This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Apart from being completely unsourced, this entire paragraph is clumsily worded and doesn't really add anything useful; if any of it can be sourced, I'd suggest it belongs in the section below, not its own section - even the title was misleading. Black Kite ( talk) 21:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
To start off, I once spoke to a female rape victim who'd developed a scornful attitude towards all men (including me.) I stifled my instinctive anger at her harsh words, but after hearing of her rapist's unspeakable actions, I had nothing but sympathy and understanding for her.
Well, on topic, I also once knew a self-confessed “homophobic” for so many years; I discovered he had been sexually assaulted by a homosexual male (in a public toilet facility) when he was 17 years old. Additionally, his fear was so potent that he confessed to urinating himself during film outings, so no one would question his reluctance to use the male bathroom.
In my experience, most "opposers" I encounter regarding this subject (that is, those who classify homophobes as uneducated or hateful) never consider such possibilities. It doesn’t even really have a place in this article, but perhaps someone could locate and insert an appropriate reference elaborating on this sort of occurrence.
Note: Please don't ask for any "details" on the assaults out of morbid curiosity. Frankly, I've had to deal with enough judgemental, heartless, pathologically critical responses from others already when discussing the behaviour of rape victims. Thank you.
LLLookAtYouHacker ( talk) 06:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
This is not an article about heterophobia. If such a thing exists, then it needs its own article. Adding inadequately-sourced content to this article will not help readers understand the topic of Homophobia, at least in my estimation. - Mr X 23:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Many people within the homosexual community have claimed that Heterophobia itself is detrimental to their cause [1]
Per suggestion somewhere, I have used the content from this article to create a draft page at User:TheRedPenOfDoom/sandbox/heterophobia for consideration to move to article space. I will leave it up for a week or so for anyone who wishes to craft and expand into a potential stand alone article. Anyone should feel free to edit.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
So... this draft article has been sitting in stasis for a couple of months now and I just remembered that was the case. I'm still inclined to think there is a reasonably strong consensus for a standalone article, as opposed to a redirect to Homophobia. Have I misread this?
I'm also inclined to think that we should just ask for it to be moved to Heterophobia (currently a fully-protected title), semi-protect that article and add a link to Homophobia's See also section. The draft certainly needs more work but I don't think that will happen (based on the current work-rate) in userspace. Straw poll? Stalwart 111 07:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
As a gay man who has experienced homophobic abuse on a number of occasions ranging from verbal tattacks to physical assault, I have had plenty of time to ponder on what exactly the word "homophobia" means. I would like to add to the current description that homophobia is an illogical, irrational and UNEXAMINED prejudice individuals are CONDITIONED into accepting by social, cultural and/or religious influences.
For me it is a key point that homophobia is never truly, rationally examined and the question of how and from where these ideas have come is important. Is it possible to add any of these ideas to the Wikipedia definition? Chidambarstef ( talk) 17:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Chidambarstef
"The official teaching of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality, with which, however, many Catholics disagree, is that same-sex behavior should not be expressed."
This statement is very biased as it is written based on research done on the American (USA) Catholics. For example, in Poland, according to the recent research, over 90% of people don't support gay marriages, civil unions, adoption or even gay pride parades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.238.10.81 ( talk) 17:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The teaching of the Catholic Church is more simple. Catholics recognize and love people with same sex attraction but believe that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.160.166.221 ( talk) 15:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
In spite of the definition given in the lead section, which equates the term with "antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred," the body of this article frequently describes the entire spectrum of negative attitudes toward homosexuality, encompassing unprejudiced attitudes that may be coupled with loving and sympathetic sentiments toward homosexual individuals themselves, as if all negativity toward homosexuality qualified as homophobia. Example: "Many world religions contain anti-homosexual teachings..." The placement of statements such as this in an article on homophobia implies that such things are, of themselves, homophobic. This is highly debatable and controversial POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by He who Geezes ( talk • contribs) 01:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The source doesn't confirm that "the term heterophobia was coined by LGBT rights opponents to name reverse discrimination or negative attitudes towards heterosexuals and opposite-sex relationships. A direct ad hoc response to the use of "homophobia", it is an example of anti-LGBT backlash":
In the sexological literature, heterophobia first seems to have appeared in print in the controversial 1990 book by Eichel, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, in which he devoted a chapter to the "new" concept of "heterophobia," although I recall having heard and thought about it in the early 1980s. Eichel defined it similarly to Francoeur’s definition in his Dictionary. In 1996, Noonan referred to the term in his book, Does Anyone Still Remember When Sex Was Fun?, in which he equated it more with the generalized sex-negativity that exists in American society. In that book, he also introduced the concept of internalized heterophobia. In a chapter in a later book, he suggested that homophobia was, in fact, partially enabled and empowered by heterophobia, as noted above, and he argued that a systems approach was needed in sexology to help us elucidate the factors that influence our sexual attitudes and behavior. In late 1998, however, heterophobia appeared for the first time in the title of a book- the first comprehensive treatment of the subject by anyone inside or outside of sexology. In Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism, Daphne Patai tied the concept to what she called the Sexual Harassment Industry (SHI), which was being used, she argued, to separate men and women for often personal or political gain or self-interest.
