Talk:Homophobia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

I did a "snapshot" of the User Talk page for a moment of time (User Talk: Revision as of 04:52, 3 Jul 2004 ), as chronology was not clear in previous approach. Then deleted duplication from current (as of 10 Feb 04) Talk Page. Then compared this page to current "archive2" page and captured differences.

NPOV ?

It seems to me that this article is highly NPOV. I will be giving a detailed description of its faults next, but overall it gives the incorrect impression that the term homophobia is not widely accepted or widely disputed term. The fact remains that while homophobia is not a psychaitric term, it is a term widely used to describe prejudice against homosexuals.

k - my comments inline. Martin
[213.122.143.69 25-May 02:37] First of all, I would like to note that none of edits actually deleted any of the text in the article except where it seemed to make little or no sense or be to confusing or POV to rescue. Rather than blindly reverting my edits, perhaps this should've been taken into account. --Axon
Unlike agoraphobia and some other phobias, homophobia is not a psychiatric term. There is no such thing as clinical homophobia.

Doing a quick search of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association came up with several hits for this term. It may well be correct to say there is no such thing as 'clinical homophobia' - although some evidence to back this up would be useful - but it certainly appears to be widely accepted by these worthy institutions.

The APA discuss homophobia (they discuss many things), but they do not regard it as a bona fide phobia, nor do they seek to define the term. The evidence we had to back this up was a psychologist - see old Talk. The APA also discusses hosiery - this does not mean that hosiery is a psychological or psychiatric term. --mrd
[213.122.143.69 25-May 02:37] Regardless, mentioning this in the first paragraph without even properly defining the use of the term homophobia first strikes me as being highly POV which is why I moved it to the definitions section (directly) below. Psychiatrists don't use the term hosiery, but I don't see mention that 'hosiery is not a pscychiatric term' in the first paragraph in the hosiery article either. So, other than to further someone's POV agenda that homophobia doesn't exist, why mention it here? Similarly, it isn't mentioned under xenophobia because, on assumes, that information is obvious. Also, it does not mention that several studies on homphobia are underway and that homophobia is a term in commmon usage amongst psychiatrist and psychologists... highly POV. --Axon

Similarly, no mention is made of the various legal definitions of homophobia that exist in gay panic defense and hate crime legislation.

[mrd] I guess nobody was aware of them - thank you for adding a brief stub - though more information would be helpful. --mrd
[213.122.143.69 25-May 02:37] I think the linked articles in question are more than sufficient surely? Why repeat matter there, here?
The word homophobia is also sometimes used to characterize anyone who disapproves of homosexual behavior. This use of the term is considered unfair or incorrect by many who feel that there are rational reasons to oppose homosexuality.

This information is repeated below and I see no reason why it is repeated at the start of the page, esp. considering it doesn't reperesent the opposing view in a fair or NPOV manner.

[mrd] k - we can cut the second sentence, but I think we need to keep the first. --mrd
[213.122.143.69 25-May 02:37] I still don't understand what was wrong with my definition of homophobia and why it was automatically deleted: most people agree with my definition, even if they disagree as to whether it exists or not. --Axon
Some people, especially in the gay rights movement, use the term to mean any sort of disapproval of homosexuality, whether subtle or explicit, unconscious or conscious, completely unreasoning or in some way principled.

The suggestion here is that it is only gay rights advocates use the term.

[mrd] The suggestion is that it is especially, but not only, people in the gay rights movement who use the term homophobia in this particular manner. It does not say, or suggest, that only gay rights advocates use the term in this manner. --mrd
[213.122.143.69 25-May 02:37] I notice that despite the fact that I moved the highly POV 'Deliberate Blurring?' section to the more NPOV 'Opposition to the definition of homophobia' section, right next to the 'Opposition to homophobia' section. Why revert my changes without noticing this? This section dresses up opinion and POV as fact, it assumes that are rational opposition to homosexuality can be held, when there is an obvious controversy and debate over this issue. Therefore, it is certainly not neutral. I would rather it attributed these opinions to those who actually hold them: people in the anti-gay lobby, religious groups, etc. than just assert them as fact --Axon
 "It is usually not the case, for homophobic persons, that the basis of their attitudes towards homosexuality is rational reasoning, or intellectual argumentation. Such endeavors have, as a rule, been added afterwards, to try to give the homophobia a nicer and more respectable framing. However, these attempts to argue intellectually against homosexuality are utter failures." [1]

It can be argued that this use of the term homophobia is self-contradictory, since a phobia does not have rational motives.

