Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:36, 4 September 2008

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Homophobia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Homophobia at the Reference desk.

See Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-24 Homophobia for mediation.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Discrimination This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Word origin

It says here that "Homo" is of Greek origin, and means "Same". That would mean that entire word means "fear (hate) of the same" which is silly. As much as I know, unlike the "homo" from the "homosexuality", this "homo" has Roman origin, and means human. As in "Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto" (I'm human: Nothing that is human is strange to me) and this statement, of excepting all kinds of human behaviors, in fact is complete opposition of homophobia where a person is judging others for their behaviors. Then, "homophobia" would actually be "Fear (hate) of human (behaviors, opinions, actions, states)" which would make more sense with how is popularly being used. As in homosexuals are just as much humans as anybody else, so judging them only for being gay, is in fact not being able to except differences, or different kinds of opinions and attitudes. Furthermore, defined like this, homophobia goes even beyond popular usage, as you can use the term to describe "a man who doesn't know how to run washing machine as he thinks it's a woman's job", or a racist, or "member of one religion, nation, ... that is stereotyping members of other groups".

mimosveta is the nick. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimosveta (talk • contribs) 13:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Exclusion of Bigotry

I have to insist that the clause stating that "homophobia may be used pejoratively" and may be offensive to those with "differing debatable values" be left out of the article permanently. If it is to be included, I must insist that it be made clear that homophobia is largely considered to be plain bigotry. In fact, a clause stating just this was included in the article (with legitimate citation) until recently. I have removed the clause stating that the term "homophobia" is offensive, and will continue to remove it unless the clause stating that homophobia is bigotry is reinstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.157.252 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly a biased comment. One can be morally opposed to homosexuality and still treat gay people with the dignity and respect that they treat everyone else with. The acceptance of homosexuality came with the notion that moral absolutes are not compatible with the diversity of today's society, or "different strokes for different folks". You are essentially saying that people who don't hold the same values as you are bigots. A little hypocritical, huh? Gtbob12 (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I've added a clause the the criticism of the term that elaborates on this point. The fact that it can be offensive(clearly, just look at the archived talk pages and this one plus the article itself) due to it's scientific meaning to people who object - negate the fact that it should be listed as offensive. It is and will remain a controversial subject and disclaimer showing this is to be expected. Articles that are even less controversial than this have extensive two handed approaches not just a statement saying the word is controversial. --Papajohnin (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed. "Homophobia" is a powerful word, and like all powerful words (e.g. "racism", "anti-Semitism", "misogyny", etc.) it presents a temptation to abuse. It has a specific meaning and refers to a real phenomenon, but it is also abused as a convenient ad hominem attack. That doesn't mean that it is inherently politicised or that its abuse as a silencing slur is its intended purpose, as other editors have asserted. But if it is abused as an ad hominem attack, hiding that fact from public view in a Misplaced Pages article pushes POV as hard as asserting it without support. The only issue in the matter should be whether such abuse of the term can be sourced, and I don't think that that will be difficult. --7Kim (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

'Homophobia' as an inherently loaded buzzword

Why doesn't wikipedia identify that the word "homophobia" is inherently politicized from the start, and is inextricably taking "phobia" to paint political opponents in a way unrelated to their social beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.243.127 (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that - see the next section Bushcutter (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to do that but in an encyclopedic way, wikipedia is free to edit, why not give a hand and help me add and source some info so this article won't be so whitewashed.? ;) --Papajohnin (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Homophobia

This term is a misnomer. It implies people who don't like gays are "scared" of them the "protest too much defense" that homosexuals use to call into question someone who doesn't like their lifestyle choices must be hiding something.

So does that mean someone who doesn't like blacks is "Afrophobic" or someone who is against Koreans is "Asiophobic" or someone who just plain hates eskimos is "Inuteophobic"?

No, it's bigotry. It's not "hiding in the closet" or a phobia. It's hatered, I don't see too many of the people who hate gays being "scared" of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to go back to school: If I don't like it when some people eat too much, it doesn't mean that I'm afraid of over-eaters. This is not a "phobia", nor is it "hatred". The fact that some men are doing things to other men in the privacy of their own homes doesn't cause me to be afraid. My concern for these folks is not a "phobia". Similarly, the use of the term "hatred" is inappropriate. Hatred is an extreme dislike resulting in some kind of action against someone. Being concerned for someone is not "hatred". After all, many homosexual men are concerned for the health of each other, and you wouldn't at all call them "phobic" or their actions "hatred". Let's not debate like teenagers, please. Bushcutter (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The terms "Russophobia" and "Sinophobia" were in use during the Cold War, if that's any help -- and "Russophobia" has a pedigree dating back at least to the early XX century. For that matter, "xenophobia" carries the meanings of "fear of outsiders", "hatred of outsiders", and "bigotry against outsiders", with the additional ambiguity that "outsiders" may refer to "foreigners" or "strangers", without anyone questioning the legitimacy of the word. --7Kim (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean really, homophobia doesn't even mean fear of gays, (which, I agree, is a debatable assessment of those who are against homosexuality, whether it manifests itself as a personal moral choice or just straight up bigotry). It's an etymologically incorrect portmanteau of homosexual and phobia, but it literally means "fear of the same". Likewise, heterophobia (a word that I believe was made up by Eminem) is the fear of that which is different, as opposed to fear of heterosexuals. Other terms have been suggested, most of them alluding to a perceived superiority of heterosexuality rather than anit-homosexuality, such as heterosexism (which I personally think is a little to feminist based) and heteronormativity, which doesn't seem appropriate, because, even though it doesn't justify the marginalization of non-heteros, heterosexuality kind of is the norm. I think the word homonegativity is a good one, though it is not all-encompassing and technically runs into the same etymological problems as homophobia, as it would literally mean assigning negative value to that which is the same. Perhaps the best word is sexual prejudice, as it is all-encompassing, correctly worded, does not imply something suspect, but is still debatable in its application, as to whether or not it applies to someone who believes that being gay, bi, trans, or whatever, is wrong, but is not in anyway disrespectful of these people, which is certainly a good, albeit completely subjective, question. Gtbob12 (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Words are more than the sums of their parts: just as a "pineapple" is related neither to pines nor apples, "homophobia" does not mean "fear of men," as it's parts might suggest. People need to stop mucking around with silly arguments about words that have accepted definitions. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed

This was in the section on internalized homophobia:

The theory attributing higher incidences of depression, alcoholism and other self-destructive tendencies among homosexual individuals to internalized homophobia has been put into question by groups such as NARTH, that oppose the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM. Studies of gay people in societies such as Sweden, New Zealand and the Netherlands found similar incidences of such behavior.

I removed it for several reasons. Both of the citations lead to resources that claim psychiatric disorders are more prevalent in those who engage in same-sex behavior. This is already a well known fact. It is also accepted by most reliable medical and scientific organizations that gay and bisexual people suffer from more psychological distress BECAUSE they have to struggle daily with discrimination and, for those with religious upbringings, indoctrinated shame and fear of eternal punishment. Nowhere in these resources does it suggest that homosexuality ITSELF is a disorder per se - but that is exactly what discredited organizations such as NARTH routinely claim. NARTH and other right wing organizations are also known to take objective studies out of context, and to twist them to fit their anti-gay agenda. Which, by pairing these two together, is also what this section of the article achieved. It also lent a credibility to NARTH that is totally unwarranted (please see wiki policies on giving appropriate weight to arguments).

There might be a way to mention NARTH's dissent, but not like this.VatoFirme (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

New Image

I just put a newe imgage into the article. I found ist on the Gemand Misplaced Pages in the corresponding article at Homophobie of Believers. --92.226.135.222 (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

techbear claiming POV edits

Your making this into an edit war, the guy who made the edit should have posted in the talk page too instead of just reverting your edits, please don't just continue reverting his or my edits too without elaborating or discussing since it won't solve anything. Your claiming that stating George Weinberg's affiliation with gay activist is a POV edit. Specifically the clause ",a gay activist". This is listed on his wiki page for him and is well known that he is a gay activist and has supported many in the gay community and has appeared on many talk shows as well as authored many books on the subject. That is not POV, it is not even a deduction of known info: it is a title which he takes pride in. removing that would be considered POV - an example: "The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization affiliated with the ex-gay movement, describes" removing the bold context would be considered POV and accomplish the same thing were I to be making POV edit's. They are both well documented and not POV, Please assume good faith. The paragraph on the pejorative use of the word was added because the text alone is just copy & paste out of the research article which is copyrighted - I also boldly added it to clarify because it's too wordy and technical.--Papajohnin (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Question on sourcing

In regard to the following source:

^ O'Donohue, William and Christine Caselles (September 1993). Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 15 no. 3.

Is there a consensus on the legitimacy of sourcing from an abstract when the full text of the article in question is not world-readable? Should the fact that the full text is not world-readable (or that the information is sourced from the abstract) be disclosed in the citation? --7Kim (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Global viewpoint needed.

I have placed the {{globalize}} template on the page. There should be info on homophobia in countries other that the UK and US. See also WP:CSB. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Referenced APA study"

The following paragraph has been removed:

Psychologists contend that rather than 'irrational fear', biological disgust is a legitimate biological response in many human beings to homosexuals. They contend 'fear' elicits a 'get me away from that' response, much like a fearful encounter with a predator such as a tiger, whereas disgust elicits a 'get that away from me' response in the human brain.

It's problematic in several ways. First of all, it's not an APA study, it was done by some psychologists at U of Arkansas. Second, it seems like a bit of a copyvio. Third, it's quoted incompletely and out of context. Fourth, it hasn't been presented at the APA conference yet, therefore is not yet peer reviewed. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Has been added again, and I'm about to dig up more major publishing instances of this from major newspapers, as I've just googled it and there are plenty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.2.169 (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:3RR, and please discuss this clearly controversial addition on the talk page. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

1. http://www.chmeds.ac.nz/research/chds/publications/2005/264.pdf
2. "Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders": Findings From the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS)" by Theo G. M. Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, Rob V. Bijl and Paul Schnabel. Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 58 No. 1, January 2001, pp. 85-91.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Discrimination articles
• Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles