Talk:Homophobia

Opening paragraph

Does anyone else have a problem with this whole opening paragraph? I can well agree that this may represent the imprecise way the term has come to be used, bud we not be more precise in the use of language than this? The first paragraph should, IMHO, define homophobia as a fear of homosexuals. The material presented as paragraph 1 should be moved to a lower section to talk about use in the vernacular (which may be inappropriate use.)

To lump all "negative attitudes" into the category of homophobia is a judgement statement that is at odds with the definition of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freesafetyblitz (talk • contribs) 16:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You'd think that as I did, but I've come to learn the term is typically used to describe all negative attitudes and emotions towards homosexuals. Hope I clarified.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Homophobia" is the fear of homosexuality. This should not be confused with homosexuality being either illegal or regarded as a sin. These are quite different concepts. Something may be regarded as sinful but not illegal, illegal but not regarded as sinful, or feared but neither sinful nor illegal. Traditionally homosexuality was regarded as sinful, but was neither illegal nor feared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Victimised homophobia (more sources??)

the link to the edit i wish to make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daenumen/Homophobia_Classification

apparently ctjf83 believes the sources are not sufficient.

i have raised that there are many insufficient sources in the homophobia page, so these too need checking properly.

i think its very important that the article should be unbiased, ie express homophobia not only from the suffering that homosexuals have at the hands of people in fear of them, but also from the perspective of those who for good reason are afraid of homosexuals and homosexuality, which the article clearly is not detailing.

i have used both secondary and tertiary sources in the article, feel free to make additional source suggestions. i have attempted to narrate the psychological mechanisms of such phobia with support from tertiary sources as proof of validity of the existence of the phenomena, and secondary sources as proof for the discussion being held where appropriate.

thanks.

Daenumen (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As I explaiend here, your sources are either from Wikipeida, or clearly biased articles, there is like 2 good sources, you need more than that. CTJF83 chat 19:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

??? i need more than 2 sources you think are good? there are more! tertiary sources are still useable. i think you need to read the guidlines about sources. Let me expound further: homophobia is something that typically non-homosexuals suffer from as a condition, much like homosexuality. the article here on wikipedia appears to be souly from a pro-homosexual perspective, and the sources that are currently there reflect that biased. It is a fallacy to believe that a source itself is not biased: there has been no historical source ever that was unbiased, and of course some more than others. in terms of an encyclopedic description of Homophobia, this should present both views FOR CLARITY AND COMPLETENESS, as much as is possible. As a moderator you should be encouraging the article to be unbiased in its totality, NOT SUPERIMPOSING 'ONLY' YOUR BIAS ON THE ARTICLE.Daenumen (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that Ctjf83, with tens of thousands of edits is familiar with the guidelines about sources. You may wish to heed his advice on that. Also, I find it very disengenuous that your first response seems to indicate that "well, if I cant add my content, maybe we should remove the content I dont like and dont think is sourced properly" - so, PLEASE clarify what you really meant, because all I see is that implication, which I am sure (or at least hope) isnt what you were trying to imply. This article has always been in contention, and consensus has been reached on that which you are now trying to pick apart. I'd be more worried about ensuring your references fit WP's guidelines. Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow (just read what you wrote), even if you provided hundreds of references, I would be entirely against the inclusion of that text unless it were re-worded properly. It is very biased, makes way too many generalization, makes way too many inferences, makes way too many connections without valid reasons for the connections. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

---

it seems like ctjf83, you cannot read either, my first response was not to remove other sources, it was an additional comment that i made as a result of having checked all my sources wrt wiki policy, in terms of placement content and agreement with the discussion.

i accept a consensus has been reached, it is however a strongly biased one, and that is reflected by the source material, much of which is primary and of questionable source origins. the general article favours one view over another, and as such has only represented homophobia in a pro-homosexual light, such that 'homophobia' as a phenomenon in its own right has been avoided in the discussion.

I am sure my references fit WP's guidlines, i checked through them all, i also sought other guidance sources with respect to citations. it is in agreement with the policy.

AGAIN, if you could read, you would notice that the article only appears biased in comparison to the current homophobia article, which is ENTIRELY PRO-HOMOSEXUALITY BIASED. the content i wish to add is in relation to HOMOPHOBIA, not 'gay rights' or 'gay pride' by demonisation of homosexual opposition WHICH FOR A HOMOPHOBIC PERSON IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITION IN WHICH THEY ARE PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY TERRIFIED OF HOMOSEXUALS TYPICALLY BECAUSE OF HOMOSEXUAL RAPE.

IT IS A TRAVESTY THAT ARTICLE BIASING IS BEING PERMITTED ON WIKIPEDIA.

