Talk:Homophobia/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 14

Study/poll: knowing a gay person correlated with less likely to be homophobic

I have only a vague recollection of this: I read something, somewhere (har, har) that stated that there was a positive correlation between someone knowing a gay person personally, and that person being less likely to be homophobic. Does this ring any bells? Joie de Vivre 23:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, although I'm not sure if it was a college research study or a political campaign research. In either case the message was that LGBT people should "come out" to family, friends and co-workers to help break down barriers of understanding. Benjiboi 07:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If "Hopmophobia" is a word, then "strategery" is a word. I know it wasn't just my parents who taught that "ain't" isn't a word.

Translation

Shouldn't it be stated that homophobia meaning irrational fear of homosexuals is inaccurate as it means irrational fear of the same? Sorry if it is already down - i haven't read the page properly. 22.5.07 (or if you're american, 5.22.07)

No. For starters, the entry already covers this in the second paragraph of Coinage. Furthermore, please see my comments under A Note About Linguism, above, for details on why it's not exactly important what the root terms mean compared to the actual use. Also, please sign your posts by using four tildes. Thanks. San Diablo 00:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If it's in published dictionaries, it's a word. It's not even particularly difficult to make a word these days -- Stephen Colbert's done it plenty of times. San Diablo 15:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Oy, (epithet removed), deja de pensar como el (possible epithet) que tu eres. Que (epithet) eres!. 71.249.27.85 21:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Pejorative epithets in above comment removed by Joie de Vivre per WP:CIVIL. Joie de Vivre 03:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks (WP:NPA), and proper language use[[1]]. If you have anything to add that would improve this article, by all means, talk to us. Just please leave behind any personal attacks or disruptive use of foreign languages. Thank you. San Diablo 00:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
So has Dan Savage (Santorum, pegging). Joie de Vivre 14:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the user is correct. The word Homophobia does exist in Latin: it means "fear of sameness". Someone who is afraid of wearing matching socks might fit that. Or someone who is afraid of looking like a conformist. The correct term for people with a fear of homosexuals, would be homosexualphobia. Of course the latter has none of the same ring to it, so it wouldn't serve the political usefulness of the former.

The homo- prefix in question here is Greek, actually (Latin is "man"). It's also something that we already have referenced in the etymology section of the article. While I'd argue that the reason for the shortening is so that it's less an awkward term, it's neither here nor there -- our role is to reference its meaning and usage, not to define them. Finally, please remember to sign your posts here. Thanks. San Diablo 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

PIDOR (1998 film)

WHY DOES PIDOR REDIRECT HERE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.170.204 (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Archives

I have reformatted the names of all the archives so that the {{atn}} template will work properly. If you archive the talk page in the future, please use the formatting Talk:Homophobia/Archive_#, and place the atn template at the top of the page, under the {{talkarchive}} template. I have also placed the {{archives}} template on this page to replace the "archive box" template. Thank you.


article's presentation is POV

If you'll read WP:LEDE, controversies should be mentioned in the lede. The article does include a section on "principled disagreement," but the failure to give equal time in the lede is POV (undue weight)... that is self-evident. A further assertion that the entire article gives undue weight to one POV would require a closer reading... Ling.Nut 04:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is clearly POV. I will now put a tag on the article.--Bolivian1 17:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Please read the archives before you go too far down this road. The horse has been dead or dying for over three years. Trust me, what you are about to argue probably been said here before. ... That said, I think it would be appropriate for the WP:LEDE to include some mention of the controversial usage. I disagree with a NPOV tag, so I will remove it and add a "critics of the term" summary to the LEDE. Peace, MPS 18:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination WikiProject

Looking for people to join a proposed Discrimination WikiProject for discrimination articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Discrimination - Keith D. Tyler 21:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrational

There seems to be a lot of tension on the appropriateness of using the word "irrational" in the lede. Personally I hope someone more an expert in the psychology/sociology/sexuality fields etc. might offer a better definition or confirm that the whatever one we have at the moment is spot on. From my perspective homophobia and most fears are _not_ irrational as they are fears of the unknown. As humans we have a self-preservation instinct to fear things we are not familiar with and don't know to be "safe." Just like spiders and snakes can be scary until you learn what they do and why and how, people of different sexualities and preferences and orientations and cultures can evoke fear as they are simply different than oneself. Sometimes wildly different - but they are still people. This same fear kept our ancestors alive to continue on the gene pool to create us and continues to keep us alive when we enter new territories. I also admit I flinch a bit at the word "irrational" whenever it applies to me as it seems like a negative label but, at least, in this case it's another way of saying someone's human. Benjiboi 06:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please check footnote 4 from the Merriam Webster dictionary and the archives of this talk page as well. This has been discussed ad nausium. EDIT: That was a bit short of me, sorry. I realize you are trying to help, but as I said, we have been over this many many times. On a side note, the fear of the unknown that you describe is still irrational, because it relies on instinct rather than reason. CaveatLectorTalk 08:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Where would I be checking again? Also, going on instinct could be veiwed as rational so I'm not in total agreement there. Benjiboi 10:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Footnote 4 in the article. It mentions the irrationality. And on the side note, isn't rationality the litmis test for whether or not something is irrational, and isn't reason completely opposed to human instinct? (Kant pretty much established that, no?) CaveatLectorTalk 16:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
posting "footnote 4": Miriam Webster dictionary defines homophobia as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" seems fine t me. Benjiboi 21:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with using the word "irrational" here. It means that the person is fearful or hateful of homosexuals for no good reason. There certainly are people like that. I would say, as I have before, someone who purposefully acts in an evil way toward homosexuals is not "homophobic" per se, but rather is "anti-homosexual" of which the Nazis are an example. The Nazis did have very thought out and detailed "reasons" for persecuting homosexuals. Those reasons had to do with politics, not fear. The Nazis persecuted many minorities within their reach. It was a way of showing their claimed superiority to the German people. --Britcom 04:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no particular problem with calling homophobia irrational, as many who express it clearly do so irrationally. But we need to keep in mind that this is not a universal descriptor, and is to be applied on an individual basis.
Most phobias are irrational in one way or another, but some are acquired. To provide an example, fire, heights, or small spaces may not be dangerous in and of themselves, but an individual can learn to fear them through traumatic personal events. I'm not by any means saying that any of these fears is 'worse' than homophobia, or defending intolerant actions committed by homophobes. But if we were to apply the descriptor here, would it not be necessary to apply it at the articles for others? ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Homophobia is not a clinical condition, so no, I don't think the comparison is relevant. bikeable (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think we need "irrational", as it doesn't appear in the American Heritage Dictionary or in the OED. I think that adding "irrational" unnecessarily splits anti-gay sentiment into "homophobic" anti-gay sentiment (irrational) and non-homophobic anti-gay sentiment (rational). The term "homophobic" (per AHD and OED) includes all anti-gay fear or hatred, not just an "irrational" kind. I would leave it out. bikeable (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Please post the definitions from American Heritage Dictionary and the OED so others have more reference of what your refering to. If we have conflicting definitions from different dictionaries it may make sense to sort out which is the best or if there is some appropriate wording that meets the needs of the article. Benjiboi 19:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The AHD is linked in the article, footnote 3, here. In fact, that's the reference for the first sentence of the article, which uses the word "irrational" and references a source which does not!
The OED definition is online and I have access via my university; it says in its entirety, Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality. (This is the definition for homophobia n.2, where n.1 is the earlier definition referred to in the 'etymology' section of the article: Fear of men, or aversion towards the male sex; also, fear of mankind, anthropophobia.) I would consider OED definitive for English in general, and AHD definitive for American English, much more than M-W. bikeable (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset, well here is the American Heritage Dictionary def. "Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. 2. Behavior based on such a feeling." both that and OED's Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality seem rather limited and incomplete. I'm not a dictionary scholar so I'm not sure if Miriam Webster is better or just different. Seeing as the word came into usage over the last 30-40 years it might make sense to see what the best modern dictionaries are for the time period and what they have to say. Benjiboi 20:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the definitive dictionary of American English has always been Webster's Dictionary. The American Heritage Dictionary is a relative newcomer. --Britcom 04:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, budding lexicologists and lexicographers, I think a thorough rereading of the WP:NOTLEX essay is in order. We here at wikipedia cite sources but we are not necessarily the judge of "the best" dictionaries. Perhaps we could have the lede mention the intermittent use of "irrational" and then have a section canvassing the dictionaries that do and do not mention "irrational." That seems to me to be the source-based, NPOV solution to this never-ending round-and-round-the-carousel debate. And for those of you new to this never-ending debate, I recommend going back to the talk archives of this article and pondering how long we have gone back and forth about this word irrational. Peace, MPS 20:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok I boldly followed my own editorial recommendation. here. What do y'all think? MPS 20:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Being that homophobia is not a psychological condition, but rather a social construction like homosexuality itself, the new version works. If it were a psychological condition then the term 'irrational' would apply far better. As long as the article makes the distinction between those who are against the social construction of homosexuality and those who are against say the risks inherent to the lifestyle and not neccesarily "homophobic" then the change should be okay. In favor of balance, it should at least be noted -as it is in this version- that other dictionaries do add "irrational". --Strothra 20:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Lol. Homophobia and being gay are not "social constructions" any more than heterophobia and being strait are. Answering the question asked though I think you're part way to a solution however I think leaving "irrational" where it was is fine and then simply add that some feel the definition use of "irrational" is controversial. Benjiboi 22:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know of any sociologist who would argue that homophobia is not a social construction. For it to be an actual phobia it would have to be empirically discovered as an object of natural science - ie psychiatry. That field has never discovered anything that links homophobia to biology whether in cause or reaction. Those who would believe that homophobia is a psychological disorder seem to me to be the same as those who would think the same of homosexuality. You should perhaps read more on the history of homosexuality. I would advise starting with Freud's "Theory of Sexuality" which is the first mentioning of homosexuality in which he discusses inverted sexuality. It was the first time a "third sex" was conceived and the beginning of homosexuality as a culture by creating an "other" that was different from heterosexuals in ways other than the sex act. Foucault's "The History of Sexuality" is another good foundational material. This isn't to say that individuals who preferred the same-sex didn't exist before the 19th century, but homosexuality as we know it today (ie beyond the simple sex act) has its roots in that period. --Strothra 00:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Defining Homophobia as 'Irrational' section