The term "heterophobia" appeared also in the 1983 book by Joan Murray and Paul R. Abramson Bias in Psychotherapy ("In certain cases it may be appropriate to explore the roots of heterophobia, the irrational fear or hatred of heterosexual people"). IMHO the heterophobia section in this article should be deleted because is based on OR and false claim ("the term heterophobia was coined by LGBT rights opponents..."). GimbusTheGreat ( talk) 13:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the term "Anti-Gay", being used under the blanket of "homophobia". After a dispute with a peer about the topic based on my experiences and what I saw as a divide between the two, one based on fear and misinformation, the latter being most often the result of doctrine, which generally frowns on the concept but rarely involves hatred of a gay individual. I cite the work of Jeff Chu, Christian Gay Author who interviews Westboro Baptist Reverend Fred Phelps, and asserts that the church is not homophobic, rather anti-gay, as their view on the topic is that it is their duty to rebuke gays and their advocates of their sins and save them from hell, which they feel is their god-given duty. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/jeff-chu-gay-westboro-baptist_n_3007845.html
The start of this article says homosexuals are more likely to be victims of hate crime than any other minority but the article on Asexuality says asexuals are more likely to be discriminated against. What to do? 86.41.75.170 ( talk) 23:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The term "hate crime" especially as it used in the common speech refers to hate assault. Discrimination is far broader of a term. Discrimination could refer to refusing to rent a house to someone because of their minority status or refusing to treat them in a hospital. However I do not believe that asexuals are more likely to be discriminated against. I do however believe that Asexual erasure is an issue but that is a whole different concept.- Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 23:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Aless2899 ( talk) 22:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey guys. Reading through these archives a bit and seeing that this comes up now and then. I invite you all (probably to my detriment) to join the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#The_meaning_of_words_and_that_meanings_destruction For my personal opinion I believe both articles are named incorrectly and should be merged or filed under "Discrimination and/or hatred of Homosexuals" and "Heterosexuals" respectively. Peace and love to you all! :) 46.59.34.174 ( talk) 16:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where is the 'Response'? This is clearly a bias page. On the page for 'Gay Agenda' you have a 'Response', and again are clearly bias. This is not balanced or simply fact based reporting. 50.45.147.246 ( talk) 18:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
It shows definite bias to assume the term "Heterophobia" is used only by "LGBT rights opponents". It should be changed to more neutral wording, unless neutrality is no longer a concern Scatach ( talk) 21:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I looked and am not sure which source would be best Scatach ( talk) 18:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Homophobic individuals have been found to have lower academic performance. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3812752 -- Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 19:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Empirical research does not indicate that heterosexuals' antigay attitudes can reasonably be considered a "phobia" in the clinical sense [1]. Heterosexuals who express hostility toward gay men and lesbians do not manifest the physiological reactions to homosexuality that are associated with other phobias [2].Owing to the absence of recognized clinical responses associated with phobias, the use of the term homophobia is generally recognzed by many as a defamatory artifice.
[1] Definitions: Homophobia, Heterosexism, and Sexual Prejudice http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/prej_defn.html
[2] Shields, S. A., & Harriman, R. E. (1984). Fear of male homosexuality: Cardiac responses of low and high homonegative males. Journal of Homosexuality, 10(1/2), 53-67. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.178.150 ( talk) 01:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The lead makes it seem like homophobia is a choice, when it like all phobias are irrational anxiety disorders and should be treated as such 77.97.151.145 ( talk) 23:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I feel there should be a section on persecution and legal repercussions that happen to people who suffer with homophobia, an arachnophobic can say "I hate spiders" a claustrophobic can say "I hate lifts" but someone suffering from homophobia cannot say "I hate gays" without fear of legal consequences. 77.97.151.145 ( talk) 00:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
"Homophobia" is not a phobia, by definition of the term, per DSM. But stating as much causes immediate reversion of the edit, because, well... I'd like to assume good faith but I have too much experience here to do more than pretend it's so for sake of argument and decorum, for now. The text I used was direct from the "hoplophobia" article, edited slightly for context, where apparently it's fine and well and good, but it's not good to say the same thing here. You cannot have it both ways, Wikipedians. And no, simply saying "etymological fallacy" as if that means anything relevant doesn't suffice as an explanation for your reversion. Quote: "The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning." So? If you're admitting it's not a true phobia, thus the "etymological fallacy" notion (it doesn't have to be a phobia even though it says "phobia" in the name), then what's wrong with pointing out that it's not a true phobia? Well, other than wanting to have it both ways: It's not a phobia but we can act like it is one for political purposes, and don't you dare point out that this is factually incorrect even though it's a common mistake and we go out of our way to point it out on the hoplophobia article.
Here is the "offending" text, which is completely factual, acceptable in other contexts as noted, and sourced:
If you want to fit it into the article in some other way than I did or change something minor (like use an appropriate alternate word for "proponent", as I'm not particularly happy with that word myself there - I guess you could say "some proponents" or "some activists")... fine, provided you're not burying it, but the notion that it's not allowed at all because of "original research" (despite the citation and the mention of DSM already in the article supporting this) or "etymological fallacy" (as if pointing out it's not something is equivalent to an argument that it should be that thing) is predicated on falsehood.
An encyclopedia should present facts and dispel common myths, not perpetuate them, let alone prevent myths from being dispelled because the myths are wrong (which is essentially the silly circle which is the "etymological fallacy" revert explanation). -- Glynth ( talk) 21:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
References
Criterion C: "The person recognizes that the fear is excessive or unreasonable. Note: In children, this feature may be absent."
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |authorlink=
(
help)
"The meaning and usage ascribed by proponents of the term..."is argumentative. The term is well-established in common usage, so the idea of there being "proponents" seems to be a fringe point of view or original research.- Mr X 21:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
References
Criterion C: "The person recognizes that the fear is excessive or unreasonable. Note: In children, this feature may be absent."
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |authorlink=
(
help)
@ Alexander Domanda: Despite multiple sources being provided for the existing text, you still insist on changing the origin without providing any sources. Please desist and discuss. -- NeilN talk to me 19:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
See my comments. Go the dictionary and verify yourself (and your colleagues) what I have written. The article as it stands offers NO definition of homo in homophobia. Fear of???? the word means fear of the same from Greek homos and Greek heteros i.e. heterophobia means fear of the opposite.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The definition in the article gives the meaning for 'phobia,' but not of 'homo,' which comes from the Greek word 'homos' (mas.) or homei (fem.) singular which means 'the same.' Homos does not mean sexual as indicated in the article. Homophobia means fear of the same, i.e. of a homosexual, a person of one's own sex, specifically of a person who is perceived to be homosexual by a heterosexual. Hetero means the other in binary sexes. So a heterophobia is fear of the other sex. 'Homo' is not from the Latin word for human being (vir is male and mulier is woman).
It would be nice to see the definition completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Domanda ( talk • contribs)
Do I have sources? yes, English, Greek and Latin dictionaries and a BA and MA in Greek and Latin and an M. Litt. in Classics from Cambridge University. You can go to the dictionary to look up homo-sexual and you will see I am correct.
