Talk:Homophobia/Archive 4

message: This section is completely messed up, there is some sort of code in it.
:It was some bogus edit that has since been reverted. Feel free to do the same yourself, in future. --Aim Here 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fear of being identified as a homosexual 

message: I have seen the term moralityphobia used in various places, and so I figured I would write an article on it. I believe it is as POV as the homophobe article.MPS 16:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You linked to deviance and sodomy as see also links.. classy. If you have specific criticisms of this article, please discuss them here. Otherwise please don't make articles for neologisms in order to prove a point. Rhobite 17:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  as it turned out, the effort was unnecessary; heterophobia already exists as an article. Homophobe is on the List of political epithets so I am going to return the category label :Category:Pejorative political terms to Homophobia. I am not trying to lose street cred here; homophobia is, in the most NPOV sense, a pejorative term and an intensely political term. Nobody calls themself a homophobe; it is a label foisted upon people by others who who don't like what they think or say.  MPS 20:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've known a few homophobes who openly label themselves as such.  I wouldn't say "nobody" calls him-/herself a homophobe. Jeff Silvers 02:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Te he... wouldn't that mean that they were homophobes who are so afraid of heterophobia that it took them this long to "come out of the closet? Yes, I personally know a few self-proclaimed homophobes. Even though it's obvious most homosexuals falsely over-label various groups as homophobic, there's nothing wrong with the *feeling* of homophobia. It's the acting out (name-calling, violence) that's the problem. However, even the *true* homophobic persons very rarely act out their feelings. The falsely accused homophobes just sit idley by and pretty much try to help homosexuals out of their own form of expression of love.
I mean, why do you think "nobody" calls themself homophobic these days? ...they're terrified of what will happen if they're victim of heterophobia. I've seen the outcomes, and it's not pretty. Homosexuals and their activists will essentially tear you to shreds in any way they possibly can, sometimes resorting to physical violence. 
These links are *absolutely* worth visiting:
On the topic of homophobic hate crimes, check out 
Techron 17:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[moralityphobia]] 

message: I have so far seen nothing to indicate that this opposition to treating gays as equal to heteros is based on anything more than fear. Having lived in some small towns with  large Fundie Christian populations, I can attest to the fact that these opponents invariably display symptoms of fear, whenever the subject of homosexuality is raised. You know the cliché, if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck etc. I have yet to enounter any argument against homosexuality that was not based on fear. I would have to say the suffix "-phobia" is an apt one.Smiloid 20:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Duck Test]] 

message: :here's the diff link]
:::MPS's  version
: 
:Many opponents of homosexual acts feel that the terms homophobic and homophobia are controversial terms because this accusation is often offensive to people who think they have rational or moral reasons for opposing homosexuality. Others disagree with the use of the root -phobia use because the the phenomenon described is generally not so much a fear of but an aversion to homosexual acts. Pro-gay supporters, on the other hand, argue that aversion to homosexuals transcends mere intellectual terms and thereforean aversion to homosexuals should validly be seen as sheer prejudice and unjustified aversion. 
: 
:versus
: 
:::Exploding Boy's 's version
:As to the validity of the term, it is sometimes argued that the term suggests an irrational, instinctual fear, as other phobias would, which they feel mischaracterizes "homophobes"' opposition to homosexuality in that it is often based on religious beliefs and/or reasoning as to the nature of sexual relationships. Gay-rights supporters, on the other hand, argue that homophobia does not stem from mere intellectual terms and thereforean aversion to homosexuality should validly be seen as sheer prejudice and unjustified aversion.
MPS 19:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of those who view homosexuality as characterized purely by sexual acts feel that the terms homophobic and homophobia are offensive.  These people often think they have religious, rational, or moral reasons for opposing homosexuality. Others disagree with the root '-phobia' because they believe the phenomenon described is generally not so much a fear of homosexual people, but an aversion to homosexual acts, though this distinction may be moot, since phobias can manifest as aversions, and even as a fear of or aversion toward acts. Gay rights supporters, on the other hand, argue that aversion to homosexuals transcends mere intellectual terms and thereforean aversion to homosexuals should validly be seen as sheer prejudice and unjustified aversion or fear.
Here's my reasoning: the first version characterizes homosexuality as a set of acts, which is a particular POV.  Noting that people characterize homosexuality as a set of acts, and how they view homophobia, however, helps to avoid this POV.  This distinction is further clarified in the "Others disagree with the root '-phobia'" sentence.  Finally, gay rights supporters are gay rights supporters, whether a person agrees with the concept of gay rights or not.  Using their term for themselves does not contstitute a POV.  -Seth Mahoney 20:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  summary of what we are arguing over now 