Defining Homophobia as 'Irrational' section is redundant now that the lede references that not all dictionaries include "irrational." Benjiboi 00:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the section expands on the lead. This is acceptable per WP:Lead. It needs to be expanded. --Strothra 00:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well expand away as it's pretty useless as is. Please explain on why some dictionaries include "irrational" in it's definition and others do not, if it works then great. If not the lede sums it up for most readers. Benjiboi 00:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Distribution/frequency of attitudes in the US and UK section

Distribution/frequency of attitudes in the US and UK section should be moved to a more appropriate place in the article. It may have made sense at one point or the section renamed but the article makes less sense with it in its current position. Benjiboi 00:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparing/Grouping homophobic attitudes in the US and UK is extremely inappropriate. The UK is light-years ahead of the US when it comes to acceptance of homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle and any comparison between the two needs to reflect this. 193.129.64.154 12:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Homism/Homist section

Addition of the terms Homist and Homism.

These terms are used to denote a dislike of homosexuality, rather than an expressed fear. I have edited the article to include these terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.97.33 (talkcontribs)

I removed them as neologisms, which are not allowed in wikipedia. 69 google hits for homist OR homism? Until the terms are widely used, and until they are well sourced with reliable sources, they don't belong here. By the way, please add comments to the end of the Talk page, and please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~. bikeable (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Re-removed section archived here. Without sources this seems quite POV and this article has a history of POV-pushing in a few directions so please rewrite as neutral and with reliable sources. Benjiboi 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"The term homophobia relates more directly to a fear of homoseuxality, and therefore is in many cases not accurate. The terms Homist and Homism are much more accurate, as they denote a dislike of homosexuality, not a fear. This is not prejudiced, as the people in question are well within their rights to express a dislike to the acts and culture involved in homosexuality. When this leads to active discrimination or "gay-bashing" then it could be considered prejudiced."

What's the source of this quote? In any case, these are lousy constructions for the meaning given: without a prefix like "anti", the words would indicate an attitude in favor of whatever "homo" or "hom" is supposed to mean, NOT the other way around. Unless there's a verified and reputable authority for this source, these inane words just don't belong in any article, IMHO.--Textorus 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The quote is what 82.22.97.33 had inserted, and Benjiboi and I each reverted. While I agree about the construction, that wouldn't matter if the word were actually used... but it certainly doesn't appear to be, so unless good sources are given it shouldn't be in here. bikeable (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

'structurally incorrect'

I feel this must be raised as a full issue, rather than broken into parts so it is pushed into irrelevance by rationalization.

This article is clearly biased - completely dismissing the fact that the term 'homophobia', composed of 'homo' and 'phobia' is both structurally incorrect as a term, and is clearly chosen to imply that any attitude that is not pro-homosexual is necessarily 'phobic'. There is no need to engage in lengthy analysis of this fact, or varying dictionary definitions, as it is clearly true. The word contains, pointedly, the sub-term 'phobia'; the term 'homo' is not linguistically correct; and dictionaries often reflect the colloquial meaning of words.

I am aware that the article makes mention of this fact, but the tone is dismissive, and the rest of the article pointedly reinforces the incorrect use of the term.

It should also be noted that the article definitely furthers the ignorant belief that any person who is opposed to homosexuality is engaged in 'hate'. This is reinforced both by the tone of the article and by the explicit conflation of the two by reference to studies of groups that 'hate' homosexuals.

I can understand disallowing the direct edit of content in this article out of fear of vandalism. However if Wikipedia is intended to be a 'free encyclopedia for all', the site most definitely must not take the side of one group over the other and allow such a clearly biased term to not be sufficiently critiqued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.222.23 (talkcontribs)

This is a pretty common topic on this page. Yes, the word "homophobia" includes "-phobia"; but that doesn't mean it is a clinical, diagnosable term, or even that it necessarily refers to fear in general. Etymology is not meaning. Many words don't mean what their roots seem to say; words mean what people use them to mean, and it is indisputable that "homophobia" is used in many ways, including to mean bias against or hatred of homosexuals or homosexuality. (Check the dictionaries for evidence.) It's not wikipedia's fault that the word has a slightly awkward coinage, and we're not here to correct it. We report on the use and meaning, which is what the article does. Note that at least one of the studies you refer to actually reports on 'bias' against and 'negative perception' of homosexuals, not of 'hate'. bikeable (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


That is exactly the problem with Wikipedia: the fact that a moderator will allow his or her personal political beliefs to affect the neutrality of an article.