Then why not explain in the entire matter by writing that homophobia derived from homosexual is short for homosexualphobia. Without the full definition readers who don't know what homos means will not know and m ay confuse it with the Latin homo which is very common. Signed Alexander Domanda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Domanda ( talk • contribs)
The article says that homophobia is the fear & hatred of homosexuals, but also trans folk. I see the sources mentioning that hate for bisexuals or trans folk is sometimes lumped in. This does not mean that definition is right (and I daresay it's wrong). Hatred of transgender people is called transphobia and hatred of bisexuals is called biphobia. There's multiple sources that state the definition is either just towards homosexuals, or, occasionally, toward homosexuals and bisexuals, but I can't find anything right off the bat about homophobia being hatred toward transfolk except through the sources from this wikipedia article. I don't think colloquial usage reflects the wiki definition either. There's: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/prej_defn.html archive.adl.org/hate-patrol/homophobia.html http://www.pride.oneiowa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/1-Sept_Materials.pdf and of course a bunch of dictionaries giving the definition as hatred toward homosexuals and/or homosexuality but I figure literal dictionaries aren't much wanted here based on the top box on the talk page?? (also there's some GLSEN thing from 2002 that gets cited in most of the results that come up on google but I can't find the thing they're citing so I guess that doesn't matter)
So anyway, can I propose the B and the T be removed? Or at least just the T? There's specific Transphobia and Biphobia articles that talk about the hatred toward those groups. Biphobia is at least similar to homophobia but if people are assuming someone is homosexual and acting badly toward them because of this belief (when they're transgender), then that's A hatred of perceived homosexuality/homosexuality. Iridi ( talk) 22:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Could we do this?
Others wikis do. >>
Rational Wiki --
88.104.141.16 (
talk) 18:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Could we please add the
tag to the hetrophobia section?-- 88.104.141.16 ( talk) 18:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Homophobia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs" Please change "sometimes" to "often" given that more often than not discomfort towards homosexuality is caused by religious beliefs. Vy scuti ( talk) 08:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Preferred by whom? :) Talk about NPOV. And why is it okay that "homophobia" does imply extreme and irrational fear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.110.42 ( talk) 12:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Homophobia: Phobia of mankind. Homo:Homus
There are two instances: A) Phobia between man and man (racisms for example) B) Phobia which an animal might have when encountering man.
For homosexuality: fear of parasites (see intestinal parasites, IE: parasitology), very ancient phobia.
Kindly review the term: Homo: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.248.111.106 ( talk) 22:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Phobia means fear, however the scope seems a bit narrow and rather misleading for article titles such as this one. I believe the reason is due to widespread western media usage. However shouldn't wikipedia be more NPOV? If "Discrimination and/or hatred of Homosexuals" is not good enough, shouldn't "Anti-Gay" be more to the point and more appropriate (compare this to "Antisemitism" vs "Jewphobia")? Smk65536 ( talk) 11:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreeing with Smk65536, and given the troll responses below to the (true) statement that homophobia is a political slur, wikipedia's being 'NPOV' and 'good faith' is an absolute joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.143.15 ( talk) 19:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC) The FAQ appears to be duckspeak. The article should be clear that homophobia is a political slur invented to belittle a particular form of bigotry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.72.22 ( talk) 23:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
This seems to differ with the dictionary's definition of the world. It seems as though the definition of homophobia has changed over the years. Anyone who doesn't approve of homosexuality is considered homophobic anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.185.216 ( talk) 20:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Who's "we" and which are the "reliable sources" you are talking about. The term "homophobia" is a neologism and as such it is arbitrary, does not convey the correct meaning and eventually dabbles in irrelevancy. It's is so plain and simple, provided people are clever enough to understand it and open-minded enough to accept it. IMHO, "Homophobia" needs to be changed to something more accurate or else it's hurting the LGBT cause. Just my 2 cents of widsom here, take it or leave it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.60.207 ( talk) 17:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Homophobia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Homophobia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Original text below:
It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.
However, the citations do not mention the view from a specific religion, there exists only an article criticising a religious view point. Also, antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred, irrational fear (or fear at all for that matter), do not enter the mind of, say a general Christian or Jew. I would suggest therefore that this statement be changed as follows:
Homophobia is often rooted in religious beliefs, yet does not necessarily encompass negative emotions as stated above, rather the obeyance to the particular Deity and Law of that religion.
(A citation for this, for example would be: https://answersingenesis.org/family/homosexuality/the-riddle-the-united-nations-and-homosexuality)
Thanks
Test111000 ( talk) 11:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. I don't believe your proposed wording is necessary, as the current wording says the same thing. The current wording does not imply someone who is homophobic solely due to contempt of the practice necessarily has the other negative emotions of antipathy, prejudice, aversion, hatred, fear, or a religious objection, and so the same can be thought of those who are homophobic due to religious beliefs.It is a very necessary edit. Contempt is a mixture of anger and disgust, which are negative emotions alongside the others you have mentioned. Religious objection is left standing on its own, and so will be consumed by the list of negative emotions given. Religious objection is not a negative emotion, nor is it spawned by negative emotions, this needs to be made clear. Of course, there are religions that hold negative emotions towards LGBT, etc. but this can be detailed later in the article. The point is, there needs to be a clear distinction between negative emotions towards LGBT, etc. and religious beliefs surrounding LGBT, etc.
What is more, the sources that define homophobia, are from a range of dictionaries, which are suited to those negative emotions, however, the only source that links to the 'religious belief' is indeed a very weak one. Indeed the author was previously a Dominican friar, the article itself is an opinion column, of what one person believes. This should be removed and replace by credible sources, that are critical and academic, not mere thoughts from one person. Articles like the one I have provided are from organised academics, who are published and in research. These are suitable.
How can I achieve consensus? Surely this comes through these edits, which are justified.
Test111000 ( talk) 13:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Test111000 ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I have the article you linked me to. I still do not see why Answers in Genesis is an unreliable source? It contains all the elements required for a reliable source. It cites various other sources, is written in collaboration, the authors are credible scholars with credentials, it is a peer reviewed work, it is covered by an organisation of scholars (which in turn is a member of a further organisation of accountability). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Test111000 ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Homophobia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).[1][2][3] It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.[4] Unfortunately the term homophobia is often applied by the LGBT community in attempt to nullify claims made against them with little differentiation as to whether the claims are malicious or just differences of opinion. JamesMichaelBrennan ( talk) 03:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Here is a reliable source. A bakery, who hold views that gay marriage is wrong based on their religion, refused to bake a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan. They have been taken to court for discrimination and have been labelled homophobic, amongst other things. In relation to the requested change above, the LGBT have used the term 'homophobia' to nullify the claims made against them, in this case the refusal of the pro-gay marriage cake; the claims were not differentiated as either malicious or differences of opinion; this article seeks to do this differentiation, and the author has outlined how initially he saw it as malicious, but has no resorted to say that it is more about differences of opinion, with the overall aim of the article being to allow these differences of opinion on the grounds of freedom in business, speech, and so on.
Test111000 ( talk) 11:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
This opinion article was written by a supporter of the LGBT, and so a member of their community. The OP has stated that the term homophobic has been used to nullify claims (which is what has happened, according to this article, and according the BBC news coverage of the court case). However, the LGBT community has argued that the claims made against them (not getting the cake) were done maliciously, but the cake company have argued that it is simply that they have a difference of opinion, they hold a religious belief against gay marriage.
What exactly is this sweeping statement you speak of? Why is an opinion article not appropriate, since my other suggested edit below have been dismissed based on an opinion article about religious views on LGBT, etc. There doesn't seem to be much consistency here with your editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Test111000 ( talk • contribs)
I suppose that is fair enough. I will do some more research into the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Test111000 ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, User:The Quixotic Potato found this [1] reference today, thought it might be useful to include some of the findings in this article. SemanticMantis ( talk) 19:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussions on this page are about the article, not the topic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Regarding social homophobia, particularly in "manly" sports, is it possible that instead of those drawn to the sport being more homophobic for social reasons, that homophobes are actually drawn toward the sport by their own suppressed, internalized desires to a situation in which they can (a) demonstrate their heteronormative manliness, while (b) doing it with lots of other men, in an environment that lets them interact physically with those men, and see them naked in the changing room? (Anecdote: I was once at a very LGBT-friendly event where the upstairs bar was booked by a rugby event. Later in the evening, the upstairs bar was opened to all comers. They were absolutely terrified of us, and simply could not stop staring. I've never seen the like.) -- Markshale ( talk) 13:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)|} MisnomerThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. "homophobia" is a misnomer for two reasons. The first part of the word means (from the Latin) 'mankind' and the second part means (again from the Latin) 'fear of'. So the compound means 'fear of mankind' It is therefore completely inappropriate to describe the intended problem 'hatred of homosexuals' Why then is it still used, when it is so obviously wrong? PointOfPresence ( talk) 23:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
DictionaryThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Shouldn't this article address the fact that "homophobia" isn't an actual word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.103.239 ( talk) 05:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is used an umbrella term however, the more accurate terms are biphobia and transphobia. talk Gmwalker ( talk) 21:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Words are arbitrary. Agree or not, homophobia doesn't mean what it means literally. Google recently literally defined the word literal as not literal, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.54.78.138 ( talk) 15:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dictionary definitionThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The article must begin with a dictionary definition to set the discussion on the right foot. There is a massive movement to change the definitions of words, and while sources may support that words are being used differently, until the definition has been changed by the majority of dictionary authorities, we should not allow these movements to summarily change our language for their own purposes. All discussions here should follow the accepted dictionary standards with perhaps acknowledgements of cases where it is being used differently. This article should begin with "Homophobia is defined as: dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people. That said, the term is currently being used to encompass a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people .." This start presents the correct basis and gives the right context for the other ways the term is being used (incorrectly). https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=homophobia -landen99 "I am, therefore I think." Ayn Rand 13:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landen99 ( talk • contribs)
Evil Twin, you are making a statement that is illogical. The definition does in fact matter more than you are pretending. You could say that the changing of the definition is simply a part of language evolution. Gay has changed its meaning at least twice in my own lifetime from happy to homosexual to stupid or generally negative, for example. Homophobia as it is used is not in the denotative sense, but so many words do not mean what they are literally meant to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.54.78.138 ( talk) 15:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "words do not mean what they are literally meant to mean" What tripe. Bowl means...? Car means... errr car? A Phobia is an irrational and persistent fear of something. People do not irrationally fear homosexuals but many find their practise of male on male anal sex absolutely disgusting and always will. They have the right to criticise this as their freedom of speech and expression is what our democracy is founded on. 'Hate the sin not the sinner'. Just because you want to change the meanings of words, doesn't mean that is has changed. Gay still means happy to many. I am sure you will change this with your hate speech against anyone who dares disagree with your right fighting one sided venom but try and understand that others have rights too, otherwise you will never achieve true equality, you will just keep on being treated as ...special....ssshhh, don't upset them, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.144.231 ( talk) 11:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 8 external links on Homophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC) External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 10 external links on Homophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Requested move 9 May 2017
The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW close and nonsensical reasoning given for move. ( non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 5 external links on Homophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC) GaycismI have written about the term "gaycism" in the article, which by many is seen as to replace homphobia. Homophobia is just not a fair or correct description of hatred. People don't fear homosexuals, they hate us. Be my guest to write more to the topic. And we might consider moving the article to gaycism!-- Rævhuld ( talk) 17:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC) @Black Kite ... please stop your vandalism. If a user is oping a discussion, you do not have the right to close it 1 minute after it was opened. Especially not with the lame argument "Or maybe not". And deleting text in the article with the argument "just because of one link" is lame too. I put more links on the subject, does that make you happy? Google the term "gaycism" and you see, it has been discussed in plenty newspapers and used in by many journalists - from the Observer, The Guardian and the Huffington Post.-- Rævhuld ( talk) 17:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Over-citing in ledeAn editor added a citation needed tag to a legitimately uncited section of the lede today. This is understandable as the lede contains a more than average number of references which are duplicated in the body of the article. This is not strictly necessary and as is the case today, editors unfamiliar with lede guidelines come along and tag the bits that look uncited. I've adddd a ref from the body for now and cleaned up using refFill. Maybe we could discuss whether or not to remove some of the lede citations that are duplicated further down. Thoughts? Edaham ( talk) 02:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Homophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC) "Many religions" weasel wordsUnder the "Religious attitudes" section it says that "Many world religions contain anti-homosexual teachings, while other religions have varying degrees of ambivalence". While not necessarily incorrect, it is weasel words. Historically homophobic attitudes seem to be entirely restricted to Abrahamic religions, and on the more detailed homophobia in religion page, little or no historical homophobia is attested in any other world religion. True, in some cases modern teachers endorse homophobic attitudes, which deserves a mention, but it is a rather different kind of thing. In many cases, modern homophobia in Asia has been picked up from Christianity or Islam. I would reword something like: "Teachings against homosexuality featured historically in the Abrahamic religions, but were mostly absent from other world religions. Contemporary teachers have endorsed a wide variety of views." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.172.25.108 ( talk • contribs)
External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Homophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Misplaced ItemsThe last sentence at the top of the page in the 'Homophobia' section of this article should be placed in the 'Opposition to the term homophobia 'part in the 'Criticism of meaning and purpose' section. It should also give the sources for which it says the term homophobia has been criticized by and give more information as to why it is criticized, how it came to be criticized, or any details other than just saying that is has been criticized.-- SheaMcbubble ( talk) 01:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Apart from being completely unsourced, this entire paragraph is clumsily worded and doesn't really add anything useful; if any of it can be sourced, I'd suggest it belongs in the section below, not its own section - even the title was misleading. Black Kite ( talk) 21:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
To start off, I once spoke to a female rape victim who'd developed a scornful attitude towards all men (including me.) I stifled my instinctive anger at her harsh words, but after hearing of her rapist's unspeakable actions, I had nothing but sympathy and understanding for her.