[Martin] Nowhere do this quote claim that homophobia is rational: rather, the author is claiming that attempts to disguise their homophobia as reasoning. This sentence seems a little out of place and the quote doesn't make any sense in this context.

[mrd] The quote claims that it is usually not the case that homophobia is rational, but allows that in some unusual cases, as exceptions to the "rule", homophobia can be rational. I confirmed this by emailing Niclas Berggren, incidentally - see old Talk. --mrd
[213.122.143.69 25-May 02:54] I still think the quote is misleading and this segment is confusing and somewhat superfluous. Perhaps eliciting a better/cleare quote from the author would be an idea. --Axon
The use of the term homophobic to imply irrationality is considered an emotive tactic, and some people have stated it as a reason for alienation from the gay rights movement, or insisted that their opposition is grounded on solid facts.

Totally POV: the above opinion is mostly maintained by anti-gay lobbbyists and no where is this made clear.

I think most people would accept that homophobia is an emotive word, meaning that it raises strong emotions. A case study would be useful here - I'll see if I can dig something up. --mrd
[213.122.143.69 25-May 02:37] Homophobia is certainly an emotive topic, but that's besides the point. The use of 'emotive tactic' is highly pejorative and suggests deceit and manipulation on the part of 'gay rights advocates'. The only people who I've ever heard make the 'alienation' claim are anti-gay lobbyists or religious groups. There is absolutely no way this sentence is NPOV. Perhaps if you find a study to 'prove' this, if it is even provable, maybe, but otherwise it should be deleted or otherwise attributed to opinion in a more fair and neutral manner. --Axon

The statement 'is consider emotive' is highly POV yet is stated as a matter of fact. In fact, the 'deliberate blurring' is conjecture and opinion dressed up as fact. Similarly, why would it alienate those opposed to the gay rights movement against the gay rights movement: sure they are already alienated from each other? -- Axon

[Martin] Some people say that they are not opposed to gay rights, but feel alienated from the gay rights movement by what they consider an emotive tactic of labelling opponents as homophobic. They may be lying - the reader must judge this for hirself. Would you like a quote attributed to a named advocate?
[213.122.143.69 25-May 02:37] See my points above... BTW, I notice you've just used the term 'advocate' and its used throughout the article. What do you mean when you say advocate. Its not clear here, or in the article. --Axon
[Martin] Some people do insist that their opposition to "gay rights" is grounded on solid facts. Again, would you like a quote? Martin
[213.122.143.69 25-May 02:37] No where did I dispute this and I think making an issue of this is side-tracking the discussion: what I dispute is the neutrality of this article. From reading this anyone would get the opinion that homphobia is a term only used by a handful of strange beasts called 'gay rights advocates', and not a term in widespread usage by many people, not just those concerned purely with gay rights. Opinion is clearly dressed up as fact and, particularly at the start of the article, it shows a clear bias against homosexuals and those people who support gay rights or who use the term homophobia. Finally, despite its claims to NPOV this article makes no mention of the (obvious) fact that most of the people accused of being homophobes deny the accusation - no-one wants to be a homophobe in the same way that no-one wants to be a racist, yet they exist. I don't understand how, given Wikipedia's claim to neutrality, this article got discussed in such detail yet ended up with such bias. --Axon

Going through some stuff I was dubious about:

The term is more commonly used to describe prejudice ordiscrimination against homosexuals.

Do we have any evidence on which usage of the term homophobia is the most common? I seem to recall that in old Talk we looked for some, and couldn't find any.

