivre 22:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Were either of you personally offended by my candid observation; or were you merely concerned that someone else might be offended by my reply to User:71.192.88.79? --Britcom 14:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was indeed.  Did you not mean to call me elite holier-than-thou intelligencia [sic], not to mention insulting my choice of handkerchief?  I would also point out that the goal of lexicography is precisely to attempt to get access into the minds of "most people" when they refer to them ... saying something.   bikeable (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surly you have not taken my observation to be an offense against your person.  If I am incorrect in this assertion, then I must beg your pardon, for most assuredly my comments were descriptive of one who finds the general public to be beneath his intellect or who feels that those who have a less prestigious education must (by definition) be lesser beings of brute mentality. Obviously no one could find reason to associate you with such an unsavory and ill mannered bête noire.  A fair and decent person of magnanimous and humble character has been my assessment during our modest acquaintance and I trust that no other would beg to differ. --Britcom 21:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If that is the case, then what intrinsic value does any word have? Maybe your misinterpreting speech that you feel is homophobic. Maybe your exaggerating the actual concensus on homophobia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.88.79 (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 71.192.88.79, I'm not exactly clear on what you're arguing.  I tend to agree with you that "all people should be able to speak freely and hold any belief they choose."  But what does this have to do with people who are afraid of homosexuals?  Are you claiming that fear is a belief?  Definining homophobia as one's disapproval and/or dislike for gay folks is, you say, "a prime example of the use the english language as a weapon to enact change in society and ostracize people who hold their own beliefs."  I don't get it.  You seem to be defending those who fear homosexuals, by arguing that they shouldn't be lumped in the same category with people who hate them.  Okay, I agree that hate and fear are two very different sensations.  In fact hate seems to me more like a choice (people generally can choose not to hate, say, lesbians; but I know for a fact I cannot choose to stop being afraid of dentists).  What I don't understand about your complaint is how you come to see people who fear homosexuals as being "ostracized for their beliefs"?  Fear is an impulse--it is not a "belief." M. Frederick 04:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we should clarify here that many honest and reasonable people oppose homosexual conduct because they believe it to be a vice.  Many other people hold the view that Homophobia describes such oppositional people.  This way of defining Homophobia makes it rationally at odds with the historic right of people to oppose, limit, and regulate conduct that they consider to be vice. That means that these same people see those who want to endorse, accept, or legalize homosexual activity as undermining the principals of their nation's traditional, cultural, or religious freedoms. In other words, they see the spread of homosexuality in culture and society as a threat to that same culture and society that they wish to preserve. Part of that culture includes freedom to practice one's religion as one sees fit without interference from the government. One of the core principals of religion is the teaching that certain forms of conduct are bad and others are good. Without the protected freedom to teach these principals in an open and public discussion, then there exists no freedom of religion in a society --Britcom 06:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As homosexuality is a normal aspect of human sexual orientation, it is impossible to "oppose, limit, and regulate" it: humans will normally and naturally have a sexual orientation which may be hetero, gay, or bisexual. The belief that a normal human sexual orientation is a "vice" can sometimes be attributed to ignorance of what constitutes normality in human sexual feelings, but can also be attributed to "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" - homophobia. That some religious sects mandate discrimination against "homosexuality or homosexuals" as part of their faith does not make this mandate less homophobic.  This has, as I recall, been discussed at length on previous archived versions of the Talk pages, and I suggest you read those before raising topics for discussion that have already been thoroughly gone into. Yonmei 15:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Wikipedia article for "Vice" reads: "Some vices recognized in various Western cultures of the world include: (among other things)...Homosexuality". I might also add that many non-western cultures consider Homosexual activity a capital crime. It seems clear to me that those who believe that homosexual activity is popularly accepted as "normal" or "natural" have a tough case to prove when one looks at how many laws have been written prohibiting it's practice. --Britcom 10:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Homosexuality is both normal and natural in human beings and other animals: that is an accepted scientific fact, and not a topic for discussion on Homophobia. This has all been discussed at length on past Talk pages: please read the past discussions on Talk:Homophobia on this issue, and re-open the discussion only if you feel you have something new to contribute. Yonmei 11:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The assertion that "Homosexuality is both normal and natural in human beings and other animals: that is an accepted scientific fact..." is spurious at best.  Science does not define what is "normal" it only identifies the existence or non-existence of things. Animals do all sorts of shocking, revolting, and unhealthy things. Observations of animal behavior provides us with no indicator of virtuous behavior in humans; on the contrary, animal behavior has historically been seen as detestable and uncivilized when practiced by human beings.--Britcom 06:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Homophobia? 