message: It was said above that bisexuals are not homosexual. But if I understand generaly English usage, bisexual means engaging in both heterosexual and homosexual erotic acts, e.g, a guy who has sex with girls and guys.
Is there an "identity" issue involved here? Uncle Ed 02:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hesitate to even bother responding here, but the statement "bisexual = homosexual" is as false as "bisexual = heterosexual".  We don't even need to discuss issues of identity (though if you like, we can bring them into the mix as well).  -Seth Mahoney 03:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: A lot of bisexuals of my encounter identify as "anti-homosexual", if not outright homophobic, and do NOT associate themselves with gay culture, and will behave decidedly homophobic if their closet is challenged.  And these are RAMPANT bisexuals who, when alone and "in the act", are NOT in denial; they just have families, girlfriends, buddies, hockey teams etc they have to remain part of, and for whom the baggage and trappings (and accessorization) of gay-hood do not fit and can not.  The pretense of LGBT theorists and politicians to speak for such guys just cannot hold, as LGBT ideological main-think doesn't allow for the validity of their existence/ it wants to "out" them, and the reality of the social and personal backgrounds involved just doesn't allow for them to be ABLE to discuss it.  And yeah, homophobes are often closet cases; but, remember, homophobes are people too, and to boot they're often guys who deserve more sympathy than condemnation.  And less judgmental thoughts that "well, you're really gay, but you haven't accepted that yet" and other crock like that.  That last line about self-identified heterosexuals actually being bisexual is a given in mammalology; especially in male alpha-beta relationships, whether with lions, giraffes, whales or marmosets.  But this is about culture/psychological identity, not biological predispositoion (unless you are happy with the biological predisposition thing, or hormonal imbalances, or other bio-mechanistic explanations of human love/lust (which I'm not)..Skookum1 15:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of bisexual 

message: This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up. Religioustolerance.org is definitely not NPOV, but it is a source of one brand of opinions, as with blogs. MPS 04:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religioustolerance.org 

message: I moved the following sections here.  There's an explanation for each.
Moved from the dual associations section:
:Some users of the term "homophobia" simply mean prejudice against homosexuals or LGBT people.  But others use the word to associate the idea of prejudice with fear.  One implication of this association would be that a lack of familiarity or comfort with openly LGBT people causes prejudice; some might even go so far as to claim that all prejudice arises from some kind of fear, possibly related to one or another "us vs. them" division.  
Who are these people?  Let's get names, people!  Also, this "some/others" nonsense is just bad style.
:As to the validity of the term, it is sometimes argued that the term suggests an irrational, instinctual fear, as other phobias would, which they feel mischaracterizes homophobes' opposition to homosexuality in that it is often based on religious beliefs and/or reasoning as to the nature of sexual relationships.
Who are these people?  Who, specifically makes this argument (I know its common, but come on, someone must have actually made the argument)?  Also, I removed the scare quotes from 'homophobes'.
:Gay rights supporters, on the other hand, argue that homophobia does not stem from mere intellectual terms and therefore an aversion to homosexuality should validly be seen as sheer prejudice and unjustified aversion. However, a counter-argument would be that this is a similar attitude to the "choice" debate at the heart of homosexual persecution.
Not all gay rights supporters make these arguments.  So who does?  Which organizations or prominent individuals have said this?
:A minority argue that homophobia itself stems from a clinical condition, suggesting that the term should be taken literally as a medical definition of ill aversion to homosexuals. Many, including many in the scientific community, are not supportive of this notion, though some still speculate on the pre-cultural roots of homophobia in today's society.  The study claimed that ""Discrimination could be an after effect of the ancestral need to protect a group from danger." it went on to say that "key emotions were targeted at different minority groups, with gay men likely to elicit feelings of disgust." The study concluded that "the scientists behind the study say the hard-wiring of our brains should not act as an excuse for homophobia or prejudice, since we can now learn to "dampen down" our fears."
Who are the minorities who make these arguments?  Some inline reference to what, exactly, is being referred to is necessary here, including what the study is and who did it.  Who are these people in the scientific community who don't agree with this view?  Who still speculates?  If there's no reference to be found, this is arbitrary original research.  Also, I've done some copyediting.  -Seth Mahoney 23:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections moved to talk 