Daenumen (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

First STOP your uncivil attitude, that will get you no where! What good does it do to link someone to a whole Wikipedia page, which they then have to read to verify your reference, why don't you do a little extra work, and get the source off the page and put it here. CTJF83 chat 16:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Ctjf83, the article is ABOUT homophobia, not explaining how people justify homophobia. What you are attempting to write is no different than attempting to write Neo-Nazi "race science" into the racism article and then citing Klan websites as proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.53.28 (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to show that is a real and recognised condition in medical circles Daenumen? There is a gay panic law in parts of America this could be linked to? But... again i don't believe there was ever much scientific research into whether that actually happens. Thanks Jenova20 09:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Including repressed homosexuality in the lead

Hi, I think this would be a good paragraph to include in the lead:

It has been theorised that some or most people who are homophobic have repressed their own homosexuality. A controlled study of 64 heterosexual men found that only men who were found to be homophobic (as measured by the Index of Homophobia) experienced erectile responses when exposed to homoerotic images.

References

Any thoughts? -Javsav (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"It has been theorised" is passive language. You always need to state who has theorised it.

The lead is a summary of information in the article. Consensus should not determine what is in the article, but source material. The article should be a representation of the most authoritative information on homophobia taken from the most reliable sources. Its structure and content should mirror available literature on homophobia. Wikipedians should not decide what does into the article by talk page discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been theorised is referring to the source that is cited specifically after the sentence. You're right that the lead should be a summary of the article, this section is within the article and hence I summarised it in the lead. This content is from a reliable source. I don't know why you are saying that wikipedians should not decide what does [sic] into the article by talk page discussion, I originally entered this into the article and was told to discuss it on the talk page, as it suggests at the top of this talk page by saying that any proposed changes to the article should be discussed on the talk page before editing them into the article. Consensus is the basis of wikipedia, as it allows many individuals to decide on what is or is not appropriate. --Javsav (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

per your suggestion, edit:

It has been theorised by scholars at the University of Georgia that some or most people who are homophobic have repressed their own homosexuality. A controlled study of 64 heterosexual men found that only men who were found to be homophobic (as measured by the Index of Homophobia) experienced erectile responses when exposed to homoerotic images.

References

--Javsav (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Weasel#Unsupported_attributions. I know it's supported by a citation, but passive voice is not encyclopedic. Try "Scholars at the University of Georgia theorize that some or most people who are homophobic have repressed their own homosexuality."

My point about the construction of the article is that it really should be rewritten. It comes under assault, more frequently within the past couple months or so, because it is the result of dozens and hundreds of edits here and there. It should be made into a coherent, tight article that reflects the most recent authoritative information on homophobia. That doesn't happen by getting consensus to add a sentence here, or remove a sentence there.

Apologies for the sic. I cut my index finger open with a knife. It takes me three times longer to type than normal. I don't catch all my typos. --Moni3 (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it definitely belongs in the article, but not the lead. One study isn't enough to establish scientific consensus, and homophobia has such a wide range of manifestations that probably don't all overlap with repressed homosexuality. Roscelese (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about your finger Moni3, lol. Well I might try to incorporate it into the article better, as at the moment it is buried within another section. I will give it its own heading as 'repressed homosexuality' --Javsav (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This Article Tries to Dignify a Slur Word

It is an attempt to establish a biased POV by employing definitions, instead of addressing substance. A phobia is a mental disease. The DSM-IV lists no such mental disease. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC))

We've been here before, EnochBethany. No reliable source material will support your claim. Stop disrupting the article. --Moni3 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

To grossly summarize (for EnochBethany), the word is "homophobia", the word used for years is "homophobia", though the term when pulled apart may imply a medical condition, nothing supports such, and thus the word does not. The word to use in the article is indeed "homophobia" because Wikipedia does not create language or terms - it simply has (or doesnt have) pages on such words and terms. The implications of the word aside, it is indeed the accepted upon word. Side note, a phobia can also be an irrational fear that is not necessarily a medical condition. And besides, I think the article, as fragmented and as in need of a rewrite as it is, does at least a passingly adequate job of explaining what homophobia is. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Homophobia would be anything offensive to homosexuals rather than an irrational fear of homosexuals Moni3. Although there are gay panic laws in parts of America, which actually give lenient sentences to people who specifically target gay people in crimes like murder and GBH and then claim gay panic. Not fair and as far as i can see, no proof of it exists. Thanks Jenova20 09:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no such thing as a "gay panic law." Murderers have attempted to raise a diminished capacity defense, which courts typically do not allow. 184.242.62.80 (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you may be wrong there as this might only be a Facebook group but it's still worth looking into "http://es-la.facebook.com/group.php?gid=130005393685173" Besides, with so many countries allowing it as a defense there must be a few with a law like it. Thanks Jenova20 13:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Health risks involving Male to male sex

The problem with male to male sex is the health risks involved-particularly if they practise anal sex.The fact is the lining of the rectum is extremely fragile and vulnerable to rupture.The comeback will be no doubt 7 times as many heterosexuals practise anal as homosexuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.86.147 (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the homophobia article, as opposed to anal sex? CTJF83 18:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's make this 100% clear to the OP, who may not realise it. Anal sex is also practised by heterosexual couples. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Best ignore him Ctjf83, he clearly said male to male instead of simply anal sex. He's targeting specific groups without evidence. Probably just a troll, and you're right that more straight people practice it than otherwise. Thanks Jenova20 09:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Move to anti-homosexuality