message: Is that controversy important enough to be in the see also section? If we included comments from everyone who makes homophobic remarks we've have a see also section that had hundreds of names on it. The only argument that supports keeping it is that Hardaway self-identified as "homophobic" but even that is not a strong reason to include him here. JoshuaZ 04:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it isn't but wanted to see what others thought, thus I reverted myself. --Kukini 04:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardaway 

message: A phobia had always meant, and has never meant anything other than, "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation."~Merriam-Webster.  In every case of a "phobia," irrationality is at its base.  To remove that element is to disqualify it as a phobia in and of itself.
If this Free Encyclopedia is to retain its respectability and reputation, it's important to avoid and guard against "political agenda" in providing what is supposed to be useful, truthful, and factual information.
Please note the entry under the subheading Coinage.  The gentleman who coined the term in the early 1970's defined it in 2002 as "just that: a phobia. A morbid and irrational dread which prompts irrational behavior flight or the desire to destroy the stimulus for the phobia and anything reminiscent of it." (see George Weinberg: Love is Conspiratorial, Deviant & Magical - http://www.pflagdetroit.org/george_weinberg.htm)
The proponents for homosexuality and the rights thereof have stripped what they need from the definition in order to broaden the scope of its usage.  Doing so has served the express purpose of enabling them to apply the term - with all possible negative stigma - to anyone who disagrees with them or opposes their efforts.
My correction was not political, but accurate.  Homophobia, like any phobia, requires that element of irrationality to be part of its definition.  To not include it, is to allow the actual definition to become distorted and twisted.  If Wikipedia is meant to be merely a Liberal or Secular-Progressive sounding board (as I genuinely hope is not the case), then, by all means, leave it be.  However, my corrections are wholly accurate, clear, and undistorted.
Merriam-Webster (an unquestioned authority) defines homophobia as an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."  Following proper grammar usage, "irrational" applies to all three elements of the definition.  Note the pattern of NOUN-PREPOSITION usage.  "Irrational" stands alone as the adjective.  If it were to be solely applied to the word "fear," they would have worded it as "aversion to, discrimination of, or irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals" - or some similar variation in the interest of clarity.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals."
Encarta defines it as "irrational hatred of homosexuality: an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, or their culture."
I'm quite sure that if you were to consult the Cambridge Dictionary of the English Language, you will find it to include "irrational," as well.
Over the last several months, I have grown to respect this site as a useful and respectable wealth of information.  This issue is causing that stance to come into question.  At least you have had the wisdom to note the dispute of this definition, at the top of the page.
In the interest of accuracy, politics notwithstanding, I urge you make the correction.
In addition, note my alteration of the following portion:
"It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to insinuate bigotry.[2] The term homophobic means "prejudiced against homosexual people,"[3] and a person who is homophobic is a homophobe."
My alteration is as follows: [MY CHANGES ARE IN PARENTHESES]
(Proponents for the acceptance of homosexuality have redefined the term to mean any) hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, (in order to broaden the scope of its usage, regardless of any rational, objective, or thoughtful objection,) and is generally used to insinuate bigotry.[2] The term homophobic (is only defined as) "prejudiced against homosexual people," (in dictionaries of greatly abbreviated format)[3] and a person who is homophobic is a homophobe.    
