Talk:Homophobia/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.
Talk archives for Homophobia (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 > 9 >>

Contents

Christopher Parham and Markaci, please behave yourselves

In the "see also" section, I included a link to the article about Fred Cherry, who probably illustrated what homophobia was just by living his life, in a way that gained more than a little online notoriety. It is, then, an illustrative, on-topic example of some of what is being discussed in this article.

A pair of editors signing in as "christopherparham" and "Markaci", however, keep taking the link out, with no explanation of his actions offered. I take it that this is what - a turf fight? Gentlemen, if you're reading this, please grow up and start conducting yourselves in a more appropriate manner.


Homophobia is a psychiatric term? (Feb 2004)

The term "homophobia" has been way overused and, frankly, misused in recent years. Homophobia, like all phobias, is a mental disorder, and while it certainly exists, it is extremely rare. Before the last decade or so, you'd only see the word occasionally in Psychology Today-type articles on phobias: it would be listed along with literally hundreds of other equally unusual irrational fears such as fear of crowds, fear of insects, fear of the sun, etc., etc. These are actual clinical syndromes, however, and they should not be appropriated by political or ideological advocacy groups regardless of how worthy the cause.

I won't address the issue of clinical homophobia or homophobia as a mental disorder, but I'd like to point out that besides the traditional meaning of "irrational fear of homosexuals," which is what you're alluding to, there is another, commonly understood definition of homophobia, namely "aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." In this context, the word has not been misused, and frankly has probably been underused.Exploding Boy 04:35, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)
This exposes a key difficulty with this article: some believe that _any_ use of this word to describe anything other than "a mental disorder consisting of an irrational fear of homosexuality" is a misuse. Many see this misuse as deliberate, such that use of the word is a "tool" to discredit any argument against homosexuality, chiefly by implying that the person making the argument has an established mental disorder (is crazy). Though commonly used in American discourse to apply to behviours or policies which "treat [homosexuals] less favourably than others or unfairly" (current definition of 'discrimination'), the very use of the term indicates a perspective or bias. There is also the issue of the very 'legitimacy' of the word. (See other discussion.) Libertas 08:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The dividing line between craziness and sanity is not as simply drawn as that. You can talk about a person being cynophobic (afraid of dogs) without jumping to the conclusion tha that they are "crazy." On the other hand, it _is_ a mild disfunction, seen as irrational by the rest of us who are either fond of, or indifferent to, dogs (and even by some cynophobes). Whether one's homophobia ia a clinical condition (real craziness) or only a mild disfunction or handicap would be a matter for a professional to determine in a case by case basis.
Rejecting the use of "homophobic" to describe those opposed to full rights for those who love others of their own sex is tantamount to rejecting the use of "racist" for those who do the same with people of other races.Haiduc 01:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Again, you are missing the point (perhaps deliberately). The point is that there is an argument that states that this term was created with an agenda, and widely adopted with an agenda. There is a reason that "homophobia" is preferred in usage over simply "discrimination" or "persecution". Your arguments are spurious, and clearly reflect your bias. "Homophobia" does not have the same legitimacy as "racism" because it is a manufactured term, with the same sort of underlying bias as terms like "pro-life" or "pro-choice" (but even more so). There's a reason that people who persecuted or discriminated against african-americans were not called "negro-phobic". The full negative implications of their attitudes and actions are clearly understood in the word "racist". (While fear of other races may have been one of the motivating factors of the racist, it does not have to be the only reason.) -Libertas 4 Feb 2005

Looking over the history of this page, it seems clear that there is a deliberate pattern of removing any text that questions the legitimacy of the term. To be a true unbiased encyclopedia entry, it should acknowledge and describe more than one perspective on the term. Perspectives are allowed, but should be clearly identified as such. Most of the current (Jan 2-4, 2005) text presents what is primarily a single perspective as the only legitimate interpretation of the term. -Libertas 4 Feb 2005

NPOV (again)? (30 Dec 2004)

I feel that this article (version as of 30 Dec 2004) does not have a NPOV, because at parts of the article it will seem nearly as if I am having a casual conversation with someone. I also feel that it is not a neutral point of view because many times it will seem as if only half of an argument, fact, theory, etc.. is given, leaving out the other side of it. Lastly, I feel that the bias keeps changing. I cannot pinpoint which side of the topic the author is biased towards because some parts are biased in a way that is opposite to another part, but I certainly, for the above reasons, strongly believe this article is biased. The only problem: some parts are, some aren't, and from what parts are biased, you really need to read it to get an instinct that it is biased. Like I said, it seems like a casual conversation--a lack of professionalism, a lack of structured statements, as well as many factless statements--statements that seem as a random estimate, which in turn is also biased.

For example, under the section titled "Consequences of homophobia", it says, "Consequences of homophobia may include internalised homophobia, violence, and discrimination.". At first glance, this is saying that people who have homophobia, which may mean any prejudice or hate against homosexuals as stated in the beginning of the article, conduct violence, discriminate, and are afraid of themselves as they are gay (as in, hating that you are gay, which in turn means that a homophobic person is gay). The article also contains the sub-section, "Discrimination", which, I feel, trys to point blame on people who are homophobic or hate homosexuals/homosexuality. A non-biased point of view would not blame anybody, as blame originates from opinion.

I don't even need to explain the sub-section, "Effects on straight people", in the above referenced section. It clearly states one and only one side of the topic, leaving the other side entirely left out. A non-biased article is balanced towards both sides of an argument, in this case, it would be balanced with examples or explanations that there may be a good argument that there is an effect on straights, as well as there may not be a good argument.