The etymology _is_ the meaning in this case. It's not as if we're discussing a natural, pre-existing word like 'notable' and whether or not that means 'no table'. The word 'homophobia' was invented by combining two terms, 'homo' and 'phobia', specifically for their separate implied meanings. It's a purely political term, and this is not something that needs debate - it is clearly fact. There are countless analogies which help illustrate why this is the case, such as the commonly used term 'chocoholic' which is a word constructed from two roots for a specific meaning but not an actual meaningful term.

The dictionary defense is meaningless because this is a manufactured term, and the dictionary is not an infallible or even consistent source as 'the dictionary' can refer to any one of an innumerable list of resources. Furthermore, 'the dictionary' also contains the words "truthiness" and, infamously, "ain't".

There's an example of the proper way to handle this already in Wikipedia: the entry for 'partial birth abortion', which correctly redirects to 'intact dilation and extraction' and makes note of the _controversial_ former term that is frequently applied to the procedure by political groups. There is no reason for this article to not follow this established example.

Disregarding the fact that the term itself is flawed, it is also quite clear that this article compounds the political use of the term by conflating anti-gay sentiment with hate, as the terms are freely intermixed. This is a biased article and you should listen to the substantial amount of people complaining about it, rather than adopting a hardline political position based upon your personal beliefs. If you are incapable of doing that, you should step down as a moderator.

I only have a minute to respond to a morass of misconceptions, so this will be brief. First of all, "moderator"? -- I'm not more a moderator than you are, although it would be nice if you created an account to discuss these things.
Your criticism of the dictionary for including "ain't" marks you solidly as a prescriptivist, and rather an extreme one. The argument between descriptivists (reporting on actual usage) and prescriptivists (reporting what they think the "correct" usage is) is as old as dictionaries. Wikipedia is not here to tell people how to use language, but to report on how it is used. If you can suggest a different word for anti-gay sentiment and back it up with citations demonstrating that it is preferred (by usage, not by theory) over "homophobia", then I'll agree to redirect this page there. Of course, no such word exists. And if "homophobia" can mean both bias and hate, that's hardly wikipedia's fault -- both usages are of course common -- and we are not here to "correct" them, whatever that means.
"Chocoholic" is "not a meaningful term"? Does it carry meaning? Did you understand what the word means when you read it? I'd suggest you rethink your extreme prescriptivism; in any case, it's not appropriate here. bikeable (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll add that there is not gay cabal, and you are not the first (nor, I wager the last) to come onto the talk page for homophobia (or any LGBT article for that matter) and accuse the cited facts and sources of being 'pro-gay'. As Bikeable said. This is an article on the use and history of the term. Accusing people who follow the dictionary and...well...reality...of having a 'hardline political position' doesn't really make you very convincing. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 20:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a moderator? You certainly take the attitude of one, respond to queries like one, and speak with an authoritative tone about policy for the site.

Glibly summarizing portions of an argument and then labeling them is not refutation. This is not an argument of descriptivism versus prescriptivism. We are not discussing vocabulary. We are discussing a construct. When words are constructed and introduced into the language it is generally for their descriptive meaning. This is a portmanteau - just like 'chocoholic', which is why I mentioned the term. Both are comprised of word parts specifically chosen for a combined, loaded meaning. Interestingly Wikipedia notes this for 'chocoholism', but not 'homophobia'.

You have been clearly and thoroughly shown to be wrong on this matter, yet your tone and position do not change. That is precisely because this is a political issue and you advocate this article favoring your viewpoint. And you're not alone; edits to this discussion clarifying the political nature of this term are reverted within 5 minutes of being applied.

This is the reason these sites can never be objective - because of cabals. I am calling you out. Your advocacy of propaganda on this site while claiming to support objectivity is simply hypocritical.

"coloquially in English"

"Known coloquially in English" seems like a fair qualifier. The prefix and suffix misuse issue is acknowledged while dignifying it as an advented word. 71.247.240.214 22:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Seems like a fair qualifier" sounds awfully original to me. If no dictionaries mark the word as a colloquial term, why should we? What's different about "homophobia" than any other word in English? I understand that you're concerned about "misuse" of prefix and suffix, but that issue is described later in the article, and calling it "colloquial" just because it's an invented word is meaningless (a great many words are "invented"). Would you qualify "telephone" as "colloquial" as well? Sorry, unless you can find a citation saying that this is a colloquial term, I'm reverting your change. bikeable (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It is colloquial, because the word does not make any sense on its own merit other than the special meaning recently assigned to it. The word 'telephone' is not a good example to defend the acceptability of 'homophobia'; neither the prefix nor the suffix in the former are deliberately distorted in its meaning. The prefix 'homo' in the word refers to homosexual; standing alone, it does not refer to homosexual --as you know. None of this is analagous to the word 'telephone'. Further, I did not say it is an 'invented' word; rather, I said it is an 'advented' word, meaning it is 'introduced' to the language,and thus has linguistic currency. But it is simply not a word; it is an colloquial utterance. Our is a language that depends upon the meanings of the prefixes and suffixes in order to understand the concepts they represnt, now and historically. This word smashes this paradigm and thus is not a word. This is why it is colloquial; and this is why you cannot say it is not. I am as gay as Judy Garland on a swing in the Spring singing show tunes, so let's not be dishonest about this. 71.247.240.214 22:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, by this twisted logic, the word 'homosapian' can mean "thinking homosexual;" 'homogeneous' can mean genetically homosexually; a 'homophone' is now telephone for homosexuals; and perhaps homicide means the killing of homosexuals... This is why it is colloquial, because intellectually, the 'word' is just a deliberately misleading construct without any merit. See Colloquialism 71.247.240.214 23:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the article you linked to above? A colloquialism is a word not used in formal speech; "homophobia" has been the subject of endless articles in the press and in academia. Perhaps you are misled by a colloquial meaning that, while technically incorrect, is recognizable due to common usage -- but a better example would be, say, "cool" with a colloquial use independent of temperature.
You fall into the same trap as the anonymous author of the section immediately above yours. Etymology is not meaning, and a word isn't colloquial because it doesn't mean what you think it should mean. "Homophobia" has a widely and commonly understood meaning in English speech and writing, it carries meaning, it is a word (and not an "utterance"!). A tremendous number of words in English fall far from their etymologies. It doesn't matter, if the meaning is widely understood. Must a "lady" knead bread? Can a single "cherry" exist? Can a "computer" be a human being? Words work because people understand them, not because they are formed by algebraic formation from prefixes and suffixes.
Finally, your examples fall into precisely the same trap. Yes, "homophone" could mean "telephone for gays"... if it were used that way by English speakers. It is not, and it does not. Etymology is not meaning. If you can find a reliable source indicating that "homophobia" is "colloquial" because its meaning is somehow "wrong", you may add that. Otherwise, it's simply your pet theory. bikeable (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to interuput this spout of self-righteous, quasi-academic hysteria. I hardly concur with your assertion that the construct in question is formal. For me, it is anything but formal. To me it cannot be formal for it is a hastly constructed utterance, (An utterance!) that is the beacon of a reconstructionist and revisionist special interest agenda. (Yep!) It is colloquial for it is not a word throughout the English-speaking world. It is limited to the States, particularly New York and San Francisco. (Maybe some Europeans are saying it now.) I don't care how many ersatz academicians scream and write and complain that it is a word for a the phenomena. Yes, the utterance does carry meaning. Yes, people are bigoted to gays which is an odious phenomona. But, it is not a word. It is a coined utterance. (Utterance!) Finally, there may be times when etymology is not meaning, but this is the minority. Etymology is meaning, that is why it is etymology. When a word meaning falls from the congnate, it is the exception, not the norm. To make the exception be the norm is dishonest. 71.247.240.214 01:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we will have to agree to disagree, especially since you have tossed out the USA, Europe, and academia as possible sources of information on usage. When you find a reliable source which indicates that the word is an "utterance" and carries only some sort of accidental "colloquial" meaning, feel free to add it. Considering that none of the dictionaries I've seen feel the need for these caveats, I don't think that's likely. bikeable (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The term homophobia is hardly limited to the United States but that point aside you simply are asked to find a reliable source up to WP standards that supports your assertion that homophobia is "coloquially in English." When you do we can all become more informed and the article improved toward that end. Benjiboi 01:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Score this a tragic loss for the non-homosexuals! 71.247.240.214 01:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they'll recover. Benjiboi 01:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
We're keeping score? Interesting perspective on writing an encyclopedia article! bikeable (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, isn't Mr. 71.247.240.214 a gay? He said so himself, didn't he? 67.87.92.56