message: This term is a neologism at best, and is certainly no more accurate than homophobia.  Exploding Boy 02:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "homohatred" 

message: Is there anything covered on homophobia regarding darwinism? Im sure there has been some people in the world who believe that homosexuality meant having a defective gene or undesirable social darwinist characteristics (gender role reversal). Dont take offense to my question but i'm sure it must of been pondered before. --80.2.175.184 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can maybe thank all the closeted bisexuals that ardent homosexuals like to snipe at for that one, maybe......Skookum1 15:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This piece seems to imply that homosexuality is inherited or adopted.  Are smokers naturally selected too?  They have been around a long time too.  This is junk science at it's best.  Homophobia would actually imply (through darwinism), that homosexuals are rejected by at least some parts of society, and not naturally selected, or deemed healthy to society.  Although, you can successfully argue the interference of religion as promoting homophobia (a loaded_term).  But then you'd have to argue the adoption of religion as a naturally selected trait, since eighty-seven percent of respondents say they consider themselves to be part of some religion. http://www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/millennium15.asp  --SpydyrMan 14:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwinistic Homophobia 

message: WHOA, can we really say that Homophobia derives from "homos" meaning "man"?  What about "homo" meaning "similar or uniform"?
:"homosexual (adj.) 1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see same) + Latin-based sexual (see sex)." -- http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=homosexual
--AlanH 03:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just ran across this article and was about to raise the same issue. The etymology given is obviously bogus, as can be checked in the pertinent article. (Cfr. Heterosexuality.) - Andrés D. 02:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I fixed this earlier today.  Thanks for pointing it out -- and next time, feel free to fix it yourself!  bikeable (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Exploding Boy, you should look at the change tags. My change was explained from the beginning (NPOV), and I could not even find an edit summary on yours. I might add that your suggestion about me changing my own tag is indicative of an editorial attitude. Any of us can use any tag we want - and it is all traceable by clicking on a link. Simple. If I want to use Charles Manson or Maryline Monroe, I can do that too. You might also note that my identity on wiki uses my own name- and there is no attempt on my part to do anything other than be on the record. Google me. Noel Debien. Very public. I just like Cor Unum. I don't think it is reasonable to say that, definitionally, religious objection to homosexuality is homophobia. That's just a view, and a very loaded one.  You are making the article on definition less useful. And I say that as someone who has (google it) worked on our State Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby for years. I personally think religious objection is often homophobia, but that's not the point here. For the moment, I'll remove the ABC connections to the article tomorrow because your own definition of the word view lacks neutrality by the standards of public broadcasting (which I suspect wiki would agree with. You're looking from the inside out. We can take up the neutrality matter further. Keep editing. I will. I think we need to notify a dispute here.
Cor Unum 12:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here, but if it's your signature you're discussing, no, you can't use famous people's names as your signature either.  It's simple: the guideline states that "It is common practice (and common courtesy) to use a signature name that is either identical or closely related to your account name. Likewise, signatures that obscure your account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive."
Beyond that, I'm not really sure what you're getting at.  Exploding Boy 15:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  still not NPOV 