[213.122.143.69 25-May 02:54] I just assumed from my day to day reading of newspapers that this is the common usage of homophobia. Most people use it in this sense in my mind. Certainly, its the definition that springs to mind when I use it. It is, in my mind, the homosexual equivalent of racism, since the term homsexualism or sexualism is already used for something else. Is there really any dispute of the most common usage of this term? --Axon
Some people ... consider all forms of prejudice against homosexuality to be fundamentally based upon this irrational hatred and fear, and therefore equate all such disapproval with homophobia

Well... yes, but you're putting the justification for this use first, and putting the fact (that some people consider all dissapproval homophobic) second. I think putting the fact first and the justification first is better.

[Axon 25-May] Perhaps that would be clearer: --Axon
[Axon 25-May] Many supporters of homosexuality and homosexual equality consider most, if not all, opposition to, or dissaproval of, homosexuality to be homophobia and based upon an irrational hatred and fear.

-- 

Opposition to the definition of homophobia

[Martin] Bad title - it assumes that there is the definition, and that opponents of gay rights oppose this one correct definition, and are therefore wrong. "Deliberate Blurring?" may be non-optimal, but at least it has a question mark... :)

[Axon 25-May] Deliberate blurring is also highly POV. Perhaps 'Oppposition to the labelling of homophobia' would be more satisfactory? If not shorter than at least satisfactory to both parties. --Axon

[Martin] Oh, and the "straight supremacism" bit is related to blurring, and should probably follow below it. 

Many in the anti-gay lobby claim reject the terms homophobia and homophobic

[Martin] I think that's misleading. Firstly, these people reject what they see as the overuse of the term homophobia - they generally don't reject the term itself. Secondly, most of these people would not describe themselves as part of the "anti-gay lobby" - "opponents of gay rights" would be fairer. Martin

[Axon 25-May] I agree with the first part: they dispute the over use of the term, although I imagine some also refute the term itself. The second is more dubious. Most of the people who use the term homophobia don't really consider themselves to be gay rights advocates: there just members of society who find opposition to homosexuality distasteful. I suggest if you refute the use of 'anti-gay lobby' then you should similarly refute the use of this exotic creature 'gay rights advocate'. --Axon
[Martin 25-May] re: "blind reverts" - I'm sorry you believe that. :-(

[Martin 25-May] re: psychiatric usage - Some people mistakenly believe that homophobia is a psychiatric term, and that such a thing as "clinical homophobia" exists - I don't think that confusion exists w.r.t. xenophobia. But I like what you've done to that section, and I think I agree that it doesn't have to be in the very first para.

[Martin 25-May] re: legal definitions - thing is, neither hate crime, nor gay panic defence have information on how these laws and this defence define homophobia. Sure, repeating information is bad, but it'd be good to have that information, at least somewhere.

[Martin 25-May] re: a "POV agenda that homophobia doesn't exist" (when is an agenda not a POV agenda?) - I'm really not seeing where you get that idea. :-/ Nobody who's edited this article thinks that homophobia doesn't exist.

[Martin 25-May] re: most common definition - *shrug* I'd hesitate, based on my own experience, to come to a decision one way or the other. Dictionaries are inconclusive - see onelook results. I think it's best to avoid any implications over which is most common, as much as that's possible. Incidentally, I like the changes you just made to the intro, I got in an edit conflict because I just tried to make near-identical changes! :)

[Martin 25-May] re: "completely unreasoning or in some way principled. "... So the problem is that this section assumes that it is possible to have reasoning, principled objections to homosexuality, where some people (many people?) would argue that it is not in fact possible? Ok, I see your point here - I didn't quite understand what you were saying before.

[Martin 25-May] re: "this article makes no mention of the (obvious) fact that most of the people accused of being homophobes deny the accusation" - actually it does. The article says "People who are called homophobes in the second sense typically do not accept that label. They believe they have rational and morally sound reasons for opposing homosexuality."