Yeah I am gay, but i am also not stupid. The Gay Cabal look stupid when they stand behind this silly quasi-word which may have some currency, but whose origins invalidate it. The better word would be fagifobia, queerfobia, homosexualfobia, etc. But, as I said before, it is not a legitimate word. Those that are so vehiment in its defense doth protest too much.

71.247.240.214 16:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

it is not a legitimate word: well, since every dictionary seems to disagree with you on this, I think the situation is clear enough. bikeable (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep — I'm afraid you're fighting a lost philological battle there, 71.247.240.214. Despite its etymological flaws, "homophobia" is here to stay. It's not like it's the only real word whose origins are questionable, either — purists balked at the word "television" when it was coined, because it mixed Latin vision and Greek τῆλε. Mixing Latin and Greek was considered a terrible faux pas (oh, look — "One Latin word, one Greek remark, and one that's French!). The union of the English — yes, "colloquial" — meaning of "homo" with the Greek phobia is no different. The two roots were combined to create a new word which has subsequently gained widespread acceptance and currency, despite its dubious etymology. (In other words, just because one of the roots is colloquial, that doesn't mean that the derived word is.) —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Easy there, Bikeable. By your logic McDonalds food is legitimate food too. Yes, it exists; yes, it serves the purpose it seek; yes, it is successful, but Homophobia, like McDonalds, is the same: "Boobbate for the bubbas." The vocal mob needs need them both. 71.247.240.214 19:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As amusing as all this can be let's stick to the editing of the article. Seems like the result of discussion is to leave out "colloquial" until a reference that is up to WP standards is found. 71.247.240.214, your points are valid and there may be other articles about language or LGBT terms that could use your expertise on the subjects of language use, misuse and abuse. Benjiboi 01:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language proposal at MOS talk

Dear colleagues—You may be interested in contributing to a lively discussion (which I hope will form consensus) here. Tony 14:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

{{cleanup}}

Remove my {{cleanup}} if I'm wrong.70.74.35.53 23:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's completely right on. Benjiboi 23:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Homophobia as ad hominem attack and misnomer

This article is seriously incomplete without including the fact that "homophobia" is commonly used as an ad hominem attack to silence any and all opposition to homosexuality, regardless of how principled the objection. Additionally, in "homophobia's" common use of implying that anyone who objects to homosexuality is necessarily motivated by fear (and an irrational fear at that), renders the term a misnomer. This fact also needs to be included in the article to maintain neutrality.

Opinion has no place in an encyclopedia. The bit you keep putting in is full of weasel words such as "often" and "many," relies on point of view and is supported by a single citation from a biased group not recognized as any kind of reliable, peer reviewed source. The one and only part of bit that would be acceptable is that the word "homophobia" is not referenced in the DSM IV. I would have no problem with a bit, probably in the introductory paragraph, stating that "homophobia" is an informal term and not a recognized psychological disorder.
You said in restoring your text that the Wikipedia is supposed to be balance. That is grossly incorrect: the Wikipedia is supposed to be accurate and provide factual, non point-of-view material. Your text does not meet this standard. TechBear 03:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The scholarly source that is cited for the text reading, : "In 1993, behavioral scientists William O'Donohue and Christine Caselles concluded that the usage of the term "makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality" itself, arguing that both homophobia and homosexuality are social constructions" already seems to sum up what you're trying to say.--Strothra 03:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The scholarly source that is cited for the text reading, : "In 1993, behavioral scientists William O'Donohue and Christine Caselles concluded that the usage of the term "makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality" itself, arguing that both homophobia and homosexuality are social constructions" already seems to sum up what you're trying to say.--Strothra 03:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Substitute "Neutral Point of View" for balanced -- but that's nothing but a semantics argument.
The terms "homophobic" and "homophobia" are commonly* used as nothing more than ad hominem attacks against anyone who opposes homosexuality. This is common knowledge and doesn't require a citation. Nonetheless, I did, in fact, provide TWO citations. The fact that you disagree with the people and organizations cited does not make them unreliable. Those I cited are mental health professionals. By definition, they are experts. Experts disagree. That doesn't necessarily make either side wrong or unreliable. When a word that means "A" is used to mean "B," it is a misnomer. Homophobia means fear of homosexuality. However, it is often** used to designate anyone who opposes homosexuality -- as if the only possible motivation for opposition is fear. That's a misnomer. Accuracy, completeness, and neutrality require that all common usages of a word be discussed, including those which oppose your POV. You are the one who is asserting your POV by continuing to delete valid, accurate, and neutral discussion of the use of "homophobia."
  • I include the word "commonly" (which you probably consider a weasel word) because I allow for the fact that "homophobia" is also used properly, at least on occasion.
    • I include the word "often" (which you probably consider a weasel word) because not every use of "homophobia" is an instance of misnomer.
breadmanpaul 04:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is based on the idea that there is a "proper" use of the word, and that it is "often" used "improperly". But you appear to be confusing etymology with meaning -- meaning is determined not by the components of a word but by usage. The word is used and understood to mean much more than "fear", and is very commonly used to mean "hatred" or in related senses. There is nothing improper about that, and the fact that all dictionary definitions include "hatred" or similar senses, not restricting themselves to "fear", demonstrates that your idea of the "proper" use is simply wrong. Just as xenophobia can encompass hatred or contempt, homophobia includes much more than fear. It is in no way a misnomer. bikeable (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
So you agree then than it is commonly used as an ad hominem attack. Can we get that added back to the top of the article along with the other uses of the word? The lack of mention of the word homophobia in DSM IV has already been acknowledged. That means we only need to work on misnomer.
Every word has proper and improper uses regardless of etymology. I am not confused. Many words have multiple meanings -- many dictionaries list over a hundred definitions for the word "run." However, if you use the "run" when you mean "sit," then you have misused the word "run."
When someone is called homophobic simply because they disagree with or are opposed to homosexuality, the clear implication is that their opposition is necessarily based on fear (or possibly hatred) of homosexuals. Such use doesn't allow for one to oppose homosexuality based on moral, psychological, or medical grounds. In those cases, it is a misnomer. In those cases, the phobic portion of the word is the operative portion and it is used to discount or discredit any principled opposition as being nothing more than fear or hate. That is to say, an intelligent and rational person couldn't and wouldn't oppose homosexuality. Only one who is ruled by fear or hate would do so. That use of the word is a misnomer. Being that essentially everyone who opposes homosexuality regardless of their reasons for doing so are called homophobic, this is a common usage and mention of this should be included in the top of the article.
I've read many definitions of homophobia. They all include the concepts of fear and/or hate. Applying the word to someone who neither fears nor hates homosexuals, but nonetheless opposes homosexual behavior and its legitimization, is a misnomer.
breadmanpaul 05:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
breadmanpaul, you're making an original research-style argument, which is off-topic. Your point of view is probably fairly common though -- maybe you can find an editorial or an article in a mainstream, reliable source like the NYT, WaPo, or WSJ that describes people with a similar point of view. (Note that NARTH is probably not a reliable source.) Fireplace 02:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
NARTH is a group of mental health professionals, who specialize in homosexuality. By Wikipedia's standards, that makes NARTH a reliable source for discussion of terms related to homosexuality -- professionals discussing topics within their speciality. I get the idea that many here do not like NARTH. But that's POV and inappropriate in any discussion on Wikipedia. If you are not a mental health professional (and specifically one specializing in homosexuality) , then you are unqualified to disqualify NARTH as a reliable source. I believe in such cases, we should rely upon Wikipedia's guidelines -- Professionals discussing topics within their speciality.