The changes I have made are in fact truthful.  Those who serve as proponents for the acceptance of homosexuality are in fact responsible for this ambiguity in the definition.  Please note the source which is sited - www.thefreedictionary.com.  This site is more like an online "pocket" dictionary than anything else.  It is not an authoritative or established source.
The disclaimer at the bottom of the web site's home page affirms this fact:
"All content on this website, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference data is for informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional."
Please note the part which clearly states that "This information should not be considered complete..."
From Merriam-Webster's own site: "The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is based on the print version of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition."
Oxford's online dictionary (www.askoxford.com/dictionaries/), which is the "Compact" edition, retains the fundamental elements of the definition, a well.
I'm writing you neither as a proponent for nor an opponent of the acceptance of homosexuality, homosexuals, or their rights.  I am merely concerned with the accuracy of the definition as presented.  I am taking the time to address this issue, not for the benefit of any personal political agenda, but rather for the maintenance and safeguarding of Wikipedia's reputation and effort towards accuracy, and with the site's best interests at heart.
I only hope my efforts here do not prove to be in vain.
Be informed that the only reason I discovered this error was due to its having been quoted in a MySpace blog which I happened to have been reading.
The definitions which I referenced can be found by following these links:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/homophobia
http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dev_dict&field-12668446=homophobia&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/homophobia.html
Cambridge's online dictionary is accessible by subscription only.
Best Regards--HngKngPhooey 08:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  We shouldn't concern ourselves with the definition of words as they are in one dictionary or another.  The fact of the matter is that the term 'Homophobia' as used today refers to a prejudice, dislike, or hatred towards homosexual people.  That is what the Wiki should report.  The changes you have proposed use WP:Weasel words in order to case 'proponents of homosexuality' (whatever THAT means) in a clandestine light, as if the word has somehow been forcefully taken over to serve a political end.  Please read the voluminous past discussions surrounding this section of the article, and how the consensus was arrived at. CaveatLectorTalk 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded per CaveatLector.  To the original commenter, this may not interest you, but I would like to point out that editors will be more likely to read and respond to your concerns if you present them as succinctly as possible.  Personally, I found your concerns to be described so thoroughly as to tax the limits of my attention and interest.  Joie de Vivre 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually we should concern ourselves with the definition of a word, if an article is at odds with the the most respected sources for that definition. After all, we don't want Wikipedia to proffer an implied definition that may be misleading in any way, especially in a soapbox sort of way. HngKngPhooey's points are well taken. Some of them definitely should be adopted here for clarity in the article's balance. This article's undertones and overly broad inclusion of those who disapprove of homosexuality for rational reasons is a form of neologism as clearly outlined above. In fact some may remember when I wrote an article on the use of the term Anti-homosexualism which correctly addresses the disapproval sense used in this article. Anti-homosexualism was deleted and redirected to the Homophobia article after much argument about the term. That argument can be found here. In fact, I am quite open to the idea of splitting the Homophobia article in order to more accurately address these recurring objections to Homophobia including the rational disapproval sense that it now has which may be unsupported in proper English usage according the above mentioned sources. --Britcom 18:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the definition itself 