I will answer any questions, and make any corrections to this message, but I cannot guarantee how often I will check this page. I will make an effort to check and maintain my above message, but I cannot guarantee it due to everyday changes in life and schedules. User:Lan56 Dec 29, 2004

Massive Additions

[22 Jan 2005] Hello, I will be working on this page for the next few weeks. I'd like to see this article have a more professional outlook. See anti-semitism. If you have any tips let me know, I could use all the help I can get. Today I cleaned up the introduction and moved some paragraphs from it into categories to expand. Another one of my priorities will be to combine the Usage & Etymology, and add articles similar to gays during Nazi Germany in an effort to shed some historical perspectives. Thanks. - comment by 67.41.237.52 ; 02:08 , 22 Jan 2005

Hi, It is well that this will be developped further, it is a needed page. However there are some important aspects that have been already lost in the last edits. George Weinberg is a clinical psychologist. That says a lot right off tha bat. Needs to be left in. Also, his charcterization of homophobia is valuable, or invaluable. It tells us where he is coming from. Furthermore, homophobia needs to be identified as a phobia before it is identified as a behavior (which it is not). Homophobia may give rise to a series of behaviors, or may be internalized without outward manifestations. Haiduc 04:42, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Re: gays and nazis: this really does not seem relevant to this entry.
The entry for "homophobia" should focus on the term, primarily what it means, and how it is used. While some explination of the effects of homophobia help to define the term, discussions on the history of the persecution of homosexuals deserve their own entries. For example, how does a "gays during Nazi germany" article give historical perspective on a term that wasn't created until 1971? Doesn't it rather just give a perspective on historical violence, prejudice and persecution? Consider adding the info to a violence against homosexuals article. - Libertas 04 Feb 2005

NPOV, revisited (Feb 2005)

Feel free to elaborate on recent changes (not related to above topics) here. See Wikipedia:Talk_page for guidelines.

04 Feb 2005: "Some of those to whom the term is applied, and who are opposed to sex between lesbians or gay men and the gay rights movement associated with homosexuality, hold that the medicalization of their attitude is inaccurate and is propaganda. See loaded term." This is a loaded _sentence_, as it implies that anyone who even questions that the term homophobe is a legitimite term is, ipso facto, a homophobe. ("Only a homophobe would question this term.") Please stick to addressing the issues. - Libertas


04 Feb 2005 : Haiduc removed the text "There is some controversy regarding the usage of the word." and gave the following explanation:

""controversial" is valid when there is controversy between neutral observers. In the sense used here, anti-slavery would be controversial because Arabs in the Sudan are for it.)"

Haiduc - This is ridiculous, and insulting. Once again you are using the 'call the person a homphobe to dismiss their argument' approach. Furthermore, you suggesting that it would be impossible for a homosexual to believe that the word 'homophobe' might be a politically motivated term.
'Controversy' means ' A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views. (See synonyms of 'argument'.)'
You have made it clear that you think that your definition of the word 'homophobe' is the correct one, but there are people who disagree with you. (Please see the older discussion pages and the history of this page.) Comparing these people to slave-owners does not help your claims to a Neutral Point Of View.
-Libertas

In rational debate it is meaningless to talk about giving and taking insult. We are not in a school yard, and none is meant. Pointing out analogies between a present fallacy and a past fallacy is a valid means of rational argument. Trying to answer that argument by calling it "ridiculous and insulting" is an avoidance of the issue and a veiled "ad hominem" attack.
In scientific debate, controversy is not when just anyone speaks up and disagrees with a finding or a theory, but when there is a disagreement between impartial workers in the field itself. Using (really, misusing) the looser definition would make almost every scientific theory "controversial."
As for imagining oneself to be correct, I assume you are immune from that defect? Haiduc 12:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It is ironic (and slightly amusing) that you would attempt to defend a veiled ad hominem attack with an accusation of same. As for avoidance of issues, the systematic approach of removing, discrediting, or obfuscating opposing views that seems to be applied to this entry is hardly addressing the issues head-on, is it?
As for myself, I may think my views to be correct, but I am not the one rewriting the entry to what appears to be a single, biased viewpoint. I am merely suggesting that effort towards making this "encyclopedia" entry more neutral or impartial be expended. This would require that more than one perspective be allowed to remain, without subtle manipulation of the terminology used in the viewpoint, and/or an inline counterargument for every contrary opinion.
Probably the easiest way to accomplish this would be to let text written by someone who obviously has a different opinion remain in the entry, perhaps prefaced by some sort of header which identifies it as a perspective. [Note I'm not suggesting that I would write this perspective; instead I'm encouraging the inclusion of some of the text from previous versions of this page, even if it might challenge the tone of 'definitive explanation' that is currently presented. ] - Libertas 22:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree that more input from other editors would be beneficial. If there is wording (as I am sure there is, the hardest thing is to see oneself) which is slanted, it should be corrected. It would be more helpful if you could specify which texts you would like included, so that we can look at that more analytically. Haiduc 01:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ok, first of all have we agreed on the definition of homophobia? Glancing through two major English Dictionaries I found:
Marriam-Webster 1
  • "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"
The American Heritage 2
  • "fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men and behavior based on such a feeling"
Which discrimination:
Marriam-Webster 3
  • "the act of discriminating - the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently - the quality or power of finely distinguishing - the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually - prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment"
The American Heritage 4
  • "The act of discriminating - the ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment - treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice"
Given those definitions from authortative sources this article should be quite easy to write. If there are any further disputations I suggest you first find a neutral authortative source before claiming POV. Apollomelos 05:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Haiduc - It just seems to me, in reading the recent versions, that there are so many biased reworkings that it would take more time than I have available to list them all and explain why they might be able to be interpreted as "biased". I will try to address them as time allows, but I'm hoping some neutral Wiki contributors might weigh in. The biased items seem quite obvious to me, so I guess I'm assuming that others would be able to easily identify them, but a third party "straight perspective" check would be useful. If we go back to original versions of the article, it seems that, perhaps, the pendulum has swung from one bias to another.
But I think it should be clear to see the change in bias if you (anyone) compares just as an example, this version to the current version: what do you think the differences in tone and references are?
I will point out, however, that Apollomelos is not helping.
He removed:
There is some controversy regarding the usage and legitimacy of the word. Some feel that use of the term to refer to persecution, prejudice, and violence towards homosexuals, instead of just using the term to apply to an irrational fear of homosexuality, is inaccurate. See loaded term.
and replaced that with:
Some feel that the term should be restricted to persecution, prejudice, and violence towards gay individuals. They feel that the use of the term to describe a person's personal view of homosexuality as wrong and only heterosexuality as an acceptable form of sexuality creates a loaded term.
Apollomelos: either you have no idea what the objection to the term is, or you have deliberately mis-represented the objections to the term. In either case, you have established yourself the least-qualified person to try and represent any contrarian view on this term. I recommend you try to curb your enthusiasm, as you are not helping. This is precisely why I recommend trying to reintegrate some text from previous versions of the page, (or at least read some of the archived Talk) some of which seem to non-offensively (?) represent a different opinion on the term.
As to Apollomelos' claim that agreeing on the dictionary terms will make this an easy problem to solve:
I don't think you understand what the issues are. Key challenges with making this article NPOV include:
  • how to define homophobia in a way that people with different perspectives could agree on
  • how to address (or at least acknowledge) the perceived embodied ideological bias of the word itself without implying only religious zealots or homophobes would have a problem with the term
  • how to address (or at least acknowledge) the charge that the "homosexual community" (whatever that is) seeks to influence public debate by choosing, defining, and seeking to legitimize the terms to be used in the debate
  • how to seperate out and address the different connotations (and the denotation) of the word without turing this into an anti-gay/pro-gay debate (with the associated negative implications about the motives of "religious people" or the "gay movement")
This has all been hashed through before; all you have to do is go back and look at past changes, and past talk. -Libertas 13:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC).