"...and the fact that all dictionary definitions include "hatred" or similar senses"

Oxford English (11th Edition)

homophobia n noun - an aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals.

DERIVATIVES homophobe noun homophobic adjective

The last time I looked aversion meant "dislike or objection to", not outright hatred. I guess this particular edition of Dictionary must have slipped under the politically correct radar. Homophobia is among that list of words flying around in society today (more so than any other epoch) that stifles and cloaks any disagreement in regards to objection of. Anti-semite belongs in the same category. Don't academics and policy makers just love moving the goalposts as and when it suits them, just like you're trying to do here in a sense. -"Itz dem darn lobby groups" 81.151.107.225 00:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

My additions to this article have been removed due to their containing weasel words. But I've noticed that the article is rife with weasel words.

  • From first paragraph: ... sexual behavior, or cultures, and is GENERALLY used to insinuate....
  • From second paragraph: SOME believe any usage of homophobia is....
  • From section 1.1: The word homophobia was RARELY used early....
  • From section 1.1: A POSSIBLE etymological precursor was homoerotophobia....
  • From section 1.2: ... been proposed as alternatives that are MORE morphologically parallel....
  • From section 1.2: SOME recent psychological literature suggested the term....
  • From section 1.2: The term homophobia is OFTEN used collectively with other....

And that's just the first few. So, let's be consistent. Either remove all text, which contains weasel words, or stop deleting my additions because I used the words "often" and "some."

--breadmanpaul 02:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

TechBear, will you be deleting all of the text in the article that contains weasel words? You understand, of course, that if you do so, there will hardly be anything left to the article. Right? --breadmanpaul 07:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

DSM IV and absence of Homophobia

Discussion here shows agreement that article should include the absence of homophobia in DSM IV. This article is a discussion of the word "homophobia" and it uses. It is noteworthy that the APA doesn't include any reference to homophobia. The word does not appear in DSM IV at all. This is not a discussion of whether or not people agree or disagree with the APA.

breadmanpaul 03:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Strothra, thank you for rewording my addition regarding the APA. You made it clearer that the APA doesn't recognize homophobia as a disorder or fear. I did, however, add back that the word "homophobia" doesn't appear in DSM IV. Because this article not only attempts to define homophobia, but also includes much information about its use, I believe that fact that DSM IV doesn't use the word is highly relevant. breadmanpaul 04:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually just edited it again as a compromise. It's pretty much a given that if the APA doesn't recognize it then it's not listed in DSM IV. I put it directly in the lead describing it as a "non-scientific word" which I think is appropriate as some might assume that since it has the "phobia" suffix that it is a legitimate disorder. --Strothra 04:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Strothra, I don't see any mention of APA, DSM IV, or "non-scientific word" anywhere in the article. Am I missing something? As of this moment, no one has edited the article after you.
The first sentence now reads. "Homophobia (from Greek ὁμο homo(sexual), "same, equal" + φοβία (phobia), "fear", literally "fear of the same") is a non-scientific term[3] used to describe the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."--Strothra 04:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the obvious to me. Sometimes I need that. However, I would like to see a clearer statement made that the APA specifically doesn't recognize homophobia and that it doesn't even include the word in DSM IV. I believe this is important because this is a controversial word. There is plenty in the article discussing where and by whom the word is accepted and used, but essentially nothing about where it is not accepted or used. To say that, for example, physicists don't use or officially recognize the word would be irrelevant -- I'm sure you agree. However, because the word, at the very least, alludes to mental health (phobia), I believe it is very important that the APA doesn't officially recognize the word and that it's not included anywhere in DSM IV, even in the discussion of other disorders. That fact can be verified by doing a search for homophobia at the link I provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breadmanpaul (talkcontribs) 04:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[Outdent] This is a complicated issue that's not reducible to a DSM search. Breadmanpaul is correct that the DSM-IV (and, I assume, the ICD-10) does not classify homophobia as a mental disorder, but homophobia is a term widely used by mental health professionals and academics, and the phenomena of homophobia and internalized homophobia are discussed in a broad range of academic journals (often mental health journals -- see Google Scholar results here). Further, some mainstream mental health professionals advocate classifying certain cases of homophobia as mental disorders (see WaPo story here). An accurate description of the academic/mental health view of homophobia will take some work. Fireplace 05:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree and is why I prefer the usage of the "non-scientific" qualifier. I'm not going to make anymore edits after my last one though. I haven't been keeping track of whether or not some of my edits have been partial reverts due to seeking a compromise or what. --Strothra 11:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone then tell me what's wrong with, "...is a non-scientific term[3], and is not mentioned in DSM-IV[4]" and "It is generally used to insinuate bigotry[7], which is an ad hominem attack"? It's almost as if someone is afraid the truth will get out. Saying it's non-scientific alludes to the fact that it's not in DSM-IV, without actually saying so. What's the problem with being forthright about it? Saying, "It is generally used to insinuate bigotry," alludes to the fact that homophobia is used as an ad hominem attack. What's the problem with coming right out and saying it? Why would either of these be considered vandalism? breadmanpaul 13:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You continue to make the accusation that use of the word "homophobia" constitutes an ad hominem attack. That is opinion, not fact. The fact, as others have pointed out at length, is that the word is in common use by a great many people to describe an all too common reaction of fear and bigotry against people who are or are perceived to be gay. Such useage is well documented in a large variety of places, with currently 55 references provided to back up such useage. Your opinion to the contrary does not meet the encyclopedic standards to which Wikipedia aspires. TechBear 13:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, by definition of the term ad hominem, the usage of "homophobia" when used in the context that breadmanpaul provides, would in fact (not opinion) be an ad hominem attack. However, that is only one part of the usage and thus should not be placed in the lead. The lead as it stands now, is factually correct. --Strothra 21:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the lead is factually correct as it stands. However, it's both incomplete and biased. By only including mention and discussion of those uses which fit a particular point of view (only uses for which the speaker is correct in characterizing someone as being fearful or hateful), and not including other uses (such as when the speaker uses homophobia to silence all opposition no matter how studied or principled), the article becomes nothing more than a platform for a particular point of view.
The lead alludes to the fact that homophobia is not included in DSM-IV by stating that it's non-scientific. Why not come right out and say it's not in DSM-IV? Is this a fact that we are afraid of?
The lead alludes to the fact that homophobia is used as an ad hominem attack by stating that it "is generally used to insinuate prejudice." Why not come right out and admit that homophobia is (at least on occasion) used in this manner? I have never contented that the ad hominem use of homophobia is the only use. Rather, I've been trying to bring balance (read: NPOV) to the article. Why do I run into so much opposition in this effort? NPOV is supposed to be one of the guiding principles of Wikipedia.

breadmanpaul 22:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The point of the lead is to summarize the article as concisely as possible. Again, the extra information is simply redundant (thus in no way violating WP:NPOV) and a sign of poor writing. --Strothra 05:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
But if the article and lead only discuss the uses of homophobia which conform to one particular POV to the exclusion of all others, and intentionally and deliberately exclude other common uses of the word, then it's biased. That's what bias means. An example of bias the article and lead in question. --breadmanpaul 06:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The lead isn't to address every possible usage of the term - just the correct form and perhaps to state that there are multiple usages. Alternate usages of the term are addressed in the body of the article where they are given more detail. Adding the few additional words about DSM doesn't address other usages anyway - it's just reiteration of the fact that it's a non-scientific term. Further, you are calling it a common usage, but you have to actually prove that. You can't simply put alternate usages of the term into the article without proper citations and you certainly can't call it common without reliable sources that indicate that position. --Strothra 06:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, homophobia is used as it is described in the lead. No question about it. However, it is also used as an ad hominem attack to silence any opposition to homosexuality, regardless of how studied or principled that opposition may be, implying that the only possible opposition to homosexuality is fear or hate or both[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. What is the problem with including all of the common uses of homophobia in the lead and article? Isn't that the purpose of the article? --breadmanpaul 06:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
What is your motivation for not wanting people to know that homophobia is not mentioned in DSM-IV? You acknowledge that it's a non-scientific word. Why not include a reference, which substantiates that claim? How do you know it's not scientific? Well, it's not included in DSM-IV. That's how. --breadmanpaul 06:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Right, and DSM is linked as its reference. Again, the point of WP:LEAD is brevity in describing the article that follows. Again, alternate usages of the term may be expanded upon in the article body with proper citations from reliable sources as is consistent with all other Wiki articles. Please note that Wiki is not a soapbox and does not give undue weight to particular points of view. The lead does exactly what is supposed to do in its current form - to lay out the correct usage of the term and describe the article that follows. If you add more information about alternate usages to the body, you can adjust the lead to state that there are alternate usages. If you need other examples of non-scientific phobia articles, see Xenophobia, Chemophobia, or Christianophobia. --Strothra 06:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Also note that you will have to provide better sources than NARTH for such alternate usages. Scientists with political agendas are the worst kind. The reason NARTH is such a bad source is because it views itself as "rehabilitating" homosexuals, ie fixing them, thus assuming that homosexuality is a disorder. However, this is contrary to the opinion of the APA which removed homosexuality from the DSM. By their own position statement, they are explicitly against the prevailing conclusions made by the APA in regard to homosexuality. For you to cite NARTH is for you to contradict yourself. --Strothra 06:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, the article already mentions the same alternate usage you are trying to put into the article: "In 1993, behavioral scientists William O'Donohue and Christine Caselles concluded that the usage of the term "makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality" itself, arguing that both homophobia and homosexuality are social constructions." That conclusion is made by a scholarly study published in a respected journal. --Strothra 07:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
What you have done is lend support for the fact that the ad hominem use of homophobia is accepted and understood. That being the case, mention of it should be included in the lead. That's the purpose of the lead. --breadmanpaul 07:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I concede that the existing link provided after "non-scientific" is sufficient to cover the mention of DSM-IV.

We've been around the NARTH mountain several times. NARTH is composed of mental health professionals who specialize in the study of homosexuality. By WP standards, that makes NARTH a reliable source regarding the use of the term homophobia -- experts discussing subjects within the area of their expertise. Whether you agree with NARTH or not is irrelevant. Experts disagree. This is a controversial topic. You should expect disagreement. That doesn't mean one side is right and the other wrong. The fact is, many people (not just falsely marginalized mental health professionals) understand homophobia to be ad hominem (see references below). In fact, that belief is so common that references should not be required to establish it. The fact that any mental health professional mentions it is not even required to establish the fact that homophobia is commonly used and understood to be ad homimen.

From WP:LEAD "... and briefly describing its notable controversies,..." and "The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts." and "... up to four paragraphs,...." Can you argue that the use of homophobia as an ad hominem attack is not a "notable controversy"? Read back through the discussion (not just since I joined the fray, although that's certainly enough), and note that this topic has been raised before.

A word is defined by how it is used and what it is understood to mean. Here are fourteen references, which demonstrate that homophobia is understood to be an ad hominem attack. Some of the references require a little reading and it's helpful to do a search for "homo" or "ad hom" or both (though separately) on the referenced web pages. Again, I'm not saying this is the only use of the word. But it certainly is a common use and understanding. Some of the references below are from mental health professionals, others are simply examples of people describing their understanding of the word to be ad hominem. If the word is commonly used as or is understood to be an ad hominem, it is irrelevant whether such use and understanding is in conflict with other uses of the word. The lead should contain reference to all common uses and understandings of the word. And according to WP:Lead, if such use is a notable controversy, then it should be in the lead.

http://www.lyberty.com/dict/homophobia.htm http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.htm http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002237.html http://music.propeller.com/story/2007/08/17/kanye-west-speaks-about-bieng-homophobic http://mandmandmandm.blogspot.com/2007/09/bigotry-is-tolerance-homophobia-as.html http://gmroper.mu.nu/archives/171534.php http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2005/02/homophobia-is-offensive.html http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1988/07/07-07-88tdc/07-07-88dops-column-01.asp http://www.r8ny.com/blog/brooklyn_fats/gatemouth_still_vito_s_useful_idiot_a_parody.html feed://www.duomo.ac.nz/acnz/?feed=rss2&p=595 http://expost.blogspot.com/2005/04/ad-hominem-attacks.html http://www.kurumi.com/opinion/surgery.html http://www.beliefnet.com/story/49/story_4906_1.html http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia --breadmanpaul 07:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A list of websites, which demonstrate the prevailing attitude that all opposition to homosexuality is homophobic -- no allowance for studied or principled objection.