[Martin 25-May] re: gay-bashing. I always thought that "gay-bashing" was more about actual actions or words, whereas "homophobia" was more about internal beliefs and attitudes. Your experience differs? Martin

[Martin 25-May] re: "Oppposition to the labelling of homophobia" - I don't think that's an improvement. I'm in favour of some labelling, and oppose other labelling... we've got to somehow get across the concept of "overuse" or "blurring", without implying that any particular point of view is correct.... tricky... Martin

[AdamWill 25-Jul] I removed this: "Societies current feelings toward homosexuality are well illustrated by the 1999 outing of the Teletubbies character Tinky Winky as a homosexual." Apart from being overly UK-centric and grammatically wrong...er, I think it's wrong in essence. It's not at all clear how society's feeling towards homosexuality are illustrated by that. :) --AW

--


Hi there! There is no mention about the over-usage of the term "homophobia" among gay right activists. For example, many gay right activists use the term "homophobia" to describe all those who oppose "same=sex marriage". Of course, emotional words are always over-used! -wshun


Use of 'Gay Rights Advocate' (July 2003)

[Axon 22-Jul]I've been noticing a lot of use of the terms 'gay rights advocate' or, even worse, 'gay rights activist'. It would seem that when people disapprove of the use of any pro-gay opinion, they typically attribute it to these exotic creatures 'activists'. When they are ambivalent, they attribute them to the even stranger 'advocate'.

[Axon 22-Jul]By advocate, I understand that people (probably) mean 'those who support gay rights'. My feeling is that the term is slightly POV - after all, those who support gay rights may also support human rights, religious freedoms, etc. However, attributing pro-gay sentiment to 'gay rights advocate' would seem to suggest an individual whose focus is nothing but gay rights, which is not usually the case. Perhaps creating an article under Gay rights advocate would be useful, or defining the term in the Gay rights article?

[Axon 22-Jul]In summary, all uses of the term 'gay rights activist' should either be deleted or normalised to be more NPOV. And 'gay rights advocate' needs to be properly defined or replaced with a less POV term. --Axon Tue Jul 22 11:45:44 GMTDT 2003

[Uncle Ed 23-Jul]I agree, Axon. Particular, an "activist" is someone who goes around actively spreading their POV. The article probably isn't interested that much in the views of activists, per se. "Advocate" could also be confused with activist. Perhaps the longer phrase those who support gay rights will work better. Why don't we try it? --Uncle Ed 14:54 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I think that sounds a bit wishy-washy, myself, but there you are...
I changed Bidstrup's description from "gay rights advocate" to "gay rights activist", based on this page: [2], in which Bidstrup self-describes using this phrase. Martin
The advantage of 'gay rights adovcate' is it's succinctness. The those who support gay rights is a step in the right direction but is quite lengthy to reproduce throughout a long article like this. Anyone else have any ideas?
Martin: Whilst Bidstrup may describe himself as an activist, it does not necesarily follow that his opinions are representative only of a narrow band of peoples who are 'gay rights activist'. Mentioning Bidstrup is an 'activist' implies that only activists share his views, which is certainly not the case. For example, I agree with some of what Bidstrup says but I'm certainly not an activist. --Axon
I don't think it implies this. Saying that he is an activist tells the reader that he is an authority on the subject of gay rights, and therefore his opinions on homophobia might be worth listening to. This is standard practice in newspapers and such. For example, in Rachel Corrie we quote an Amnesty spokeswoman saying that Israeli bulldozers have been "weaponized". This quote does not imply that only members of Amnesty share her views. Martin 20:39 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I agree with you, but we cannot discount the idea that it also suggests that only 'activists' share his views. And if we use the term 'gay rights activist' i think it needs to be fairly and neutrally defined. Is it just someone who says they are an activist? Is it someone who is highly active in the gay rights movement and, if so, how active is enough? Someone who writes letters to his political representative on a regular basis? Or someone who rattles cans outside shopping malls?
I'm leaning more and more to replacing occurences of both gay rights activist and advocate with Some believe, including gay rights advocates, or Some believe, including some members of the gay rights movement. Any ideas? --Axon Thu Jul 31 12:03:29 GMTDT 2003