One more question. Does anyone have any links stipulating homophobia a mental disorder from an authoratative organization? If we are going to describe it as such we must ensure that is a correct statement. - Apollomelos 06:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
George Weinberg: "I would never consider a patient healthy unless he had overcome his prejudice against homosexuality." - Haiduc 12:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Quoting the person who invented the term is hardly "an authoratative organization stipulating that homophobia is a legitimate mental disorder", is it? -Libertas 13:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC).
No, it is not. And now that I have had a bit more time I must say I have not come up with any "official" statements. If I was to make a guess I would say that this is such a political minefield that psychiatric organizations have avoided the issue. But I cannot prove that, yet.
Just as an indication of my thinking, not that it's not obvious, I am studying the entries for racism and antisemitism to see if we can apply some of that impartiality to this page. Haiduc 02:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Libertas Miller - I appreciate your patience and obvious collegiality. And I am all for trying to approach consensus - though I do not see Wikipedia as a democracy but an academy (i.e.: swayed by a preponderance of logic, not a preponderance of votes). But let's take things one step at a time. Your how to define homophobia in a way that people with different perspectives could agree on. If I read you right, you want to integrate in this discussion the view that "homosexuality is a moral error, thus any rejection of homosexuality is a moral choice." Am I right? Thus you want to exclude from the "homophobic" rubric any "reasonable" anti-homosexual stance or expression. I do not mean to "set a trap" though I obviously would be inclined to refute such a position, I just want now to make sure I understand your objection.
As for Apollomelos' contribution, I think he may have misconstrued your stance, but perhaps the best way to resolve that would be to follow your suggested map. Haiduc 02:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Libertas Miller, first of all I don’t appreciate your tone. Secondly, you added a false statement in response to some of my edits. In your post above you make it seem I removed “There is some controversy regarding the usage of the word and the legitimacy of such a word.” I did not remove it; possibly if you can take the time out of your busy schedule you can read a bit more and locate it above the paragraph. And are you trying to state that it is rational to persecute, have prejudice, and partake in violent attacks against homosexuals? Actions like those are irrational, if you wish I can even define irrational for you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that uses other neutral sources to substantiate information. Are you inferring that a Dictionary is not neutral? Wikipedia is NOT a place for POV organizations to re-define terms because they disagree with Dictionaries. If you wish to add a defense of homophobia section to the article you can do so. However you cannot re-define the basic meaning of a word. Apollomelos 09:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Libertas Miller quote - "but a third party "straight perspective" check would be useful"
I think that speaks for itself. Apollomelos 09:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Out of your four points listed above Libertas Miller two are actually reasonable ideas. The first one is against Wikipedia rules, articles are not opinion pieces, and we get our information from neutral academic sources not editorials. And the last one is overly vague to the point I cannot even understand the meaning behind it. The other two: "# how to address (or at least acknowledge) the perceived embodied ideological bias of the word itself without implying only religious zealots or homophobes would have a problem with the term

  1. how to address (or at least acknowledge) the charge that the "homosexual community" (whatever that is) seeks to influence public debate by choosing, defining, and seeking to legitimize the terms to be used in the debate"

