Talk:Heterophobia

General discussion

Clinical heterophobia added. It certainly is real. It has been the subject of discussion around psychiatric professionals. It often results in gay "ghettos", in which gays and lesbians tend to stay in "safe" environments because of an irrational fear brought upon by taunting by straights at an early age. It is specifically analogous to a fear of whites by blacks because of historic discrimination.Newstruck (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Francs2000 | Talk 14:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. I know heterophobia (apart from the etymologically inaccurate "fear of heterosexuals/heterosexuality", which should be named *heterosexophobia or maybe even *homosexism) in the older, broader sense of "fear of the other/fear of difference". It encompasses sexism, racism, homophobia(!), antisemitism and so many more. Should I add that, or am I the only one?

The cited "fear of the opposite sex" strikes me as just a variant of that cheap homophobia-analogous neologism. In fact, the two given meanings seem to be pretty close, at least in respect to feminism. Accusing a feminist woman of hating men, or accusing her of hating women who love/have sex with men are not so far apart IMO.

Wikipedia is not the place to enforce alternative ideas about what should be the word for something whose existing word is not etymologically accurate; it is a place to document the word that is actually used, whether the word's etymology really supports the meaning or not. I have added a paragraph to the article which addresses your concern, but I couldn't support splitting the article up under alternative titles that aren't actually in wide use. Bearcat 17:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, the sloppy and misunderstandable usage as "fear of heterosexuality" has begun to spread outside the sexology community. The word appears in the invitation to Queeruption 2006 in Tel Aviv: "Queeruption welcomes and celebrates all gender identities and sexualities, with no toleration to sexism, macho behavior, racism, hetrophobia[sic], homophobia, transphobia, discrimination based on different abilities or ages and any form of aggression."[1] --84.188.130.224 17:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The article says does not have much currency outside of sexology; it doesn't say it's unknown. One anecdotal reference doesn't disprove the statement. Bearcat 18:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there evidence that the word "heterophobia" has ever been used in publication to mean anything than "fear/hatred (or simple dislike) of heterosexuals"? Never mind what its Greek etyma mean, how has it been used in English? The most likely etymology is not that it was built from Greek heteros "different" and phobia "fear" but rather that it was built by analogy to homophobia, which is a portmanteau of the English words homosexual and phobia. I'm asking for sources to back up the claim that it has been used to mean "fear of difference" or "fear of the opposite sex". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Since no sources have been provided indicating any other usage than "fear/hatred of or discrimination against heterosexuals", I have removed the other defintions. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, xenophobia is fear of the outsider and is a far more acurate term for the general problem that leads to misanthropia or hatred of humanity.--TheRealZajac 10:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

First, would everybody please sign their posts on talk pages by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Second, I have again removed the unsourced, original research about "clinical heterophobia." Please review our policy WP:SOURCE, which clearly states that unsourced statements must not be permitted to remain in articles. Discussion in therapy groups does not constitute a reliable, peer-reviewed source for this very controversial and unlikely claim. There is, as yet, no such thing as "clinical heterophobia." Until such time as someone can provide a rock solid scholarly source as evidence that there is, such claims do not belong in the article. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there is a different name for each gender when it comes to homosexuals, ie, gays and lesbians, (although gay of course is a blanket term for all homosexuals although it seems to be used mostly for men) why not split the concept of heterophobia in the same manner. For example, male homosexuals would be deemed to be vagiphobes and female homosexuals would be peniphobes.Pyronimbus (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Attention needed

This article could be improved by dividing it into sections; see Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Structure of the article.
-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 18:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is not capable of being improved. Insist on deletion.--71.192.239.26 19:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been nominated for deletion before — twice, in fact — and survived both times. I don't think it warrants an article either, but we're pretty much stuck with it...so we have very little choice but to make it work somehow. Bearcat 19:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If the article will not be deleted could we at least use words that actually exist. Heterophobia being the ideology. A person can be heterophobic, that makes them a heterophobe. There isn't, to my knowledge, such a word as 'heterophobics'. Were I to use the word as a plural I would simply say that i see many heterophobes, not many heterophobics.86.159.162.27 (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Thanks

Third paragraph

The third paragraph cites an opinion piece and apparently is based entirely upon it. As this Wikipedia content has been based solely on a POV news article, it deserves deletion. If someone can find a way to back up the information in the paragraph with something more than one op/ed article written in the first person (which is how the cited article is written), go ahead, but until then I'm deleting it since, as stated, it is all fruit of the poisoned tree (so to speak). Ginnna 18:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Bearcat, you reverted to add the third paragraph and you put as a note that it's merely an "example" of an opinion (I agree, it is an example of an opinion, ONE MANS opinion) but the paragraph also clearly says that it is a term used "by some" to mean "such and such".

What exactly constitutes a "some" and what does this opinion piece prove other than the term is used by THE AUTHOR to mean, in HIS opinion, "such and such"? Who's to say that anyone else (i.e. the supposed "some") besides the author did ever or will ever use this word to mean what the author and the paragraph suggests it means?

He might suggest that the ONE cited source (a book, by the way, that is merely full of somebody ELSES opinions on the matter) used to "back up" his opinion shows that "some" are concurring with his view, but that he might GUESS about concurrence from ONE other persons opinion piece just doesn't seem good enough to justify claiming that "some" (whatever unquantifiable number that may represent) use and mean the term in the exact way he does.

If we're keeping the paragraph (and I'm not sure why we'd consider it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article because, as stated, it demonstrates that the word is understood by ONE MAN, not "by some", to mean "such and such"), we should at least reword it so that it doesn't say "by some" because I believe that's a form of Weasel Words. If, within a few days, no one either suggests a way to satisfactorily reword it or suggests an adequate alternate solution on the talk page, I'm going to delete it again (which I currently believe to be the appropriate course of action).

Please feel free to add input before that time so that a decision can be reached. Thanks. Ginnna 09:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the paragraph is not about "one man's opinion"; it cites one example of a documentably widespread opinion. If you want more examples: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. More can be listed, but that should give you some idea.

To be perfectly frank, I've maintained since day one that this whole article should be deleted, and my opinion hasn't changed. I've had to monitor it because of an ongoing profusion of vandals intent on proving that "heterophobia" is the ultimate social evil of all time...but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be much happier having this piece of crap deleted altogether. But it's survived two AFDs, so we're stuck with it. Bearcat 10:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. I checked out the links provided (yeah... I think I pretty much went to all of them) and I found that there were a lot of blogs (several of which only mention the word heterophobia in passing and not as defined by the third paragraph), a lot of editorials (several of which, again, mention the word once or twice in passing and sometimes not in the way that the third paragraph claims it is used), a few message boards (several times a consensus couldn't even be reached as to the meaning), and what is "www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com" doing in there? I wouldn't trust them for ANYTHING close to validity or objectivity, would you?

So... if we total up enough blogs and opinion pieces and a few message boards, THEN we can say that the term is used "by some" to mean what the third paragraph implies it means? How many blogs and opinions and boards do we have to total up to constitute a "some"? Is there a policy on this? Can I follow some sort of guideline to figure out if these "sources" actually COUNT towards contributing to the "some"? Is it really "ok" to define, in an encyclopedia no less, a word to mean something as used by "some" when the "some" merely includes a scattered bunch of not so easily identifiable INDIVIDUALS, none of which seem to be qualified to give us an authoritative and/or expert definition of the word and it's usage?

Look, if we "can't" delete the third paragraph then we "can't", but the links provided only demonstrate that a moderate percentage of the "usages" seem to bear a very tenuous resemblence to each other and that the rest don't mention it enough to even constitute a citation.