Well, on topic, I also once knew a self-confessed “homophobic” for so many years; I discovered he had been sexually assaulted by a homosexual male (in a public toilet facility) when he was 17 years old. Additionally, his fear was so potent that he confessed to urinating himself during film outings, so no one would question his reluctance to use the male bathroom.
In my experience, most "opposers" I encounter regarding this subject (that is, those who classify homophobes as uneducated or hateful) never consider such possibilities. It doesn’t even really have a place in this article, but perhaps someone could locate and insert an appropriate reference elaborating on this sort of occurrence.
Note: Please don't ask for any "details" on the assaults out of morbid curiosity. Frankly, I've had to deal with enough judgemental, heartless, pathologically critical responses from others already when discussing the behaviour of rape victims. Thank you.
LLLookAtYouHacker ( talk) 06:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
This is not an article about heterophobia. If such a thing exists, then it needs its own article. Adding inadequately-sourced content to this article will not help readers understand the topic of Homophobia, at least in my estimation. - Mr X 23:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Many people within the homosexual community have claimed that Heterophobia itself is detrimental to their cause [1]
Per suggestion somewhere, I have used the content from this article to create a draft page at User:TheRedPenOfDoom/sandbox/heterophobia for consideration to move to article space. I will leave it up for a week or so for anyone who wishes to craft and expand into a potential stand alone article. Anyone should feel free to edit.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
So... this draft article has been sitting in stasis for a couple of months now and I just remembered that was the case. I'm still inclined to think there is a reasonably strong consensus for a standalone article, as opposed to a redirect to Homophobia. Have I misread this?
I'm also inclined to think that we should just ask for it to be moved to Heterophobia (currently a fully-protected title), semi-protect that article and add a link to Homophobia's See also section. The draft certainly needs more work but I don't think that will happen (based on the current work-rate) in userspace. Straw poll? Stalwart 111 07:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
As a gay man who has experienced homophobic abuse on a number of occasions ranging from verbal tattacks to physical assault, I have had plenty of time to ponder on what exactly the word "homophobia" means. I would like to add to the current description that homophobia is an illogical, irrational and UNEXAMINED prejudice individuals are CONDITIONED into accepting by social, cultural and/or religious influences.
For me it is a key point that homophobia is never truly, rationally examined and the question of how and from where these ideas have come is important. Is it possible to add any of these ideas to the Wikipedia definition? Chidambarstef ( talk) 17:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Chidambarstef
"The official teaching of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality, with which, however, many Catholics disagree, is that same-sex behavior should not be expressed."
This statement is very biased as it is written based on research done on the American (USA) Catholics. For example, in Poland, according to the recent research, over 90% of people don't support gay marriages, civil unions, adoption or even gay pride parades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.238.10.81 ( talk) 17:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The teaching of the Catholic Church is more simple. Catholics recognize and love people with same sex attraction but believe that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.160.166.221 ( talk) 15:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
In spite of the definition given in the lead section, which equates the term with "antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred," the body of this article frequently describes the entire spectrum of negative attitudes toward homosexuality, encompassing unprejudiced attitudes that may be coupled with loving and sympathetic sentiments toward homosexual individuals themselves, as if all negativity toward homosexuality qualified as homophobia. Example: "Many world religions contain anti-homosexual teachings..." The placement of statements such as this in an article on homophobia implies that such things are, of themselves, homophobic. This is highly debatable and controversial POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by He who Geezes ( talk • contribs) 01:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The source doesn't confirm that "the term heterophobia was coined by LGBT rights opponents to name reverse discrimination or negative attitudes towards heterosexuals and opposite-sex relationships. A direct ad hoc response to the use of "homophobia", it is an example of anti-LGBT backlash":
In the sexological literature, heterophobia first seems to have appeared in print in the controversial 1990 book by Eichel, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, in which he devoted a chapter to the "new" concept of "heterophobia," although I recall having heard and thought about it in the early 1980s. Eichel defined it similarly to Francoeur’s definition in his Dictionary. In 1996, Noonan referred to the term in his book, Does Anyone Still Remember When Sex Was Fun?, in which he equated it more with the generalized sex-negativity that exists in American society. In that book, he also introduced the concept of internalized heterophobia. In a chapter in a later book, he suggested that homophobia was, in fact, partially enabled and empowered by heterophobia, as noted above, and he argued that a systems approach was needed in sexology to help us elucidate the factors that influence our sexual attitudes and behavior. In late 1998, however, heterophobia appeared for the first time in the title of a book- the first comprehensive treatment of the subject by anyone inside or outside of sexology. In Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism, Daphne Patai tied the concept to what she called the Sexual Harassment Industry (SHI), which was being used, she argued, to separate men and women for often personal or political gain or self-interest.