Not once is it acknowledged that someone may have a studied or principled objection to homosexuality -- any opposition to homosexuality is "homophobic." http://www.bidstrup.com/phobia.htm

Anyone with principled objection to homosexuality is a homophobe. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=homophobe

Homophobia being described as ad hominem (though that term is not used specifically). http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=homophobia

No acknowledgment of any possibly studied or principled objection to homosexuality. http://www.adl.org/hate-patrol/homophobia.asp

Quiz labels test taker as homophobic even for principled disagreement http://www.blogthings.com/areyouhomophobicquiz/outcome.php

Everyone who opposes homosexuality is necessarily homophobic. This is a list of supposed "hate" groups. http://www.bibble.org/gay/phobia/hate_groups.html

No such thing as studied or principled objection http://www.bibble.org/gay/phobia/debunked.html

No such thing as studied or principled objection http://www.bibble.org/gay/phobia/roots_of_homophobia.html

Any opposition to homosexuality is homophobic http://www.xyonline.net/misc/homophobia.html

--breadmanpaul 08:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You cannot insert that it is an ad hominem attack by saying "hey, look how it's used in all these sources." That is your own original conclusion based upon your reading. See WP:NOR. This is not the forum to debate Wiki policy - you can't overturn it here. If you have a problem with it, go to the policy page and discuss it on the talk page to try and change it. Once again, your point is already expressed in the article using the citation of a notable source. With that being said, if it is a "notable controversy," you adjust the lead to state that there are controversies over its definition and expand upon that in the body text. The lead is not the place for such details as I have pointed out before. --Strothra 12:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The word homophobia is used as an admominen attack. First you say it's just my opinion, my POV. Then, when I demonstrate by multiple sources, that it's a common use and understanding, you say it's based on personal research. In other words, it violates your POV and that's final. That fact has been demonstrated three different ways. 1) by three notable sources (mental health professionals) that say essentially the same thing -- homophobia is used as an ad hominem attack, and 2) multiple sources of ordinary people saying that's what they understand the word to mean, and 3) multiple sources of the word's being used in an all inclusive way (all objection, no matter how principled or studied is homophobia). And that's the proof that homophobia is commonly used and understood to be an adhominem attack. What more do you want? What more could you possibly ask for? What it comes down to is that it's a violation of your POV. --breadmanpaul 14:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
1) You have not provided a single reliable source that explicitly states that it is an ad hominem attack. 2) That information is already included in the article anyway and using a reliable source. You are arguing over nothing. --Strothra 14:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
1) I have provided two reliable sources (according to WP standards). 2) If it's an argument over nothing, why are you still arguing? You can no longer deny that the ad hominem use of homophobia is NOT common and well understood. You've run out of objections. Please set your POV aside. --breadmanpaul 14:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
NARTH is not a reliable source. I've stated the policies above that you are violating. You clearly do not have consensus to use the article as your soapbox. --Strothra 14:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
So you object to NARTH, but not the other professional source. So, there's one. Regarding NARTH, the only objection you have to NARTH is that NARTH disagrees with your POV. That's not a valid reason for objection. My soapbox. The trouble is, I don't have one. All I've been doing trying to bring balance (NPOV) to this article. --breadmanpaul 15:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall you giving another "professional" source. My objection to NARTH is that, due to its own explicit statements, it is against the prevailing consensus of the APA. For you to advocate is usage is to contradict yourself. You keep preaching about my POV - I am not a regular editor of this article nor do I regularly edit any article. My edits are predominately focused on issues of Wiki policy in order to assure they are adhered to. For about the 10th time now, the information you seek to include in the article is already in the article. --Strothra 15:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[out dent] Experts disagree. You objection to NARTH is based an a logical fallacy. Was Columbus wrong when he said the world was flat when everyone knew it was flat? Was Galileo wrong when he said the earth revolved around the sun when everybody knew the sun revolved around the earth? A gays wrong because they are a minority? What I have shown with so many references is that what NARTH says is true -- that homophobia is commonly used and commonly understood to be an ad hominem attack. Like it or not. At best, the ad hominem aspect of the use of homophobia is vaguely alluded to in the article. What's the harm in bringing it out of the closet and talking about it forthrightly? What are you afraid of? --breadmanpaul 17:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientific term?

So, google scholar turns up 33,000 results for "homophobia". A quick scan turns up its use in articles in psychiatric journals, psychological journals, journals of public health, counseling journals, psychoanalytic journals, etc. The word was popularized by George Weinberg, a scientist writing in a scholarly book. Because of all this, I'm not comfortable saying it is a "non-scientific" term. As far as I can tell, the push for "non-scientific" was driven by an editor who wanted to make it clear that it wasn't classified as a mental disorder under the DSM or ICD. But that doesn't make it "non-scientific" (whatever that means). I'd prefer just calling it a "term." Fireplace 17:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we're blurring the terminology here. It's, at best, social psychology, which walks the thin line between science and social science (ie not science). --Cheeser1 18:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
"Social psychology is the scientific study of the way people think about, feel, and behave in social situations." UC Berkeley course description I think that this article should remain neutral on the subject (calling it a "term" rather than "scientific term" or "non-scientific term") rather than get into a debate over the demarcation of science. Fireplace 18:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the "non-scientific" probably followed an intention to point out that it is not a clinical term. I think a better way to say that is that it is not used clinically or medically; or, rather, that the vast majority of uses of the term use it in a non-clinical sense, that it is not a "phobia" in a DSM-IV sense. I'd be perfectly comfortable with such a clarification, although I doubt it needs to be in the first couple of sentences. bikeable (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, it's scientific enough to be taught in college science classrooms. нмŵוτнτ 22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
What college science classrooms teach "homophobia"? 88.97.18.12 08:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a subject that comes up in sociology, psychology, and other subjects. --Cheeser1 17:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It's been casually skimmed in Sociology classes, but there's an entire chapter on it in my Psychology class: "Human Behavioral Problems: Sexuality", specifically. нмŵוτнτ 18:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

44% of Americans are homophobic

44% of Americans think that "homosexuality should be discouraged by society". That's 42% of Democrats and 46% of political independents. Revolutionaryluddite 02:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the article mention this? Revolutionaryluddite 02:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This article defines homophobia as "disapproval of... homosexual behavior or cultures"; aren't reports about how many people believe this way relevent? Revolutionaryluddite 02:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Disapproval of homosexual behavior is not homophobia. I checked the source (an online dictionary) and it said "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." Under this definition 44% of Americans are not homophobic. The definition used by this article needs to be changed to reflect the source it uses. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Section Break