message: I think the Etymology section is missing the point. Homophobia literally means 'fear of same' or 'sameness'. Homophobia i also used in the context of 'fear of monotomy' not just 'fear of homosexuals'. You have to look a the root words here. Homosexual is 'same sex'. I think a small section should be added to show Homophobia's literal use. Mishy dishy 01:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your interpretations qualify as original research, since they differ widely from accepted definitions (which are to be found in reputable dictionaries).  Exploding Boy 01:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Phobialist classifies Homophobia as both, and, since it is listed as an external resource, it is most likely reliable by Wikipedia's standards. On the article: List of Phobias. Mishy dishy 01:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Deriving "literal" meaning of words by looking at their roots is a pointless endeavor.  Doing so results in silly conclusions like hysteria only existing for women (from Greek <I>hustera</I> 'womb'; cf. <I>hysterectomy</I>), true hamburgers only coming from Hamburg, a hippopotamus being a horse, etc.  Many people mistake etymology with meaning, but they are not the same thing.  The etymology of a word only tells us its history, not its current meaning.  Thus, regardless of its history or apparent morphological decomposition, <I>homophobia</I> refers to a concept that need not include actual fear.  Ludling 04:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Because Hippo skeletons ressemble horse skeleltons, woman are more likely to suffer from hysteria, true hamburgers really do only come from Hamburg etc. Mishy dishy 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lies and urban legends do not belong on Wikipedia, except when labeled as such.  The hippopotamus is in fact more closely related to whales than horses, you'll be hard-pressed to find modern statistics showing that women are more likely to suffer from hysteria (it's a nebulous term that has no official medical definition), and while true Hamburgers (capitalized) may come from Hamburg, true hamburgers (lowercase) can come from anywhere with ground beef and a grill (or frying pan, if you prefer).  To head you off at the pass, ground hogs' skeletons do not resemble pigs', people named Adam are not more likely to have Adam's apples, and true Russian dressing is an American invention.  The fact is, etymology and literal translation is largely irrelevant to the actual meaning and usage of a word. Ludling 15:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In what encyclopedia?  -Smahoney 01:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This one. Wikipedia is encyclopedia. Also, the point is that homophobia is used as 'fear of monotony' and 'fear of homosexuals'. I asked both my psychologist and my psychiatrist, both who graduated from URI. Mishy dishy 
Where in Wikipedia?  Also, "my phsychiatrist said so" counts as original research.  Exploding Boy 00:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I already said that the Phobia LIst website was listed under the 'Lst of Phobias' article. I'm pretty sure I rad a thesis on the history fo the term on Google Scholar. If I can get the article, will that be better? Mishy dishy 13:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point Missing 

message: I've added specific references to the Eminem incident and to the issue of pejoratives. I left the "NPOV" and "Accuracy" tags in place for the moment though I think there's no cause for them. The specific objection to "pejorative" has been overcome and I really expect that the word should remain in the first paragraph-- especially as the coupling with "bigotry" is undeniable. Mangoe 00:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: two things.  in one sense, the usage of the word should not be too broad or strong.  when applied to "fear of, aversion to, ... hatred of and disparagement of homosexual people", the word (perjorative) is not accurate.  in that case, the use of "homophobia" can be purely clinical.  it's only applicable in the last sentence.  when it is applied to"Opposition to same-sex activism on religious, moral, or political grounds..." in and of itself, then the usage of "homophobic" is pejorative.  not simply believed to be pejorative by those it is directed to.  it is, by the very definition of the word, pejorative. so in that sense, the weaker qualification is less accurate. r b-j 03:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with both things  r b-j has written here. Cor Unum 03:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pejorative" 

message: What you have added  Mangoe makes sense to me, and I think is eminently reasonable. 
Cor Unum 01:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree 

message: "sexual freedom within the bounds of the law, like integration, is mainstream in the West, and opposition to both is marginalized. Calling a racist "racist" is not pejorative."
: calling a racist a "racist" is a tautology.  it has to be true.  i guess that's the nice thing about tautologies.  but the problem with a tautology is that it doesn't say much.  then to use that to "prove" your point does nothing.  calling a tomato a "tomato" is true, too, but it says nothing to support or refute your assertion that political opposition to an agenda put forth by gay activism is equivalent to homophobia.  not just those getting called the name see those as two different concepts (i don't get called "homophobic", and, in fact, being pretty far left of center, i'm usually on the same political side of gay activism), and they are semantically different.  there is no way that you can parse the phase: "political opposition to an agenda put forth by gay activism" apply the dictionary definition of "homophobia" to it, and get equivalence.
: so, if it isn't equivalent and the term "homophobia" is used by someone to apply to "political opposition to an agenda put forth by gay activism", what can that usage be?  perhaps if it was considered a kind term for someone: "Hey, ya big lug, you're just a homophobe.  I love ya!" in that case, you could call it a colloquism or something similar.  but the usage is decidedly disparaging.  no one, other than those sick gay bashers from whatever church in Kansas, that i can think of likes being called a homophobe.  so if the usage is not technically accurate (it is not the dictionary definition) and if it is decidedly disparaging, pejorative is precisely the correct English word to describe that usage.
: to put into the article, without qualification, that "political opposition to an agenda put forth by gay activism" is equivalent to homophobia and to insist that this usage is not pejorative, ignores the accepted dictionary definitions of the words, and is POV.  you're trying to characterize a political opponent with a disparaging term that is not techincally accurate.  WP is not the place for POV.  the Homophobia article is not anyone's soapbox on which one can stand and define their political opponents as "homophobes" simply because they are political opponents.
: if no one else fixes Haiduc's POV edit, i will at 4:10 UTC (i'm counting my R's).  r b-j 03:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel as though I must be doing something right, the way my edits are being chopped up by both sides. But 'calling a racist "racist"' most certainly is pejorative. It may be justified, but it isn't a neutral evaluation. Mangoe 03:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{User|Haiduc}}, take it to the talk page. 