Both of those are helpful, however you cannot slap a NPOV dispute tag just because an article is incomplete. If you wish to write a section please do. However please note that the NPOV dispute tag is for language in the article that is POV, it is not intended for incomplete articles. Apollomelos 09:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Libertas - I noticed your "reference", it is from NARTH.
"the systems that provide the rational and operating instructions for that antipathy [against :gays]. These systems include beliefs about gender, morality, and danger by which homosexuality :and sexual minorities are defined as deviant, sinful, and threatening. Hostility, discrimination, :and violence are thereby justified as appropriate and even necessary."
That is a re-definition of a term from a POV organization. Please see :Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
"Propaganda or advocacy of any kind." Apollomelos 02:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
All neutral organizations agree violence is never justified towards sexual minorities because of an individual's disapproval. Apollomelos 02:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Apollomelos, [...] I just read the article you seem to be referring to [1], and . . .
The quote you are using is attributed to Gregory M. Herek, who is not part of NARTH, didn't write the summary article you read on the NARTH web site, and, in fact, is an advocate for homosexual rights, and is actively opposed to any attempts to try to "cure" homosexuals of their homosexuality.
[You have used the] quote out of context.
Read the following statement[...]
University of California Davis Professor Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., wrote a paper on homophobia, stigma, and sexual prejudice. In that paper, Dr. Herek suggests that although the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture, the term may be too limited in its scope today.
In that paper, Dr. Herek (a professor and medical doctor) defines heterosexism as (quote) "the systems that provide the rational and operating instructions for that antipathy [against gays]. These systems include beliefs about gender, morality, and danger by which homosexuality and sexual minorities are defined as deviant, sinful, and threatening. Hostility, discrimination, and violence are thereby justified as appropriate and even necessary." (end-quote)
[...]. Serge Dupouy 08:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) - condescension and insult removed. You may thank...User:Politenessman!
Thank you, Politenessman, whoever you are. --Axon 13:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Isn't that interesting? The account for "Politenessman" was created specifically to remove my charge that Apollomelos might be deliberately using the quote out of context in an attempt to discredit an organization he didn't like. Isn't that clever that he did that while presenting the appearance that he was just trying to keep things civil? I cry foul! The sham continues! Don't believe me? Check out the diffs(read between the lines). Thanks Haiduc ... I mean, Politenessman!
Serge Dupouy 21:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As we wouldn't want to offend poor Apollomelos, let me rephrase:
Apollomelos - it appears that you have deliberately used the quote above out of context. One can only assume you did so because you don't like NARTH, or you're trying to paint Libertas as some kind of radical homophobe (maybe both). Stop it. Serge Dupouy 21:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This whole discussion, now laden with invective and an edit war, is spinning out of control. We are not going to get anything useful done over here in this fashion. I suggest we all cool off, take a break, contemplate our own insignificance and the impending crash of the Wikipedia servers, and return to the table only when and if we have regained some sense of humor. Sheesh, think I'll go bike in the park, or something. Haiduc 15:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How convenient that you can comfortably walk away from the article now that you're done writing it. Yes, now that you've gotten the article to the way you like it, let's all take a loooong break....
(I don't know about you, but I haven't lost my sense of humor...) Serge Dupouy 21:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the situation is positively hilarious. Especially when I am accused by a spanking-new purpose-created account, "Serge Dupouy," who seemingly is a practiced hand at Wikipedia work (to judge by his few edits) to have done that very thing in order to edit out his (innocent) invective. My, how we do spin. On the other hand I thought (from a very cursory look) that a lot of your edits in Homophobia had merit, as I am sure you do too, Serge. If we can get past this hall of mirrors maybe we can get some work done here. Haiduc 22:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Haiduc. And Serge you missed my point. I find that the neutral Dictionary definitions of the term should not be changed. However I am willing to take a cool off period. I am in the future we can be more civil and productive. Apollomelos 23:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Haiduc- I didn't create that account. I certainly wouldn't point out it's suspicious nature if I had. Sorry if I've pointed to the wrong pigeon. Thanks for reading my edits. Apollomelos- I apologize if I missed your point. I don't think I did, but I'll take another look at it. It's all very well and good to talk about cooling off, but that doesn't include reverting my edits just because you don't like my attitude. Did you actually bother to read any of them before you deleted them all? Serge Dupouy 04:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite, in regards to his follow up deletion of all my text (again) writes (on my talk page): Please don't add personal remarks to articles, and don't link to the Wikipedia: space from article text. There are much nicer and more effective ways of dealing with POV issues. I recommend polite use of the talk page. In addition to Wikipedia:Avoid self-references you may be interested in Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Happy editing.
Warning! Warning! I've disturbed the beehive! Okay, I'm sorry that I didn't make that reference hidden like I intended. But, again, does that justify deleting EVERYTHING I wrote? Again, did you bother to read any of my additions before you deleted the whole thing? Thanks for the links, but where's the Wikipedia:Don't delete everything somebody wrote because of prejudiced personal opinion article?
It's not like I vandalized the page, or tried to censor the existing content. I'll take my punishment, and try again after I've read all the guidelines. But if I don't give you an excuse, you can't delete my changes, deal? Serge Dupouy 04:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Serge," it is not that account, but your present incarnation I am questioning. You ain't no spring chicken. But this is really besides the point. I don't care who or what you are, I care what you have to say, and whether it makes sense or not. I have gone into the article and tried to cobble together a workable "Usage" section. Let's try to get through this one small section at a time, otherwise I (if no one else) will get totally lost after so many edits and reverts. I have used some of my old stuff, some of Apollomelo's edits (I hope) and integrated some of Libertas's critiques and some of Serge's ideas. It is not yet good, or finished. From a distance, it looks wordy and probably could stand to be cut down a bit. Any comments? Haiduc 05:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Okay, look, I don't want to get involved with any of that (this is essentially the opposite result of what I was hoping for). I would just like to clarify some of the earlier points. First, I'm still assuming there are some experienced Wikipedians (who have experience with applying a NPOV) could help out here. Haiduc wrote "I am studying the entries for racism and antisemitism to see if we can apply some of that impartiality to this page." Thank you Haiduc. Excellent idea. Haiduc wrote "I just want to .. make sure I understand your objection." I don't even really understand the way you tried to phrase it, but I don't think you've understood what I was going for. Let me try to re-summarize my "objection" again: it seems to me that this article reflects a bias, or, to put it another way, essentially a single perspective (or a collection of similar perspectives). It's not an issue of me making a personal claim. I personally don't see a way for the different perspectives can be reconcilled. So my suggestion was, and is, 'let's try to get more than one perspective into the article.' I think the NPOV article explains this pretty clearly (please re-read it to see what I mean). For example "The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." (echoed in my bullet point about agreement, above). Also "An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says." (emphasis mine). I've given what I think the counterarguments are, above. These are based on what I've read. But I didn't want to try to represent these views, primarily because many people can't seem to distinguish between an attempt to fairly represent an opinion, and expressing one's own opinion. (This seems to be especially true if one tries to represent homosexual or Christian positions.) For example, there's the "Some Christians believe..." "counter-quote" that I see you've added back in. This is a great start, exactly what I'm talking about: a different perspective.