I just erased this: Homophobia in men is correlated with insecurity about masculinity. What a croc. As if this article is not biased enough. That claim is based on 1 study (I left the footnote, #12) of undergraduates at Cornell University. That hardly qualifies as a scientific conclusion. That article is basically a blurb and to take it and run with it in the introduction of what is supposed to be an encyclopedia is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonehawkmilleneum (talkcontribs) 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't belong in the lede. Moving it to a more appropriate section would have been a better response, so I put it under "Fear of being identified as gay". bikeable (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you bikeable, the location and wording of the sentence are acceptable to me now.Stonehawkmilleneum (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there have been many studies done showing that homophobia in men positively correlates with their attraction to other men. It's based on the reaction formation hypothesis, and it's not necessarily that they "fear being identified as gay", but, rather, that they don't realize that they are homosexual themselves. It's all subconscious, actually. нмŵוτнτ 22:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a bit presumptuous to say "It's all subconscious". There are certainly cases where closeted men consciously behave homophobically in order to not attract attention to themselves. Newtman (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, ok. You mean homophobia in some men, right. Surely you are not implying that all hetero men that are opposed to homosexuality are gay. If you are, you are sadly misinformed.Stonehawkmilleneum (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. It's probably just as likely to be caused by misinformation, ignorance, and bigotry. Newtman (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to follow the rules and not discuss homophobia here so I will leave it by saying that there are also other causes besides the ones you just mentioned.Stonehawkmilleneum (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying that this is all cases, and I meant that in those certain cases it's subconscious. There have been many studies done observing homophobic men in comparison to non-homophobic men, and the one's who were homophobic, as a group (not all, by any means), were more aroused by other men than the non-homophobic group. The homophobic men were not aware of this, however, as it's unethical in psychology to inform them. These are not my opinions. I'm simply summarizing scientific studies and research. нмŵוτнτ 18:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual agenda, Persecution complex and Political correctness

I've added some internal links in the session "See also", and they are being systematically removed by some editors, under the allegation of being "vandalism". I'd like to know why these links cannot stay there, since they are really related to the topic "Homophobia" (even more than some that are mantained there). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.97.228.41 (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned on your talk page, it's clear to at least 3 editors so far that your links have no relevance to the article at hand, and your edits bear an amazing resemblance to the common pattern of vandalism exhibiting against gay related pages. You've made the same edits 3 times without attempting to contact the editors who reverted them. If you believe your links are truly related to this article, please use talk to explain your reasoning. Newtman (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Briefly, here are some reasons: 1) The concept of "homophobia" is related to Homosexual agenda, because, according to many observers, the culture of victimization and repression of every disent, promoted by the gay movement, is part of that agenda. 2) The persecution complex that queer people and groups often demonstrate is also related, for the reasons mentioned. 3) Political correctness is obviously related to the notion of "homophobia", due to the concerns about "not offending" some people, and things like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.97.228.41 (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The first problem I see is that this article is about the term homophobia, not about accusations of homophobia, or the use of the term in our modern culture, except for some very clinical definitions. Btw, the irony of you complaining about allegedly POV editor behavior with an POV response ( the culture of victimization and repression of every disent, promoted by the gay movement.. ), is not lost on me. Newtman (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, they are vandalism when you (an anonymous IP) keep adding them back into the article without discussion. As for your "explanation" - it's nonsense. Point (1) is conspiracy theory speculation, point (2) is clutching at straws even worse than point (1), and point (3) is a very loose association of "homophobia" -> "offensive" -> "politically correct" which leaves way too much to the imagination when you're linking one end to the other directly. I would also ask how you think these links reflect a neutral POV, although I don't expect much of an answer. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. And "Latent homosexuality" and "Gay panic defense", which the controllers of Wikipedia keep in the "See also" section of "Homophobia" article, are a very "neutral" association... And about "conspiracy theories", we can reason that even the so called "homophobia" may be considered as one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.97.228.41 (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The content of this article makes it clear that a link to latent homosexuality is appropriate - the article discusses the fact that homophobia is associated with latent homosexuality. On the other hand, associating anti-gay activity with some "gay persecution complex" is a pretty transparent non-neutral editing. I suggest you come up with a better idea than "this whole article is a fringe theory" - that's not going to get you anywhere. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Protecting inaccuracies

Flat-out, the word Homophobia is means Fear of Man or Mankind or Fear of the Same. People here who are trying to promote it as otherwise are protecting and endorsing the breakdown of the English language.

No matter how many times you undo what I am correcting, my edit will still be the most accurate. You might disagree but, you cannot tell me that I am wrong.

There are words that are used incorrectly regularly. Words like "ain't". It's a contraction. Not a proper word, and not one a person should use in a professional or serious conversation. "Homophobic" quite literally means "fear of man or mankind" or "fear of the same". You can't make the truth go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breilly76 (talkcontribs) 22:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with what the word means, and that it was made up one day to suit a particular meaning. What I have issue with is your edit, "is a made up, non-word, often used incorrectly to describe the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". To have that in the lead paragraph is to promote the point of view that anyone who uses this word is wrong or foolish. Homophobia is used, both popularly and academically, to describe the irrational fear or hatred of homosexuality, and is even described in the Oxford English Dictionary as such - so to claim that the word is used incorrectly would be wrong.
Also your assertion that the word in this context could mean "fear of man" is incorrect. The etymology of the term for the fear or hatred of homosexuality is pointed out in the article, under the heading "Coinage". The use of the term homophobia to mean fear of man is described and analysed with references, however a full explanation is given for the modern usage of the term, when it was first used in this context, and why.
With that in mind, seeing as what you are trying to include in the lead paragraph is already included in the article, the only reason I can see for your edits is to push a particular point of view, and that is why I reverted it (and will again if you continue to add that material without discussion). -- Roleplayer (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually Breilly76, you are wrong, and I can tell you that. Sometimes meanings for words are created out of usage that may not have been the "correct" construction out of parts ("Homo" + "phobia"), but out of common usage have become the established meaning and that established meaning is reflected in dictionaries of the English language such as OED, Merriam-Webster, or American Heritage. Some of these words are euphemisms, some are just goofy things (like "near miss" when what they mean is "near hit").
Did you check the dictionary? Any dictionary? Why should your (perhaps more etymologically correct) definition be preferred over the dictionary definition that reflects the common use and meaning of the word? 207.190.198.130 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
"Homophobia" may look like homo+phobia = fear of man, but we don't speak Greek, we speak English, and it's actually a concatenation of HOMOSEXUAL and PHOBIA. Why they don't call it homosexualphobia has actually been a point of interest in academic literature regarding the matter, but you can't possibly argue that the correct English definition of the word should be superseded by a sophomoric breakdown of the word into two Greek roots that may or may not comprise its literal definition. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.lyberty.com/dict/homophobia.htm
  2. ^ http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html
  3. ^ http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002237.html
  4. ^ http://music.propeller.com/story/2007/08/17/kanye-west-speaks-about-bieng-homophobic
  5. ^ http://mandmandmandm.blogspot.com/2007/09/bigotry-is-tolerance-homophobia-as.html
  6. ^ http://gmroper.mu.nu/archives/171534.php
  7. ^ http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2005/02/homophobia-is-offensive.html
  8. ^ http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1988/07/07-07-88tdc/07-07-88dops-column-01.asp
  9. ^ http://www.r8ny.com/blog/brooklyn_fats/gatemouth_still_vito_s_useful_idiot_a_parody.html
  10. ^ feed://www.duomo.ac.nz/acnz/?feed=rss2&p=595
  11. ^ http://expost.blogspot.com/2005/04/ad-hominem-attacks.html
  12. ^ http://www.kurumi.com/opinion/surgery.html
  13. ^ http://www.beliefnet.com/story/49/story_4906_1.html
  14. ^ http://www.conservapedia.com/Homophobia