message: " moral or religious criticism of homosexuality." is not the same as "Opposition to same-sex activism on religious, moral, or political grounds".
some might argue that "pejorative" applies in one case and not the other and i didn't want to have to fight both fights.  can we change it back to the usage of homophobia toward political opposition? r b-j 04:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]], you changed the subject a little bit 

message: ... i think it should be obvious why that incident is not special nor defining of the appropriate or inappropriate use of the term. i would revert it now but i'm trying not to appear to be POV pushing.  (reverting it increases NPOV.)  so please, someone else nix that, will ya? r b-j 02:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  if someone else doesn't delete [[User:152.163.100.12]]'s addition to the intro, i'm gonna tommorrow. 

message: I've made an attempt to reduce the redundancy and leave the remaining mentions in the appropriate sections. I also cut out Phelps; he probably ought to be mentioned as an epitomizing figure, but he was mentioned in a sort of sidelong way in the wrong place and I couldn't really figure out what to do with the material except remove it.
===Opposition to homophobia===
I'm afraid to touch the section on "Combatting homophobia", but it seems to me to be a section on homosexual activism which has wandered in from the wrong article. There's no mention of the innumerable training programs, and there's a lot of mention of confrontation tactics which to me seem to have a rather different intent. At any rate, this section needs some attention to keep it on topic. Mangoe 15:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another cleanup attempt 

message: I'm afraid to touch the section on "Combatting homophobia", but it seems to me to be a section on homosexual activism which has wandered in from the wrong article. There's no mention of the innumerable training programs, and there's a lot of mention of confrontation tactics which to me seem to have a rather different intent. At any rate, this section needs some attention to keep it on topic. Mangoe 15:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition to homophobia

message: I recently found (and lost) a reference to that definition of homophobia. If anyone knows who said it, please post it here. Haiduc 13:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The fear that makes men straight" 

message: Psychology is in many respects and exercise in philosophy as much as it is an exercise in science. The reliability of psychological studies can be invalidated due to poor controls and researcher biases. Counterexamples need to be provided.
User:Pravknight--64.93.1.67 17:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this section down to the end; otherwise it will not be seen.  I'd also suggest  logging in and signing your posts with ~~~~.  thanks.  As for the content of your comment... what do you mean?  Psychological studies are as subject to biases and confounding as any other human-based sciences -- but I don't see the relevance for this article.  Can you be more specific?  bikeable (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article lacks balance 

message: While I don't disagree with the belief that 'homophobia' is often used as a perjorative term, it seems ridiculous to me to go to such lengths to make such a disclaimer.  The paragraph immediately preceding recognizes that it is often used to assert bigotry, and this should be sufficient recognition of the perjorative nature of the term.  Continuing at length on the subject is not only clumsy, but is, in my opinion, NPOV.
Jamincan 04:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you meant to say POV. MPS 20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describing Homophobia as Perjorative 

message: Regular editors of this page may be interested in the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-homosexualism.  bikeable (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-homosexualism 

message: I'm surprised that no mention is made of Latent homosexuality, which could be used for the section Fear of being identified as a homosexual or as a See also link. - Ashadeofgrey 13:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latent Homosexuality