Homophobia suggests a fear of homosexuals. People are not afraid of it they just dislike it Conservativ (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is the common word. English usage isn't always logical. Have a look at "This Article Tries to Dignify a Slur Word" just above. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Homophobia in the media

I'm starting ideas up for this article User:Jenova20/Homophobia in the media Any suggestions and additions, please take a look. Thanks Jenova20 12:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Consider major re-writing or merge

Homophobia has nothing to do with this article. This article is about the highly politicised term that gay activist use to call people they don't like and if it should be kept the same the lede should reflect that. While people who are afraid of homosexuals probably don't like them, they wouldn't hold protests against them as they'd be drawing out the very people they are afraid of. Thus it would be irrational to call them homophobic since, most likely, they'd rather stay home most of the time fearing that any person they're near may be homosexual than draw out the very thing they're afraid of.Props888 (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Take the time to read up on Wikipedia policies before you try editing any of the articles or talk pages here. Start with WP:OR, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of thoose policies and I violated none of those though you could argue SYNTH I suggest you take some time to read WP:TITLE and WP:MOSINTRO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Props888 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If you must have sources for a well known fact,http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/h/ho/homophobia.htm, heres just one quote "[Homophobia] has been criticized as a pejorative, loaded term intended to discredit or silence opposition to any of the political or social issues connected with homosexuality (see LGBT social movements). Critics of the term have often alleged that it creates a climate of intimidation by demonizing one side of the debate."Props888 (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a pretty old word. It probably has multiple uses these days. The lead starts off "Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards...." Surely that's a pretty good catch-all. HiLo48 (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. "Props888" = Prop 8. He/She is clearly trying to further an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenlightracer (talk • contribs) 05:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Props888 Homophobia, racism, they're all discrimination but to deny the meaning and tell others that they are not insulted or discriminated is far fetched and unbelievable.

Homophobia has been around a long time and you can't always tell what will offend others.

Plus your username here also doesn't help since proposition 8 in itself is a homophobic law to discriminate against families and gay people.

Thanks Jenova20 09:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Way to assume good faith, WP:NPA, and SOAPBOX, first off I haven't even thought of the resemblence between my name and some Californian legislation that (ironically) deals with this topic. Secondly, instead of addressing the cited quote you make an assumption about my name and make an assumption from that implying I'm trying to push an agenda. Yet I could have deduced the same thing from your name (with less assuming), 1.The rainbow arranged colors in your name are almost certainly not in there for stylistic effect 2. The LBGT movement's most recognised symbol is the rainbow 3. Therefore you ally yourself with the movement 4. Therefore you are pushing a gay agenda. Thirdly, where have I denied that racism or discrimination against gays is bad. Which brings me to my point if you were racist/discriminatory most people would probably not trust anything you say, right? So if I don't like what person x says it'd be pretty beneficial to me if I labeled him/her a racist. However I'm surely no authority on determining who's racist and who's not, though it wouldn't matter if he/she's really a racist as long as I successful paint them as one. Similarly if I wanted same-sex marriage legalized wouldn't it be beneficial to coin some subjective term like "Gayophobia" with negative connotations and all that good stuff to call all the people who disagree with my goal (which the source criticizes the word for almost always being used in that way)? Fourthly, you need not look far to find evidence that homophobia wasn't a word created in good faith by some english scholar who found it necesary to make a word rather than use the already existing ones 1. "Homo-phobia" what might someone seeing this for the first time think it means? Fear of things that are the same? Fear of animals in the genus homo? It certainly couldn't be the fear of people who are homosexuals it's way too specific to just warrant the prefix homo-, note how Triskaidekaphobia, a term coined by someone within the medical field which isn't a pejorative actually makes sense from a linguistic standpoint, whereas homophobia does not 2. It can be easily exploited for political gain 3. It wouldn't be a stretch to accuse it of possibly being the gays' "me too" answer to racism, anti-semitism, sexism, etc.Props888 (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame that usernames have derailed this discussion. I don't think mine carries any connotations relevant to this discussion, so, Props888, how about responding to my observations here? - "It's a pretty old word. It probably has multiple uses these days. The lead starts off "Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards...." Surely that's a pretty good catch-all." I'm aware of the word's existence from back in the 1960s, and where I come from it pretty much meant what it's said to mean today - a hatred and/or fear of homosexuals and/or homosexuality. And I must add, please don't look for logic in the English language. It isn't there. Words mean what they mean, not what they "should" mean. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Even so are we supposed to ignore what the word "should" mean lets say I make up three words "Nahzis":Another word for homosexuals "Nixons":Republicans "Hatredophiliacs":People who live in the southern U.S., do you think the respective groups will love theses words so much that they'll require everyone to call them by those words?Props888 (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Homophobics

Homophobics don't hate homosexuals, homophobic people just hate homosexuality inside themselves. This is a Freudian paradigm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrosay (talk • contribs) 13:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That may be the definition you're familiar with, but the word is also used to describe those who hate homosexuals, at least in some parts of the English speaking world. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)