homoprejudice

"homo-prejudice" gets 54 non-duplicate google hits. "homosexual-prejudice" gets 277 non-duplicate google hits. Is it worth discussing in this article? Genuine question. Martin 20:47 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It sounds, from my own research, to be another synonym for homophobia. I've also seen frequent hits on "anti-homosexual prejudice" as well as another snonym for perhaps a more neutral way of refering to homophobia. I see no problem adding it to the article, although I do see much fuel in it for further discussion. What do you have in mind? --Axon

About activists thing (Oct 2003)

I don't really understand why the term activist is POV. Is the term really different from advocate? In my dictionary, if someone who publicly support something, then he is just an open supporter. But if someone constantly push his opinion through news media, then he is an activist.

Every movement needs an activists to push it, or otherwise it will never materialize. If there is no activist, there will be no improvement in the world. If there is no human right activists, I guess we are still living in a miserable world. -wshun 05:21, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Homophobia is a psychiatric term ?

The article seems to take as a premise something which it also denies. This is confusing, unless it's a deliberate tactic, in which case it's dishonest.

Whoever is saying that homophobia is an "illness" should be credited with this POV 

:There is no such thing as clinical homophobia, though the phenomenon of homophobia continues to be studied...

Later in the article, a note says that the second half of the article: 

:discusses the mental illness, not the disapproval...

This hopelessly cripples the article.

We probably need to separate out the confused concepts. --Uncle Ed 19:14, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

-- The term "homophobia" has been way overused and, frankly, misused in recent years. Homophobia, like all phobias, is a mental disorder, and while it certainly exists, it is extremely rare. Before the last decade or so, you'd only see the word occasionally in Psychology Today-type articles on phobias: it would be listed along with literally hundreds of other equally unusual irrational fears such as fear of crowds, fear of insects, fear of the sun, etc., etc. These are actual clinical syndromes, however, and they should not be appropriated by political or ideological advocacy groups regardless of how worthy the cause.

I won't address the issue of clinical homophobia or homophobia as a mental disorder, but I'd like to point out that besides the traditional meaning of "irrational fear of homosexuals," which is what you're alluding to, there is another, commonly understood definition of homophobia, namely "aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." In this context, the word has not been misused, and frankly has probably been underused.Exploding Boy 04:35, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)


RE: neologism (Feb 2004)

[AdamWill 25-Jul, mini-essay on "neologism"...] Another thought - is describing the word as a "neologism" superfluous, perhaps? I've always been an advocate of approaching writing a Wikipedia article as if everything you're writing about happened a thousand years ago and is ancient history, because it seems to me that's the proper style for an encyclopaedia, which is intended to be timeless and authoritative. "Neologism" is an inescapably relative word - *all* words are neologisms looked at from one perspective in time, soon after they are invented. (All the words Shakespeare invented would be neologisms if you lived in 1630, for instance). I sincerely hope this page will be around in some form in another hundred years, at which point homophobia will no longer be a neologism. I think it's probably sufficient simply to say when and by whom the term was coined. Comments? --AW

[Camembert 25-Jul, well, it is now, it won't be later] I agree in a way, but the link to neologism is probably of interest - in fifty years or so, when the word definitely isn't a neologism any more, we can remove it ;) --Camembert


[Exploding Boy 9-Feb] From the neologism page: When a word or phrase is no longer "new," it is no longer a neologism. Exploding Boy 13:52, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

From the neologism page: Versions of Neologism  : Stable - Having gained recognizable and probably lasting acceptance. JDR
Do you claim that "homophobia" has not gained recognizable and lasting acceptance? I defy you to find one English-speaking adult who doesn't know what it means.
That is not what I claim ... it's gained recognizable and lasting acceptance ... that is why it is Stable! JDR
Also... I hate what you've done with the references on this page. (1) they're very confusing (a bunch of numbers) and (2) exactly what is wrong with having URLs on a page? You seem intent on getting rid of them all. I really suggest you have another look at wikipedia: cite your sources. Exploding Boy 13:57, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
It seems that they already like that (ie., OTHER editors citing the sources as they go) .... but I was going to format them ...
I changed the end-of-paragraph links to links to a new "Reference" section; I did not change the links in the reference section to just a series of numbers, but anyway they're changed back now. I think what happens sometimes is edit conflicts screw up the history. Anyway, no harm done.Exploding Boy 14:54, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
oh ... i see what happened ... Exploding, if you do a link ( ie., http://en.wikipedia.org ) and put it in brackets [http://en.wikipedia.org] it turns into this : [3] ... and that's what happened ... but it's all good now ... Sincerely, JDR


Another thought - is describing the word as a "neologism" superfluous, perhaps? I've always been an advocate of approaching writing a Wikipedia article as if everything you're writing about happened a thousand years ago and is ancient history, because it seems to me that's the proper style for an encyclopaedia, which is intended to be timeless and authoritative. "Neologism" is an inescapably relative word - *all* words are neologisms looked at from one perspective in time, soon after they are invented. (All the words Shakespeare invented would be neologisms if you lived in 1630, for instance). I sincerely hope this page will be around in some form in another hundred years, at which point homophobia will no longer be a neologism. I think it's probably sufficient simply to say when and by whom the term was coined. Comments? --AW

I agree in a way, but the link to neologism is probably of interest - in fifty years or so, when the word definitely isn't a neologism any more, we can remove it ;) --Camembert


I removed Le Pen from list of homophobes, since this is not documented in wikipedia (although I am inclined to believe it is true). Accusations must be supported. Mikkalai 06:11, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

If... (May 2004)

If you've got the slightest criticism against homosexuals and their right to marry each other and to adopt children, then you're instantly branded as a homophobic. This is truly pathetic! The Holy Bible teaches that homosexual acts are a sin. Not a sin that's more severe than any other sin, but STILL A SIN! If every homosexual has the right to say that homosexuality is normal and morally acceptable, then I've got the right to deem it a sin! Rienzo 10:04, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

What has this got to do with anything? Talk pages are not soapboxes. If you have a legit concern about the article, then express it. Dysprosia 11:23, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
Actually, it is suggested that talk pages are soapboxes, or at least that they, rather, than articles, should be soap boxes.
That said, if one felt that people on the list should not be included because, for instance, they simply believe that same-sex sexual acts are one sin among many no better no worse, then one would have to document that. Or, assuming that the burden of proof is on those who claim someone is homophobic, there should be documentation of homophobia (beyond thinking butt sex is gross like picking one's nose or fellatio is immoral like telling someone their new haircut looks fine, even though it doesn't). Hyacinth 00:20, 9 May 2004 (UTC)


Remove Procreation as Cause ? (July 2004)

Removed from article:

  • "The most basic roots of homophobia lie in the instinct of

procreation, the most fundamental of instincts. The very thought of a parent that his 

child may become a gay or lesbian and thus will break the biological
chain of generations makes the person to consider gays and lesbians as a
source of a potential threat to his family."

Mikkalai - you apparently re-added March 2, 2004 content that User:Exploding Boy removed (see above). Do you have an sources?on Mar 6, 2004. I sympathize your effort to add an explination for a phobia, by definition an irrational fear, but it seems that a short summary of the general cause, which is known, is in order here.