But there's also the issue of the way a lot of this article is phrased; it just seems like it would be better to let someone with a different view speak for themselves. As I've said before, it seems like some of these beliefs or attitudes were represented more fairly in previous versions...

What was wrong, say, with this text (in this version of the article)?:

==Terminologic disputes==
Some, including campaigners against gay rights, object to the label, 
claiming it is inaccurate. This is, they say, because they object to homosexuality 
on principled or religious grounds rather than irrationally.

Some gay activists respond that it is not believing homosexuality to be wrong which 
constitutes homophobia, but rather specific positions and actions such as opposing 
equal rights and protections for gay people. This contrasts with the views of Niclas
Berggren, for example, who describes attitudes as homophobic in themselves.

Also, many supporters of gay and lesbian rights argue that there are no rational 
criticisms of homosexuality per se, and that consequently, there is no argument 
against homosexuality that is not rooted in homophobia.

As for my own perspective, the word just doesn't make sense to me: why use the word "phobia" to describe ALL prejudice, or persecution? I got started with this article because I wanted to read about the origin of the word, and maybe some info on how it became widespread in its usage, and how it took on it's current meaning. Instead I just got an article that's seems to be primarily focused on the persecution of homosexuals (especially the history of that persecution) in general -- which is fine, but would probably be more appropriate in other articles, like Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered or maybe new article on the History of homosexual persecution . What I was reacting to was the single point of view the article presents, and the fact that any token representations of "the other side" are slighted, often derogatory, and/or (arguably) irrelevant. (I mean, come on, of what real relevance to the discussion of 'persecution of homosexuals based on an irrational fear' is the reference to 'coitus interruptus', for example? Just seems like a chance to get a 'dig' in...) From a purely 'common-sense' standpoint it seems odd to imply that all anti-homosexual activities through history were based only on fear: what about good old-fashioned biogtry, or the shared historical tendencies of groups of people to be hostile to other groups that are merely different than themselves? That's my 2 cents... Libertas Miller 10:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just to say that I have read your comments and they lead me to think that we have to be more careful to substantiate the arguments presented in the article. Similarly, the most useful critique brought by Serge was his pointing out all the lazy writing and lazy thinking evidenced by "some people" type attributions. That's where a lot of the work will have to be done.
As for our own debate, I am sorry my comments were unintelligible. I wonder whether others too found them to be so.
As for your being unamused by the analogy to the Racism and the Antisemitism articles, my apologies, I was being a tad provocative. That being said, I think THAT dialectic IS the crux of the matter here. The only question is how to present this in a neutral fashion. I am persuaded by the argument circulating that there is a pattern here, that elements within the church have systematically resisted expanding the sphere of human rights, every time citing Biblical authority for justification. It happened in the case of slavery and "negro suffrage," women's suffrage, interracial marriage, divorce, and now it is happening with gay rights. Haiduc 12:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Doubtful cause

The "Family Procreation" section is, I think, fairly easily refuted, and as it begins with the weasel phrase "some argue" I would favour its removal unless someone can cite research into homophobic attitudes in which this cause is demonstrated. Here it is verbatim:

Some argue that the roots of homophobia lie in the instinct of family procreation. The thought that one's child may be gay or lesbian and thus break the biological chain of generations makes the person consider gay children a threat to his family lineage. And disturbs the thought that we continue to live on in a way through our children's' achievements. However, this theory does not explain why heterosexuals who marry infertile partners are not likewise seen as a threat to a family's genetic survival. Nor does it take into account new medical advances allowing gay men and women to reproduce in a biological manner.

If this were true then a child telling their parents they intended to never have children would have pretty much the same effect as telling them they were gay. This is surely not the case. People are not horrified by the idea that their child will choose not to start a family in the way that they can be horrified by their homosexuality. Homophobia also extends to people unrelated to the homophobe. If a gay couple moves in next door to a homophobe he might be quite upset, even though they pose no threat to his family lineage. As another example, you could imagine a racist trying to encourage or at least being pleased about perceived widespread homosexuality in a race he didn't like, because it would tend to result in the race's extinction or decline. In the real world however a racist would be far more likely to develop an increased fear of a race if he could be convinced that homosexuality was prevalent within it.