message: After having read the information above, as well as, information regarding qualified submissions, I feel compelled to note that my statement that the definition of the word "homophobia" has been stripped of its inclusion of the term "irrational" by those who merely wish to broaden its scope, may be considered unqualified as OPINION/BIAS or Original Research.
Allow me please to now address these issues.
Personal Bias/Opinion and Original Research:  My rephrasing of this section of the presented definition does not come from a biased or opinionated position.  However, it may be considered "Original Research."
:1) My Uncle is a homosexual.  I have known this all my life.  I love him dearly and have never judged him on the basis of his homosexuality.
:2) I have had friends in the past who are homosexual, even bi-sexual.  I have never held any opinions of them - negative or otherwise - on the basis of their sexuality.  I remain neutral on the issue as a whole.
:3) I have met numerous "homophobes" and know a number of them personally.  A former roommate of mine (several years ago) was a homophobe and readily admitted this.  He has an irrational fear of, aversion to, and dislike of homosexuals and homosexuality. Frankly speaking, it "freaked (him) out." (his words)  My son is a homophobe and readily admits this fact.  He, as well, has an irrational fear, aversion to, and dislike of homosexuals and homosexuality.  He understands this about himself and accepts this.
:4) From more than 20 years of having witnessed (first-hand) the use of the term homophobe and homophobia, it is impossible to ignore that only those who are supportive of and proponents for the acceptance of homosexuals and homosexuality, have used the term to describe any and all persons who object to or argue against their cause.
Conscientious objectors recognize the irrationality of actual "homophobia," which is why they object to being labeled with such a term.  They are fully aware of the stigma of fear and irrationality that the term implies, and know that it is the very basis for which their opinions and arguments are systematically disregarded out-of-hand.  Those who use this term to describe them are aware of this stigma, as well.  It's the reason they use it.
In every, and I mean every, instance where this term is been applied to an individual, that person's opinion is, without exception, disregarded and they are dismissed as unqualified or incapable of posing any argument worth considering.  Under these circumstances, this term is always said with an unmistakable tone of contempt, condescension, and/or dismissal.  "You're just a homophobe" is the most common.  The use of the word "just" is notable.
In American English usage, any statement which begins "You're just a..." is meant to insinuate contempt for the person to which to statement is directed, a projected negativity based on the term following that opening, the rejection of that person as an equal or adequate participant in debate, discussion, or activity, or a combination of these elements.  It is even used in the reverse by those who wish to exempt themselves from consideration or responsibility for any number of issues. In many cases these statements are followed by some brief statement or question in support of the charge being made.
Examples:
:       "You're just a child.  You can't know what's best for you."
:       "You're just a general practitioner.  You're not an expert."
:       "You're just a therapist.  You're not qualified to make psychiatric evaluations of that nature."
:       "You're just an MD.  What do you know about the intricacies of intestinal disorders?"
:       "You're just an accountant.  What do you know about managing an entire department?"
:       "You're just an employee.  What to you know about running a company?
:       "You're just a kid.  What do you know?"
:       "You're just a jerk."
:       "You're just a bigot."
:       "You're just a racist."
:       "You're just a homophobe."
Note the increased negativity or contempt communicated based on the brevity of a supporting statement and how the more negative, severe, or contemptuous the charge, there is generally an absence of any supporting statement or question.
A few examples in the reverse:
:       "I'm just an analyst.  I'm not qualified to make that kind of decision."
:       "I'm just an employee.  I was only doing as I was told."
:       "I'm just an editor.  I don't judge content."
:       "I'm just a teacher.  I can't MAKE them learn.  I can only present the information."
:       "I'm just a doctor.  I'm not God."
:       "I'm just a parent.  I can't live their lives for them."
:5) Whilst all this is "true," and whilst that which I explained in 3) and 4) are facts, they will not be found in any specific publication which can be cited.  This is not the sort of information that one finds in material published by reliable or authoritative sources.
As a result, it is my humble suggestion that the ambiguous, unclear and misleading portion of the posted definition should be eliminated in its entirety.  The following is a more concise, clear, and strictly qualifying definition:
Homophobia is the irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.[1]  This condition can manifest itself in the form of hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures.  The word homophobic is the adjective form of this word. And, a person who is homophobic is a homophobe.  Both terms are generally used to insinuate bigotry.[2] 
The word homophobic, when used to label someone as prejudiced against homosexual people, can be a pejorative term, and the identification of a group or person as homophobic is nearly always contested.
Modified References
1. Merriam-Webster (embedded link: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/homophobia)
2. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary 2006 and 11th Collegiate Dictionary, 2005, American Heritage Dictionary.
NOTE:  Reference 3 should be eliminated, and the list numbering updated to reflect the change.
Again, allow me to stress the importance of granting the coiner of the term due respect by refraining from adulterating the definition of the very word he coined.
As for the person above who thinks that "Homophobia isn't really a phobia," I say the following: Coin a different term for it which does not contain the root word "-phobia."  Quit trying to redefine terms to suit your personal opinion or agenda.
As for the response from Britcom, who made the point that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, my response is this:  You are right.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  However, when someone submits a page regarding a "term," it is (from all indication) customary to begin the page with the "definition" of the term followed by further information regarding that term.  In almost every instance where a page addressing a "term" has been included in this encyclopedia, it begins with a definition of that term.
My issues with this page are and have been solely with the citing of the definition itself.  I have in no way asserted a dispute regarding the information cited thereafter.
Say what you will about the term homophobia throughout the remainder of the topic page.  However, when citing a definition, it should be as accurate and as clear as possible, as well as, devoid of political perspective or opinion.     To allow it to stand as it is, would be to neglect some of the most basic principles which govern this site (yes, I read them).
Best Regards to All --HngKngPhooey 19:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the definition cited in the article should be a direct quote from an authoritative source and not one embellished with new senses.  I also agree the 3rd sense should be dropped from the article.  I would recommend that the third sense be placed back in a separate Anti-homosexualism article. --Britcom 20:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Britcom.  I stand corrected.  It was indeed CaveatLector who said that.  Somehow I missed it.  Again, thanks.--HngKngPhooey 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: HngKngPhooey, your comments are dominating the talk page.  I think they are far too long.  Joie de Vivre 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the definition itself 2 