The term "heterophobia" appeared also in the 1983 book by Joan Murray and Paul R. Abramson Bias in Psychotherapy ("In certain cases it may be appropriate to explore the roots of heterophobia, the irrational fear or hatred of heterosexual people"). IMHO the heterophobia section in this article should be deleted because is based on OR and false claim ("the term heterophobia was coined by LGBT rights opponents..."). GimbusTheGreat ( talk) 13:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the term "Anti-Gay", being used under the blanket of "homophobia". After a dispute with a peer about the topic based on my experiences and what I saw as a divide between the two, one based on fear and misinformation, the latter being most often the result of doctrine, which generally frowns on the concept but rarely involves hatred of a gay individual. I cite the work of Jeff Chu, Christian Gay Author who interviews Westboro Baptist Reverend Fred Phelps, and asserts that the church is not homophobic, rather anti-gay, as their view on the topic is that it is their duty to rebuke gays and their advocates of their sins and save them from hell, which they feel is their god-given duty. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/jeff-chu-gay-westboro-baptist_n_3007845.html
The start of this article says homosexuals are more likely to be victims of hate crime than any other minority but the article on Asexuality says asexuals are more likely to be discriminated against. What to do? 86.41.75.170 ( talk) 23:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The term "hate crime" especially as it used in the common speech refers to hate assault. Discrimination is far broader of a term. Discrimination could refer to refusing to rent a house to someone because of their minority status or refusing to treat them in a hospital. However I do not believe that asexuals are more likely to be discriminated against. I do however believe that Asexual erasure is an issue but that is a whole different concept.- Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 23:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Aless2899 ( talk) 22:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey guys. Reading through these archives a bit and seeing that this comes up now and then. I invite you all (probably to my detriment) to join the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#The_meaning_of_words_and_that_meanings_destruction For my personal opinion I believe both articles are named incorrectly and should be merged or filed under "Discrimination and/or hatred of Homosexuals" and "Heterosexuals" respectively. Peace and love to you all! :) 46.59.34.174 ( talk) 16:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where is the 'Response'? This is clearly a bias page. On the page for 'Gay Agenda' you have a 'Response', and again are clearly bias. This is not balanced or simply fact based reporting. 50.45.147.246 ( talk) 18:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
It shows definite bias to assume the term "Heterophobia" is used only by "LGBT rights opponents". It should be changed to more neutral wording, unless neutrality is no longer a concern Scatach ( talk) 21:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I looked and am not sure which source would be best Scatach ( talk) 18:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Homophobic individuals have been found to have lower academic performance. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3812752 -- Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 19:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Empirical research does not indicate that heterosexuals' antigay attitudes can reasonably be considered a "phobia" in the clinical sense [1]. Heterosexuals who express hostility toward gay men and lesbians do not manifest the physiological reactions to homosexuality that are associated with other phobias [2].Owing to the absence of recognized clinical responses associated with phobias, the use of the term homophobia is generally recognzed by many as a defamatory artifice.
[1] Definitions: Homophobia, Heterosexism, and Sexual Prejudice http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/prej_defn.html
[2] Shields, S. A., & Harriman, R. E. (1984). Fear of male homosexuality: Cardiac responses of low and high homonegative males. Journal of Homosexuality, 10(1/2), 53-67. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.178.150 ( talk) 01:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The lead makes it seem like homophobia is a choice, when it like all phobias are irrational anxiety disorders and should be treated as such 77.97.151.145 ( talk) 23:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I feel there should be a section on persecution and legal repercussions that happen to people who suffer with homophobia, an arachnophobic can say "I hate spiders" a claustrophobic can say "I hate lifts" but someone suffering from homophobia cannot say "I hate gays" without fear of legal consequences. 77.97.151.145 ( talk) 00:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
"Homophobia" is not a phobia, by definition of the term, per DSM. But stating as much causes immediate reversion of the edit, because, well... I'd like to assume good faith but I have too much experience here to do more than pretend it's so for sake of argument and decorum, for now. The text I used was direct from the "hoplophobia" article, edited slightly for context, where apparently it's fine and well and good, but it's not good to say the same thing here. You cannot have it both ways, Wikipedians. And no, simply saying "etymological fallacy" as if that means anything relevant doesn't suffice as an explanation for your reversion. Quote: "The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning." So? If you're admitting it's not a true phobia, thus the "etymological fallacy" notion (it doesn't have to be a phobia even though it says "phobia" in the name), then what's wrong with pointing out that it's not a true phobia? Well, other than wanting to have it both ways: It's not a phobia but we can act like it is one for political purposes, and don't you dare point out that this is factually incorrect even though it's a common mistake and we go out of our way to point it out on the hoplophobia article.
Here is the "offending" text, which is completely factual, acceptable in other contexts as noted, and sourced:
If you want to fit it into the article in some other way than I did or change something minor (like use an appropriate alternate word for "proponent", as I'm not particularly happy with that word myself there - I guess you could say "some proponents" or "some activists")... fine, provided you're not burying it, but the notion that it's not allowed at all because of "original research" (despite the citation and the mention of DSM already in the article supporting this) or "etymological fallacy" (as if pointing out it's not something is equivalent to an argument that it should be that thing) is predicated on falsehood.
An encyclopedia should present facts and dispel common myths, not perpetuate them, let alone prevent myths from being dispelled because the myths are wrong (which is essentially the silly circle which is the "etymological fallacy" revert explanation). -- Glynth ( talk) 21:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
References
Criterion C: "The person recognizes that the fear is excessive or unreasonable. Note: In children, this feature may be absent."
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |authorlink=
(
help)
"The meaning and usage ascribed by proponents of the term..."is argumentative. The term is well-established in common usage, so the idea of there being "proponents" seems to be a fringe point of view or original research.- Mr X 21:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
References
Criterion C: "The person recognizes that the fear is excessive or unreasonable. Note: In children, this feature may be absent."
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |authorlink=
(
help)
@ Alexander Domanda: Despite multiple sources being provided for the existing text, you still insist on changing the origin without providing any sources. Please desist and discuss. -- NeilN talk to me 19:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
See my comments. Go the dictionary and verify yourself (and your colleagues) what I have written. The article as it stands offers NO definition of homo in homophobia. Fear of???? the word means fear of the same from Greek homos and Greek heteros i.e. heterophobia means fear of the opposite.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The definition in the article gives the meaning for 'phobia,' but not of 'homo,' which comes from the Greek word 'homos' (mas.) or homei (fem.) singular which means 'the same.' Homos does not mean sexual as indicated in the article. Homophobia means fear of the same, i.e. of a homosexual, a person of one's own sex, specifically of a person who is perceived to be homosexual by a heterosexual. Hetero means the other in binary sexes. So a heterophobia is fear of the other sex. 'Homo' is not from the Latin word for human being (vir is male and mulier is woman).
It would be nice to see the definition completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Domanda ( talk • contribs)
Do I have sources? yes, English, Greek and Latin dictionaries and a BA and MA in Greek and Latin and an M. Litt. in Classics from Cambridge University. You can go to the dictionary to look up homo-sexual and you will see I am correct.