If no one objects and no one cites a source for this theory I'd like to remove it. It makes little sense and is written in a rather speculative tone.

— Trilobite (Talk) 08:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I too could never figure out where this one came from, and found it weak. Unless it can be corroborated, I would agree with you. Haiduc 12:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've taken it out. While I'm here, do we still need the NPOV disputed notice on this article. It hasn't been edited for three days and no one has said anything on the talk page for four days. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I never felt a need for it, if there must be a flag then someone suggested the "under construction" notice, or something akin to that. Remaining issues of neutrality can be argued and dealt with item by item. Haiduc 21:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't find the article particularly NPOV. I am in the process of fixing it, though, with the goal of removing the notice. -- Beland 07:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The above is absolutely correct. In the end, the normal state of humans is heterosexual, if that were not so then we would have died out as a species eons ago. The point of being here, at the base level, is to create the next generation. Therefore the concept that your offspring may not do this because they are homosexual incites a primitive fear. What this is NOT, is a 'mental illness' - its a primeaval instinct.

In an experiment (which I cant remember who performed), rats kept in a confined area, but given unlimited resources to breed reach a maximum population that the area will sustain, and at that point all the males rats turn homosexual. This effectively shut off breeding, and only when the population dropped did the male rats become intereste din the females again. In rats, homosexuality is a biological control reaction to a dangerous situation, and theres no reason not to suppose the same isnt true for humans, since we a driven by exactly the same darwinian and biological instincts.

Therefore, it is NOT homophobic to point out that homosexuality is a biological minority, and that in other species it is an abnormal reaction. it is NOT a mental illness to want your genes to propagate and avoid homosexuals to that end.

Homophobia is the targetting and persecution on homosexuals in the same way the Jews were targetted by the Nazis, or the Blacks were oppressed in the American Deep South. Homophobia is not the ordinary person expressing his dislike of a biological abberation . And it MUST be an abbberation, otherwise the majority of us would be homosexual, and we would have become extinct.

This however does not disparage anyone for being homosexual, anymore than you can disparage anyone for being black or female, or white, or male or middle class. Put it in the context of the entire species, and what the mojority standard is.

Homosexuals use the accusation 'homophobe' against ANY person who tries to oppose them in any way, in the same way some minority ethnic groups use 'racism' - and some of the most racist groups are NOT white westerners!!

And THAT is the opposite POV to this article and therefore needs including.

193.131.115.253

Science and internalized homophobia

Homophobia is discussed in medical journals and continues to be researched by the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association. Some of these studies have linked deep hatred towards homosexuality to repressed homosexual feelings. See internalised homophobia.

OK, I didn't find any citations in the section on internalized homophobia that supports this claim. This seems to be a common belief, but I'm not aware of any scientific studies that show this. I'm not even really sure how one could do a controlled scientific study to find out, but perhaps some smart people have found a way. If anyone knows of any such studies, please point them out; that would be very interesting information. If not, I'm going to leave this out as dubious. -- Beland 07:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the summary, the only source I see in the article related to that is [2] from the external link section, which is now a dead link. Fortunately, there's archive.org to recover it: here we go. (Old press releases are moved into a password-only archive on the APA server for some reason.) It's also mirrored on lots of places on the web, should the link stop working.--Eloquence* 07:53, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. I started us off with a more detailed summary of the study. -- Beland 09:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


In a recent experiment, a group of homophobic heterosexual men showed more signs of sexual arousal from being shown images of homosexual sex than a control group of non-homophobic heterosexual men; however, anxiety in the former group may explain part of the difference.

I'd like to get a specific citation, to make sure this isn't just a rumor, and also to be able to give some context about whether or the results are considered conclusive, suggestive, or patent nonsense by the peer review community. For now I've marked the related claim as "highly controversial". -- Beland 09:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

see [3] -- Outerlimits 09:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yay, integrated into article. -- Beland 09:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ganymede painting

This is very much an interpretation, and it is dominating the bottom-half of the article. Wouldn't that be much more on-topic in Ganymede (mythology)?--Eloquence* 09:52, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

If it quacks like a duck... Kenneth Clark, the art historian: "...a protest not only against antique art but against antique morality, and against the combination of the two in sixteenth century Rome." As for domination...?! Haiduc 21:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Need to merge some sections with other articles

There are so many different things to talk about with regard to homophobia, and there are already existing articles for most of them. I think this article needs to be slimmed down into an overview of other articles that show anti-LGBT in the world and their effects. Those other articles can go into a lot more depth and I think this will help people feel they are more balanced. Also, the content here is really out of sync with those other articles, and there desperately needs to be cross-pollenation or consolidation. To start with:

Small summaries or some other kind of links should be left behind to help people find these destination articles if they arrive here first. I'll have to tackle the remainder of the article later. In the meantime, it would be smurfy if someone wants to jump in and attempt one or more of these mergers. -- Beland 09:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moving out the violence sections now...I took a quick read of the Dean Corll article, and there's no mentinon there that his victims were LGBT people, or that he was motivated by homophobia or anything. Perhaps it's just not mentioned. If someone wants to research this, he might need to be added to Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered. -- Beland 23:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on the "Denigration" section (which would seem to fit under a "Justifications" header? Haiduc 21:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Elsewhere, Haiduc wrote: the "denigration" section is a cohesive unit that - if it moved - should not be broken up, and specific links should be set up to the expanded article, wherever it ends up.
Well, as you can see from my edits, I was thinking it needed to be broken up. Some of the subsections were badly written to begin with...I've been trying to fix that sort of thing as I go along. The inclusion of so much of material under the label "denigration" seemed to be expressing an opinion that various things were some sort of defiling of the dignity of same-sex love. While I might not disagree, I didn't find this particularly neutral. Moreover, inclusion on a page titled "homophobia" associates those things with the medicalization of anti-LGBT attitudes, which some people find offensive. Much of the material also fits very well into the narratives on those other pages, so overall parcelling things out seems to have solved a number of problems. Unfortunately, many of the destination articles also need a lot of attention. I agree that there should be prominant links to these other articles...I haven't quite finished today's edits yet, but by the end of the day, I hope to have that implemented. -- Beland 01:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you that the wording was imperfect, it was a "sketch" so to speak. I'll let things germinate further in my head, in the mean time Thanks for all your work! Haiduc 04:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, the off-merging is complete; now I'm just dealing with a few NPOV fires. Please feel free to add cross-references to other articles if the ones I've put in are insufficient. -- Beland 10:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fear of being mistaken for a homosexual

Judith Butler recounts, "When they were debating gays in the military on television in the United States a senator got up and laughed, and he said, 'I must say, I know very little about homosexuality. I think I know less about homosexuality than about anything else in the world.' And it was a big announcement of his ignorance of homosexuality. Then he immediately launched into a homophobic diatribe which suggested that he thinks that homosexuals only have sex in public bathrooms, that they are all skinny, that they're all male, etc, etc. So what he actually has is a very aggressive and fairly obsessive relationship to the homosexuality that of course he knows nothing about. At that moment you realise that this person who claims to have nothing to do with homosexuality is in fact utterly preoccupied by it."

If this is supposed to be an example of someone who is afraid of being mistaken for a homosexual, it isn't a very good one. It's not surprising that a strong opponent of something would have an "obsessive relationship" with it; I'm sure many gay rights advocates have an "obsessive" relationship with the Bible some days. I also think many would agree that the Senator is ignorant about many aspects of homosexuality, despite being able to ramble on against it. It is an interesting quote, though. Maybe it should be put on Wikiquote? Hopefully a better example of over-dramatic denial of homosexuality or something can go here in its place. -- Beland 10:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have tagged the section as POV because the remaining quote presents a very strong, controversial point of view which is not balanced by anything else. -- Beland 10:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Warren J. Blumenfeld

  1. There is a typo in his quote, but the original source is not online. Could whoever found this please check it against the original?
  2. Who is he, what is his role in the debate, and who is his audience?

-- Beland 10:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sexist beliefs

The good news is, now there are only two sections with NPOV flags. (Hopefully that's justified.)

The bad news is, this is one of them.

Some gender theorists interpret the fact that male - male relationships often incite a stronger reaction in a homophobic person than female - female (lesbian)

This is certainly true in some cultures. In others, it's off with their heads, gender be damned. We should attempt to represent the full diversity of attitudes, at least in brief. I'm not even sure this idea applies to all European countries. Can anyone speak to that?

as meaning that the homophobic person feels threatened by the perceived subversion of the gender paradigm in male - male sexual activity.

Interesting and true. Is that homophobia? Probably close enough. We should expand on this point.

To quote D.A. Miller, the "only necessary content of male heterosexuality is not a desire for women, but the negation of the desire for men."

I think a lot of people would insist that attraction to women has a lot to do with heterosexuality. Ahem.

As Miller continues, this necessary negation is such that "straight men unabashedly need gay men, whom they forcibly recruit (as the object of their blows or, in better circles, their jokes) to enter into a polarization that exorcises the 'woman' in man, by assigning it to a class of man who may be considered to be no 'man' at all." (Thomas 2000)

Certainly the idea of masculinity is involved, both in that being a gay man is associated in macho culture with femininity, and in that beating up on or insulting someone can enhance the appearance of strength and thus masculinity. That's actually a better way to explain it, I think.

They regard the reason male homosexuality is treated worse compared to female homosexuality as sexist in its underlying belief that men are superior to women and therefore for a man to "replace" a woman during intercourse with another man he is then subjecting himself to inferiority.

Or to assume a feminine gender role, feminine mannerisms, or to be the receiving partner during incertive sex acts.

-- Beland 10:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can we substantiate this?

Homosexuals who suffer from internalised homophobia may discriminate or be violent towards other homosexuals in the same way and to the same extent as anyone else with homophobia. Senator Joseph McCarthy and minister Fred Phelps are sometimes presented as examples of this kind of motivation and behavior; although the primary targets of McCarthy's political crusades were communists, he frequently accused people of homosexuality in order to smear their characters.
Homophobic violence is correlated with repressed homosexuality. Many serial murderers in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, most famously John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Herb Baumeister, and Dean Corll, to name but a few, were homosexuals who targeted other gays out of rage.
Sometimes homosexuals who are opposed to homosexual behaviour or who choose to hide their orientations, particularly public or political figures, are forcibly outed by campaign groups or newspapers who claim that opposing homosexual behaviour while being homosexual is hypocritical and should be exposed. Even prominent closeted homosexuals who do not oppose homosexuality, but rather wish to remain silent, are often forcibly "outed," as has been the case with several film actors and professional athletes, such as Hayden Christensen and Mike Piazza. This is a controversial tactic.