Exploding Boy, while I imagine you felt it was more than obvious, you should have included a reason for your removal of the text to talk.
Mikkalai, however, I'll provide a reason now. It isn't true that gay and lesbian people would or do pass on their genes far less frequently. Consider the intense pressure to be straight and reproduce over the last few hundred years. Gay people pass on their genes all the time, in fact, gay and lesbian teenagers are twice as likely to impregnate someone or be impregnated (http://www.lesbianinformationservice.org/pregnancy.rtf). See: situational sexual behaviour.
Given that, its hard to imagine that parents would be horrified that their children would not procreate, but seemingly disinterested in their children's sinfully deviant socially unacceptable sexual activities or inclinations. Hyacinth 04:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The content was added again, near word for word, by User:Mikkalai [4]. This time I let it stand and added content disputing. I am disapointed to learn that you either don't read talk pages or ignore others', specifically my, concerns. Hyacinth 03:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Thank you for explanations. The first time it was removed without any comments. Therefore I restored it. I will try to look for public sources. If I will not find, I will not be fighting against the removal. It was only apparent insolence that made me move. Mikkalai 07:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


About the intro (July 2004)

The term homophobia means fear or hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice or discrimination against people who engage in homosexual acts.

Just since when does whateverphobia mean hate of?, or prejudice or discrimination. A phobia is an irrational fear of something, pleace back this up because it sounds like senseless POV to me. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:39, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

It's not at all senseless POV, but rather an example of defining a word by common usage. Hyacinth 00:15, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Must we have this whole debate about the definition of homophobia yet again? If you don't understand the word, or don't think the definition is correct, then feel free to look it up in any dictionary. Here's a sample citation from MerriamWebster.com: 

    Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia 
    Function: noun
    irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality   
    or homosexuals

Exploding Boy 00:59, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Since the English language is not officially regulated by anybody, including whatever dictionary you manage to dig up they are not the end of all debate, as i'm sure you are aware dictionaries are written after (common?) usage in the language and not the other way around, they're a reference, but not an authority. Anyway, the only thing that can apply in all cases here is phobia; hate or discrimination may follow but it's not part of homophobia. It may follow, but that doesnt mean it's part of this concept, related perhaps.
The reason i object to this is that i've ( in the real world™ ) encountered some homophobes which showed no discrimination or hate agains them, just similar reactions as any other phobia. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:14, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
Thus the "fear or hatred of...". [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:25, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In a way that decks it, however all phobias are just irrational fear, whats the argument for having this one phobia also covering hate and so on? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:44, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Exploding Boy 01:28, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

He was saying that he's encountered homophobes who don't hate gays, just get afraid around them. I replied, saying that the current intro covers those who hate and fear, as well as those who simply fear. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thing is that the general sense is that phobia is irrational fear, people who hate them are often incorrecly labeled homophobic. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:44, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
But according to both dictionaries and common usage, it's not incorrect. That's like saying that me pitching my tent on a hill is not camping, because it's not a large flat open space (Latin campus). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No that was not the point, i was just saying that generally it ends up in that. I still think that since it's a phobia it should be so defined in the article as opposed to or something or that blabla.. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:35, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

Actually, there's no such thing as clinical homophobia. Exploding Boy 02:58, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Etymology (July 2004)

It may be true that "some argue against the use of the term homophobe", but the quote from Jarrod Carter doesn't really support that. He only argues that he isn't homophobic, not that the term in general shouldn't be used. His starting with "the real homophobes are..." strikes me as a rhetorical device, not an actual claim that people are misusing the word. --[[User::William Pietri|William Pietri]] 05:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Prevalence of homophobia (Aug 2004)

Can somebody add this? I want to do it but do not know where. "Homophobia is very widespread and strong in Islamic countries such as Iran and not confined to orthodox Muslims." Andries 18:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Hyacinth 21:35, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Hyacinth, the source is me.:-) All the many Iranians that I meet say the same. Today, people almost wanted to kill me just when I asked them what is wrong with homosexuals. I would agree that my experience need corroboration to get included in the article but I personally can not seriously doubt it. Somali guy too. I also read it in the Dutch newspaper Volkskrant about Morocco. Andries 21:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I do not doubt you, I have read the same, but I would caution to indite the Islamic world without sources. Also, a good source should be able to provide the counter view, that in some ways, or at some times in some places, Islamic society is less homophobic than the "Christian" US. Hyacinth 22:48, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homophobia/Archive_2&oldid=523460403"