Then why not explain in the entire matter by writing that homophobia derived from homosexual is short for homosexualphobia. Without the full definition readers who don't know what homos means will not know and m ay confuse it with the Latin homo which is very common. Signed Alexander Domanda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Domanda ( talk • contribs)
The article says that homophobia is the fear & hatred of homosexuals, but also trans folk. I see the sources mentioning that hate for bisexuals or trans folk is sometimes lumped in. This does not mean that definition is right (and I daresay it's wrong). Hatred of transgender people is called transphobia and hatred of bisexuals is called biphobia. There's multiple sources that state the definition is either just towards homosexuals, or, occasionally, toward homosexuals and bisexuals, but I can't find anything right off the bat about homophobia being hatred toward transfolk except through the sources from this wikipedia article. I don't think colloquial usage reflects the wiki definition either. There's: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/prej_defn.html archive.adl.org/hate-patrol/homophobia.html http://www.pride.oneiowa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/1-Sept_Materials.pdf and of course a bunch of dictionaries giving the definition as hatred toward homosexuals and/or homosexuality but I figure literal dictionaries aren't much wanted here based on the top box on the talk page?? (also there's some GLSEN thing from 2002 that gets cited in most of the results that come up on google but I can't find the thing they're citing so I guess that doesn't matter)
So anyway, can I propose the B and the T be removed? Or at least just the T? There's specific Transphobia and Biphobia articles that talk about the hatred toward those groups. Biphobia is at least similar to homophobia but if people are assuming someone is homosexual and acting badly toward them because of this belief (when they're transgender), then that's A hatred of perceived homosexuality/homosexuality. Iridi ( talk) 22:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Could we do this?
Others wikis do. >>
Rational Wiki --
88.104.141.16 (
talk) 18:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Could we please add the
tag to the hetrophobia section?-- 88.104.141.16 ( talk) 18:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Homophobia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs" Please change "sometimes" to "often" given that more often than not discomfort towards homosexuality is caused by religious beliefs. Vy scuti ( talk) 08:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Preferred by whom? :) Talk about NPOV. And why is it okay that "homophobia" does imply extreme and irrational fear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.110.42 ( talk) 12:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Homophobia: Phobia of mankind. Homo:Homus
There are two instances: A) Phobia between man and man (racisms for example) B) Phobia which an animal might have when encountering man.
For homosexuality: fear of parasites (see intestinal parasites, IE: parasitology), very ancient phobia.
Kindly review the term: Homo: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.248.111.106 ( talk) 22:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Phobia means fear, however the scope seems a bit narrow and rather misleading for article titles such as this one. I believe the reason is due to widespread western media usage. However shouldn't wikipedia be more NPOV? If "Discrimination and/or hatred of Homosexuals" is not good enough, shouldn't "Anti-Gay" be more to the point and more appropriate (compare this to "Antisemitism" vs "Jewphobia")? Smk65536 ( talk) 11:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreeing with Smk65536, and given the troll responses below to the (true) statement that homophobia is a political slur, wikipedia's being 'NPOV' and 'good faith' is an absolute joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.143.15 ( talk) 19:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC) The FAQ appears to be duckspeak. The article should be clear that homophobia is a political slur invented to belittle a particular form of bigotry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.72.22 ( talk) 23:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
This seems to differ with the dictionary's definition of the world. It seems as though the definition of homophobia has changed over the years. Anyone who doesn't approve of homosexuality is considered homophobic anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.185.216 ( talk) 20:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Who's "we" and which are the "reliable sources" you are talking about. The term "homophobia" is a neologism and as such it is arbitrary, does not convey the correct meaning and eventually dabbles in irrelevancy. It's is so plain and simple, provided people are clever enough to understand it and open-minded enough to accept it. IMHO, "Homophobia" needs to be changed to something more accurate or else it's hurting the LGBT cause. Just my 2 cents of widsom here, take it or leave it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.60.207 ( talk) 17:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Homophobia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Homophobia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Original text below:
It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.
However, the citations do not mention the view from a specific religion, there exists only an article criticising a religious view point. Also, antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred, irrational fear (or fear at all for that matter), do not enter the mind of, say a general Christian or Jew. I would suggest therefore that this statement be changed as follows:
Homophobia is often rooted in religious beliefs, yet does not necessarily encompass negative emotions as stated above, rather the obeyance to the particular Deity and Law of that religion.
(A citation for this, for example would be: https://answersingenesis.org/family/homosexuality/the-riddle-the-united-nations-and-homosexuality)
Thanks
Test111000 ( talk) 11:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. I don't believe your proposed wording is necessary, as the current wording says the same thing. The current wording does not imply someone who is homophobic solely due to contempt of the practice necessarily has the other negative emotions of antipathy, prejudice, aversion, hatred, fear, or a religious objection, and so the same can be thought of those who are homophobic due to religious beliefs.It is a very necessary edit. Contempt is a mixture of anger and disgust, which are negative emotions alongside the others you have mentioned. Religious objection is left standing on its own, and so will be consumed by the list of negative emotions given. Religious objection is not a negative emotion, nor is it spawned by negative emotions, this needs to be made clear. Of course, there are religions that hold negative emotions towards LGBT, etc. but this can be detailed later in the article. The point is, there needs to be a clear distinction between negative emotions towards LGBT, etc. and religious beliefs surrounding LGBT, etc.
What is more, the sources that define homophobia, are from a range of dictionaries, which are suited to those negative emotions, however, the only source that links to the 'religious belief' is indeed a very weak one. Indeed the author was previously a Dominican friar, the article itself is an opinion column, of what one person believes. This should be removed and replace by credible sources, that are critical and academic, not mere thoughts from one person. Articles like the one I have provided are from organised academics, who are published and in research. These are suitable.
How can I achieve consensus? Surely this comes through these edits, which are justified.
Test111000 ( talk) 13:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Test111000 ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I have the article you linked me to. I still do not see why Answers in Genesis is an unreliable source? It contains all the elements required for a reliable source. It cites various other sources, is written in collaboration, the authors are credible scholars with credentials, it is a peer reviewed work, it is covered by an organisation of scholars (which in turn is a member of a further organisation of accountability). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Test111000 ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Homophobia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).[1][2][3] It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.[4] Unfortunately the term homophobia is often applied by the LGBT community in attempt to nullify claims made against them with little differentiation as to whether the claims are malicious or just differences of opinion. JamesMichaelBrennan ( talk) 03:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Here is a reliable source. A bakery, who hold views that gay marriage is wrong based on their religion, refused to bake a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan. They have been taken to court for discrimination and have been labelled homophobic, amongst other things. In relation to the requested change above, the LGBT have used the term 'homophobia' to nullify the claims made against them, in this case the refusal of the pro-gay marriage cake; the claims were not differentiated as either malicious or differences of opinion; this article seeks to do this differentiation, and the author has outlined how initially he saw it as malicious, but has no resorted to say that it is more about differences of opinion, with the overall aim of the article being to allow these differences of opinion on the grounds of freedom in business, speech, and so on.