Can we substantiate any of this? If we cannot, then it should not be in the article. - jredmond 22:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The homosexuality of the serial killers who have articles is substantiated in those articles, and some of them did target homosexuals. I think the relevent serial killers are already mentioned in Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered, but it's unclear that internalized homophobia was an issue with any of them. Outing has its own article; it might not be bad idea to turn this into a see-also link or a passing reference. As for other specific claims and generalizations, I wouldn't stand by them without further documentation. (I guess that's why I removed these claims in the first place.) -- Beland 04:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Can we substantiate, though, that those serial killers were driven to kill, or that Senator McCarthy or Fred Phelps were driven to their methods, by their own repressed sexuality? I'll check those serial killer articles, but can't find anything to back up the claim that McCarthy or Phelps act the way they did/do because they're secretly gay.
And while the paragraph on "outing" is salvageale, the specific names are IMHO not necessary. - jredmond 16:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Year of publication of Weinberg's Society and the Healthy Homosexual

The Homophobia page currently says that George Weinberg coined the word homophobia in 1971; the page on George Weinberg says he coined it in 1972. I have no idea which is right, but this should probably be fixed. -- Avram 23:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Validity?

What happened, BTW, to the wiki doctrine ""Wikipedia articles should always reflect accepted wisdom (irrespective of its validity), and not be a platform for minority views."

Does this article not contravene this principle?

193.131.115.253

Do you have a problem with a specific part of this article? Personally, I think it is rather well written, with the exception of the well placed NPOV-section tags. Please reference the problematic parts of this article so that it can be improved. --CVaneg 15:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Excuse me both of you, but that is not a Wikipedia doctrine. The doctrine is:

  • Articles should be as accurate as possible.
  • When the truth is in doubt or a matter of controversy, then Wikipedia articles shall describe the controversy fairly - rather than endorsing any particular POV as the "right" one.

This doesn't mean that minority views should be ignored.

I ought to know. I helped craft the NPOV statement. In case of doubt, post to talk:Jimbo Wales.

Thanks. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:11, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Usage: missed the simplest thing?

Isn't homophobia often used to mean, quite simply, straight men's (possibly irrational) fear of becoming gay themselves?

  • That's one I've heard before. And I'm sure there are some straight men who fear this. But I'm not sure that all straight men are afraid of becoming gay. The usage question is complicated though, I agree. I would say that while some might justifiably dispute the validity of the term homophobia on the grounds that they believe it to be a form of discrimination rather than a bona fide phobia, and others because they support the idea that all such discrimination is borne out of fear, the fact remains that the term is commonly used when discussing discrimination against lesbians and gay men, and whether this is the correct usage or not is irrelevant - the word may be searched for in any of these contexts by a reader, so all interpretations should be included. I think the dual associations and usage controversy section covers this adequately as it stands. - Urbane legend 02:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed text

Some critics of these events say that culturally "extreme" practices at these events, such as gharish clothing, nudity, displays of sex toys or other sexual devices, BDSM or sexual performances, frighten cultural outsiders and actually end up promoting homophobia.

Why was this text removed? It does seem like a common criticism. -- Beland 02:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

New intro

The previous intro made some inaccurate assumptions or glossed over some disputes.

It's not common knowledge that opposition to homosexuality is irrational. Some advocates have given reasons for their opposition. The two most commonly presented reasons are:

  1. "My religion says its a sin", and
  2. Research findings which claim that homosexuality leads to unhappiness

Since reason #1 is by definition undebatable, it should be mentioned in the article neutrally. The article should say that some advocates appeal to their religion (or religious interpretation) to condemn homosexuality. I believe the main objections these advocates have is to male-male sex and female-female sex (which they call "homosexual acts"). The article should also mention the objections raised to the religious advocates, such as (A) other religious people who disagree with the interpretatinos of the former group and (B) people who say that religious objections are unimportant, should be dismissed, etc.

Reason #2 also deserves a bit of space in the article, even though it is a minority view. Wikipedia should not endorse the views of the medical or psychological establishment but merely indicate what percent of doctors and psychologists adhere to AMA / APA pronouncements. If, for example, NARTH's views are 0.1 % of all professionals, than the article should still include their views but emphasisize that it's a tiny minority. Something like this:

  • All but a tiny minority of psychologisists and therapists agree with the APA that homosexuality is normal. Only ___.__% of American therapists accept the legitimacy of reparative therapy.

It comes down to this: should Wikipedia endorse the gay rights view of homosexuality, or remain neutral about it? Uncle Ed 15:24, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


Incomprehensible verbiage

The following two paragraphs are not suitable for a layman's introduction to the subject:

Most people who discuss the idea of prejudice against LGBT people use the term "homophobia" as a parallel to racism or sexism (which refers to gender prejudice). Heterosexism and sexualism have been proposed as alternatives which are more morphologically parallel, and which do not have the association with phobia. The term "homosexualism" is a rarely-used synonym of homosexuality. Queer Theory uses the term heterocentric to refer to a similar ontological assumption, and the parallel term from critical theory is heteronormativity. Heterosexualism is an ambiguous term which is used either as a synomym for heterosexuality or heterosexism (prejudice against homosexuals). "Homoism" is not a term in widespread use.
Homophobia as a medical phobia i.e., a clinically diagnosed medical condition, is quite uncommon, especially compared to the prevalence of disapproval of homosexuality for reasons described as logical, political, personal, or moral. Although not specifically listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, clinical homophobia might fall into the class of "specific phobias" or be associated with other disorders. For something that might be described as "medical homophobia", see homosexual panic.

Perhaps they could go further down in the article, if they are repaired so that laymen could understand the unfamiliar terminology, such as:

Also we should be careful about describing "homophobia" as clinically diagnosed, if we concede in the next breath that it's not "listed" in the DSM. Actually, this smacks of unattributed POV masquerading as undisputed knowledge. Uncle Ed 17:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fail to see what your probem with those paragraphs is. Exploding Boy 00:04, August 23, 2005 (UTC)