message: I notice that aside from a few passing references in the "popular culture" section, this article is largely written from a US/UK perspective.  While there's no need to duplicate the content of Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, I'm sure that the subject of homophobia has been discussed in non-English-speaking countries, and that scholars have considered homophobia in different cultures worldwide.  It would be good if the article reflected this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, in the interest of diversity, let's have more references in the article regarding the causes of homophobia in Moslem countries, and Latin America. Any one want to take a crack at it? --Britcom 05:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide view 

message: There is homophobia in every community. White, black, brown, blue, green. I don't see how the black community is more homophobic. So I removed the section. --Revolución hablar ver 17:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed "Homophobia in the black community"

message: Prof. Jonathan I. Katz of Washington University in St. Louis has written an essay on Homophobia which may provide some additional material for this article.  Academics have often implied that those who make up their ranks universally agree that homophobia and discrimination against homosexuals is wrong.  In his essay, Prof. Katz takes the opposite view. The essay can be found here: 
--Britcom 20:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, who and where has ever said that academics agree that homophobia is wrong?  I would never have suggested that, and I don't think people who work on this sort of thing (sociologists, etc.) are usually so explicitly judgemental in their academic work, whatever their personal beliefs.  Second, Katz is a physicist, and so his opinions on homosexuality are no more informed or academic than... well, mine, or yours.  bikeable (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some who contribute to this talk page have suggested as much.  But, it is quite refreshing to hear that not everyone here agrees with academic opinion simply by virtue of it's being an academic opinion. Academic opinion is too often assumed to be interchangeable with fact on Wikipedia. --Britcom 21:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I am saying is that I don't think academics typically argue that homophobia is wrong, whatever their personal opinions, although of course ethicists and others may write about rightness and wrongness.  But as far as word usage and etymology are concerned -- and that's most of what the disagreements here have been about -- yes, I do think informed academic opinion by the experts in a field is as close to "truth" as we are able to get.  bikeable (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that academics do not "typically argue" that hatred of homosexuals is wrong?--Britcom 00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic opinion 

message: The OED gives the cited Time article as the first of its quotations.  Does that mean it was the first time the word appeared in print?  I don't know if that's necessarily the same thing.  I don't know exactly how the OED chooses quotes; the word may have appeared elsewhere (presumably less mainstream?) earlier.  Perhaps we should be clear and say, the first citation by the OED was in....  bikeable (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First citation 

message: Firstly, I'm pleased to see this page has improved considerably since I last visited it (no longer 'locked' (which is sometimes necessary on wikipedia, but awfully unfortunate) and with a lot of detail about the etymological problems and criticisms.
Anyway, I changed the definition to Merriam Webster's 'irrational fear or predjudice, etc.' for two reasons;
After checking www.dictionary.com, every definition mentioned fear (even the definition formerly used here, in it's uncut form on dictionary.com, uses the word fear) It might also be worth including that quote (from the discussion page) by the fellow who invented the word 'homophobia' (if it isn't already in the article.)
Also, I included an "in-text" citation ("Merriam Webster's says") because the statement "Homophobia is" sounds a presumptuous and will immediately prompt curiousity about the sources, etc. (It's great to consign odd details and sources to footnotes when the majority of people aren't going to care about them and the minority can take a few extra seconds to click the links. But, when someone says "Homophobia is," I think a large enough number of people are immediately going to want to know what he's basing that on, to justify an "in text" citation.
Personal rant, now. You needn't read.
My own problem with the word 'homophobia' is the inaccuracy of it. I read a movie review which mentions some character who disapproves of homosexuality being 'homophobic' and I immediately wonder if I missed some line of dialogue revealing he was secretly gay. Now, wether people believe in the Bible or not, the argument "Homosexual acts are wrong because the Bible says it is wrong" offers plenty of explanation for why most 'homophobes' don't approve of the activity. Heck, why not create a word called "Shabbathophobic" to describe people with a 'fear' of doing work on the Shabbath. Now, you may or may not agree with the need to refrain from work on the shabath, but you hardly need to explain a Christian (or, more commonly in this case, a Jew) holding a 'shabbathophobic' view in terms of 'fear'
Also, something which occured to me about the etymology (although, this sort of thing seems to be much more strongly addressed now) most perjorative words like "racist" don't actually have anything etymologically negative about them. The 'perjorative' aspect is purely through association and the general consensus that racism is bad. When, age 15, I first heard the word 'homophobia' however (in some television 'Public Service' type commercials,) I immediately thought of double-speak from the book (1984) I had just read (in terms of manipulating the public perception through language, I was actually somewhat impressed by the cleverness and/or audaciousness of it.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.5.98 (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed defintion to that of Merriam-Websters... 

message: Technically, those who say that the original, literal definition of homophobia is uniquely about fear are correct. They have, however, the misfortune of making this argument in English, and so face issues like trying to explain why sinople's definitions include both green and red, why flammable and inflammable are synonymous, and especially why hemophilia isn't remotely like necrophilia, coprophilia, or zoophilia, despite the use of the same root word. I strongly recommend people visit the etymology and historical linguistics pages for further detail:  and 
To put it mildly, English words don't just mean their literal, original definitions. Their histories  are far beyond this, which is what we see at work with the word "homophobia" -- thugs aren't cultists from India, and calling a black man a Negro, while at one point the socially preferred term, is now considered a racial slur. "Homophobia" is very much alike to these other terms: yes, the literal origin of "phobia" is solely based in fear, but it has not been so defined in some time, allowing for definitions like "aversion" or "hatred" instead. 
If people want to clarify that homophobia is a non-clinical term, by all means do so -- the entry on the word "phobia" makes this clear here: . If you wish to argue that opposition to homosexuality does not necessarily include hatred or fear of homosexuals, go right ahead. Arguing the definition of the word, however, is a losing battle. English's evolution isn't consistent enough to justify that. San Diablo 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Note About Linguism