Test111000 ( talk) 11:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
This opinion article was written by a supporter of the LGBT, and so a member of their community. The OP has stated that the term homophobic has been used to nullify claims (which is what has happened, according to this article, and according the BBC news coverage of the court case). However, the LGBT community has argued that the claims made against them (not getting the cake) were done maliciously, but the cake company have argued that it is simply that they have a difference of opinion, they hold a religious belief against gay marriage.
What exactly is this sweeping statement you speak of? Why is an opinion article not appropriate, since my other suggested edit below have been dismissed based on an opinion article about religious views on LGBT, etc. There doesn't seem to be much consistency here with your editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Test111000 ( talk • contribs)
I suppose that is fair enough. I will do some more research into the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Test111000 ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, User:The Quixotic Potato found this [1] reference today, thought it might be useful to include some of the findings in this article. SemanticMantis ( talk) 19:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussions on this page are about the article, not the topic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Regarding social homophobia, particularly in "manly" sports, is it possible that instead of those drawn to the sport being more homophobic for social reasons, that homophobes are actually drawn toward the sport by their own suppressed, internalized desires to a situation in which they can (a) demonstrate their heteronormative manliness, while (b) doing it with lots of other men, in an environment that lets them interact physically with those men, and see them naked in the changing room? (Anecdote: I was once at a very LGBT-friendly event where the upstairs bar was booked by a rugby event. Later in the evening, the upstairs bar was opened to all comers. They were absolutely terrified of us, and simply could not stop staring. I've never seen the like.) -- Markshale ( talk) 13:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)|} MisnomerThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. "homophobia" is a misnomer for two reasons. The first part of the word means (from the Latin) 'mankind' and the second part means (again from the Latin) 'fear of'. So the compound means 'fear of mankind' It is therefore completely inappropriate to describe the intended problem 'hatred of homosexuals' Why then is it still used, when it is so obviously wrong? PointOfPresence ( talk) 23:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
DictionaryThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Shouldn't this article address the fact that "homophobia" isn't an actual word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.103.239 ( talk) 05:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is used an umbrella term however, the more accurate terms are biphobia and transphobia. talk Gmwalker ( talk) 21:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Words are arbitrary. Agree or not, homophobia doesn't mean what it means literally. Google recently literally defined the word literal as not literal, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.54.78.138 ( talk) 15:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dictionary definitionThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The article must begin with a dictionary definition to set the discussion on the right foot. There is a massive movement to change the definitions of words, and while sources may support that words are being used differently, until the definition has been changed by the majority of dictionary authorities, we should not allow these movements to summarily change our language for their own purposes. All discussions here should follow the accepted dictionary standards with perhaps acknowledgements of cases where it is being used differently. This article should begin with "Homophobia is defined as: dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people. That said, the term is currently being used to encompass a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people .." This start presents the correct basis and gives the right context for the other ways the term is being used (incorrectly). https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=homophobia -landen99 "I am, therefore I think." Ayn Rand 13:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landen99 ( talk • contribs)
Evil Twin, you are making a statement that is illogical. The definition does in fact matter more than you are pretending. You could say that the changing of the definition is simply a part of language evolution. Gay has changed its meaning at least twice in my own lifetime from happy to homosexual to stupid or generally negative, for example. Homophobia as it is used is not in the denotative sense, but so many words do not mean what they are literally meant to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.54.78.138 ( talk) 15:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "words do not mean what they are literally meant to mean" What tripe. Bowl means...? Car means... errr car? A Phobia is an irrational and persistent fear of something. People do not irrationally fear homosexuals but many find their practise of male on male anal sex absolutely disgusting and always will. They have the right to criticise this as their freedom of speech and expression is what our democracy is founded on. 'Hate the sin not the sinner'. Just because you want to change the meanings of words, doesn't mean that is has changed. Gay still means happy to many. I am sure you will change this with your hate speech against anyone who dares disagree with your right fighting one sided venom but try and understand that others have rights too, otherwise you will never achieve true equality, you will just keep on being treated as ...special....ssshhh, don't upset them, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.144.231 ( talk) 11:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 8 external links on Homophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC) External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 10 external links on Homophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Requested move 9 May 2017
The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW close and nonsensical reasoning given for move. ( non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 5 external links on Homophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC) GaycismI have written about the term "gaycism" in the article, which by many is seen as to replace homphobia. Homophobia is just not a fair or correct description of hatred. People don't fear homosexuals, they hate us. Be my guest to write more to the topic. And we might consider moving the article to gaycism!-- Rævhuld ( talk) 17:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC) @Black Kite ... please stop your vandalism. If a user is oping a discussion, you do not have the right to close it 1 minute after it was opened. Especially not with the lame argument "Or maybe not". And deleting text in the article with the argument "just because of one link" is lame too. I put more links on the subject, does that make you happy? Google the term "gaycism" and you see, it has been discussed in plenty newspapers and used in by many journalists - from the Observer, The Guardian and the Huffington Post.-- Rævhuld ( talk) 17:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Over-citing in ledeAn editor added a citation needed tag to a legitimately uncited section of the lede today. This is understandable as the lede contains a more than average number of references which are duplicated in the body of the article. This is not strictly necessary and as is the case today, editors unfamiliar with lede guidelines come along and tag the bits that look uncited. I've adddd a ref from the body for now and cleaned up using refFill. Maybe we could discuss whether or not to remove some of the lede citations that are duplicated further down. Thoughts? Edaham ( talk) 02:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Homophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC) "Many religions" weasel wordsUnder the "Religious attitudes" section it says that "Many world religions contain anti-homosexual teachings, while other religions have varying degrees of ambivalence". While not necessarily incorrect, it is weasel words. Historically homophobic attitudes seem to be entirely restricted to Abrahamic religions, and on the more detailed homophobia in religion page, little or no historical homophobia is attested in any other world religion. True, in some cases modern teachers endorse homophobic attitudes, which deserves a mention, but it is a rather different kind of thing. In many cases, modern homophobia in Asia has been picked up from Christianity or Islam. I would reword something like: "Teachings against homosexuality featured historically in the Abrahamic religions, but were mostly absent from other world religions. Contemporary teachers have endorsed a wide variety of views." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.172.25.108 ( talk • contribs)
External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Homophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Misplaced ItemsThe last sentence at the top of the page in the 'Homophobia' section of this article should be placed in the 'Opposition to the term homophobia 'part in the 'Criticism of meaning and purpose' section. It should also give the sources for which it says the term homophobia has been criticized by and give more information as to why it is criticized, how it came to be criticized, or any details other than just saying that is has been criticized.-- SheaMcbubble ( talk) 01:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
|