I don't have any more time to talk about this at the moment, but I suppose my submission will have to stand as is for the time being. I apologize if I come across as rude but I just don't see the sense in saying that "some" use the word when "some" clearly doesn't mean much. Ginnna 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems like someone is a bit heterophobic. --71.162.178.22 03:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Heterophobia" as part of another Project

It sure doesn't belong with "GBLT studies". /laughing, not knowing what to make of this. Nkras 06:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, why not? Why make such a statement and not elaborate? Surely you have enough room here to explain yourself.Pyronimbus (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed POV, OR commentary

Regarding the last paragraph of the intro (tags snipped):

Some have argued that the word is etymologically ill-formed, as it appears to have been formed from the Greek elements hetero- "different" and phobia, so that the word in fact means "fear of difference" (something of an irony considering that many persons claiming heterophobic discrimination are often demonstrating exactly that). Such critics have proposed alternative words such as heteroerotophobia or heterosexophobia. However, the word's common useage shows that it is in origin a portmanteau of heterosexual and phobia, coined on the analogy of homophobia (which is likewise an etymologically incorrect portmanteau).

I removed the parenthetical comment "(something of an irony considering that many persons claiming heterophobic discrimination are often demonstrating exactly that)" as needlessly POV original research. Even though I personally agree with the thought, an encyclopaedic article is not the place to inject editorial comments of this nature.

In general, this article is an unholy mess. When there are five sections below the intro but the intro is still larger than all of them combined, something is quite wrong. I haven't the time right at this moment to tackle the job, but I will be back. --7Kim (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The into needs to revamp the analogy of racism. This analogy places the article as taking a position on whether homosexuality is morally right or wrong, thus leaving it impartial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragincajun2 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I cleaned this up at least a bit.

Mostly, I moved material from the intro to subsections. I tightened up a few sentences and removed a bit of excess verbiage. I don't believe I have changed the meaning of anything; for right now I just wanted the thing to be in some sort of order vaguely resembling a Wikipedia article. I don't feel ready to take off the cleanup tag yet, though; there's still some work to be done. Still, it's a start. --7Kim (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This term is ridiculous

Heterophobia is used as the fear of the different in the classic work Modernity and the Holocause by Zygmunt Bauman. To look it up in wikipedia and find this ridiculous article is just laughable. If someone has used it to mean fear of heterosexual, fine, but an article in which the term is basically identified with this - completely dwarfing the obvious meaning which more sensible authors have been using - is just weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.67.145 (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, in "Modernity and the Holocaust", Bauman credits this use of the term to Pierre-André Taguieff. —EqualRights (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that "fear of the different" is less common, but it seems to be common enough to merit its own section in the article. A quick check on Google Books yields an 80/20 ratio between hits with the meaning "fear of heterosexuals/heterosexuality" and "fear of the different".Sjö (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fear and hate

Homophobia can also mean that someone hates homosexuals and not just fears them. Here in this article though it says that heterophobia only means fear against heterosexual people. What would be the term then if a homosexual hates heterosexuals? Straight-hater? 92.104.21.128 (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Offensive

This article is offensive in the sense that it directly compares heterophobia with homophobia. Where are there straight bashings? Where are people denied jobs because they are straight? Or denied entry to a club? Or kicked out of their homes when they're 16? This article needs attention of a psychiatrist that actually knows what they are talking about. I don't know how to put the tag for expert so can someone please do this for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amn12 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer at least one of the above questions - there is a club called The Peel in Melbourne (Australia) that has won the right to disallow heterosexuals (how this would work in practice is beyond me) here is an article I do agree with you that there is no basis for comparison as it is clearly a straight mans world, but just thought I'd point out this example. - Belinda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.194.58 (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Figured it out and added it. Amn12 (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Any documented instances? (don't worry, I'm not challenging the article...)

I'm gonna say this right off the bat: I'm not challenging this article. Just making a query. Have there ever been instances of heterophobia that have led to widespread coverage or legal cases? This article has a good history of the use of the word, but I think it could use some real-life examples, like the ones Homophobia has. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 02:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the Asexuals.

Asexuals can be heterophobic or homophobic or both. I'm going to say bisexuals would only be half homophobic; the phobia only pertaining to pairs the same gender as the asexual & heterophobic because the asexual is repulsed by someone of the same gender being physically intimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.134.7 (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)