Talk:Homophobia

It seems to me that this article is highly NPOV. I will be giving a detailed description of its faults next, but overall it gives the incorrect impression that the term homophobia is not widely accepted or widely disputed term. The fact remains that while homophobia is not a psychaitric term, it is a term widely used to describe prejudice against homosexuals.

k - my comments inline. Martin

First of all, I would like to note that none of edits actually deleted any of the text in the article except where it seemed to make little or no sense or be to confusing or POV to rescue. Rather than blindly reverting my edits, perhaps this should've been taken into account. --Axon

Unlike agoraphobia and some other phobias, homophobia is not a psychiatric term. There is no such thing as clinical homophobia.

Doing a quick search of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association came up with several hits for this term. It may well be correct to say there is no such thing as 'clinical homophobia' - although some evidence to back this up would be useful - but it certainly appears to be widely accepted by these worthy institutions.

The APA discuss homophobia (they discuss many things), but they do not regard it as a bona fide phobia, nor do they seek to define the term. The evidence we had to back this up was a psychologist - see old Talk. The APA also discusses hosiery - this does not mean that hosiery is a psychological or psychiatric term. --mrd

Regardless, mentioning this in the first paragraph without even properly defining the use of the term homophobia first strikes me as being highly POV which is why I moved it to the definitions section (directly) below. Psychiatrists don't use the term hosiery, but I don't see mention that 'hosiery is not a pscychiatric term' in the first paragraph in the hosiery article either. So, other than to further someone's POV agenda that homophobia doesn't exist, why mention it here? Similarly, it isn't mentioned under xenophobia because, on assumes, that information is obvious. Also, it does not mention that several studies on homphobia are underway and that homophobia is a term in commmon usage amongst psychiatrist and psychologists... highly POV. --Axon

Similarly, no mention is made of the various legal definitions of homophobia that exist in gay panic defense and hate crime legislation.

I guess nobody was aware of them - thank you for adding a brief stub - though more information would be helpful. --mrd

I think the linked articles in question are more than sufficient surely? Why repeat matter there, here?

The word homophobia is also sometimes used to characterize anyone who disapproves of homosexual behavior. This use of the term is considered unfair or incorrect by many who feel that there are rational reasons to oppose homosexuality.

This information is repeated below and I see no reason why it is repeated at the start of the page, esp. considering it doesn't reperesent the opposing view in a fair or NPOV manner.

k - we can cut the second sentence, but I think we need to keep the first. --mrd

I still don't understand what was wrong with my definition of homophobia and why it was automatically deleted: most people agree with my definition, even if they disagree as to whether it exists or not. --Axon

Some people, especially in the gay rights movement, use the term to mean any sort of disapproval of homosexuality, whether subtle or explicit, unconscious or conscious, completely unreasoning or in some way principled.

Again, highly NPOV: the suggestion here is that it is only gay rights advocates use the term.

"highly NPOV"? Check your jargon...

The suggestion is that it is especially, but not only, people in the gay rights movement who use the term homophobia in this particular manner. It does not say, or suggest, that only gay rights advocates use the term in this manner. --mrd

I notice that despite the fact that I moved the highly POV 'Deliberate Blurring?' section to the more NPOV 'Opposition to the definition of homophobia' section, right next to the 'Opposition to homophobia' section. Why revert my changes without noticing this? This section dresses up opinion and POV as fact, it assumes that are rational opposition to homosexuality can be held, when there is an obvious controversy and debate over this issue. Therefore, it is certainly not neutral. I would rather it attributed these opinions to those who actually hold them: people in the anti-gay lobby, religious groups, etc. than just assert them as fact --Axon

"It is usually not the case, for homophobic persons, that the basis of their attitudes towards homosexuality is rational reasoning, or intellectual argumentation. Such endeavors have, as a rule, been added afterwards, to try to give the homophobia a nicer and more respectable framing. However, these attempts to argue intellectually against homosexuality are utter failures." [1] (http://www.indegayforum.org/articles/berggren41)

It can be argued that this use of the term homophobia is self-contradictory, since a phobia does not have rational motives.

Nowhere do this quote claim that homophobia is rational: rather, the author is claiming that attempts to disguise their homophobia as reasoning. This sentence seems a little out of place and the quote doesn't make any sense in this context.

The quote claims that it is usually not the case that homophobia is rational, but allows that in some unusual cases, as exceptions to the "rule", homophobia can be rational. I confirmed this by emailing Niclas Berggren, incidentally - see old Talk. --mrd

I still think the quote is misleading and this segment is confusing and somewhat superfluous. Perhaps eliciting a better/cleare quote from the author would be an idea. --Axon

The use of the term homophobic to imply irrationality is considered an emotive tactic, and some people have stated it as a reason for alienation from the gay rights movement, or insisted that their opposition is grounded on solid facts.

Totally POV: the above opinion is mostly maintained by anti-gay lobbbyists and no where is this made clear.

I think most people would accept that homophobia is an emotive word, meaning that it raises strong emotions. A case study would be useful here - I'll see if I can dig something up. --mrd

Homophobia is certainly an emotive topic, but that's besides the point. The use of 'emotive tactic' is highly pejorative and suggests deceit and manipulation on the part of 'gay rights advocates'. The only people who I've ever heard make the 'alienation' claim are anti-gay lobbyists or religious groups. There is absolutely no way this sentence is NPOV. Perhaps if you find a study to 'prove' this, if it is even provable, maybe, but otherwise it should be deleted or otherwise attributed to opinion in a more fair and neutral manner. --Axon

The statement 'is consider emotive' is highly POV yet is stated as a matter of fact. In fact, the 'deliberate blurring' is conjecture and opinion dressed up as fact. Similarly, why would it alienate those opposed to the gay rights movement against the gay rights movement: sure they are already alienated from each other? -- Axon

Some people say that they are not opposed to gay rights, but feel alienated from the gay rights movement by what they consider an emotive tactic of labelling opponents as homophobic. They may be lying - the reader must judge this for hirself. Would you like a quote attributed to a named advocate?

See my points above... BTW, I notice you've just used the term 'advocate' and its used throughout the article. What do you mean when you say advocate. Its not clear here, or in the article. --Axon

Some people do insist that their opposition to "gay rights" is grounded on solid facts. Again, would you like a quote? Martin

No where did I dispute this and I think making an issue of this is side-tracking the discussion: what I dispute is the neutrality of this article. From reading this anyone would get the opinion that homphobia is a term only used by a handful of strange beasts called 'gay rights advocates', and not a term in widespread usage by many people, not just those concerned purely with gay rights. Opinion is clearly dressed up as fact and, particularly at the start of the article, it shows a clear bias against homosexuals and those people who support gay rights or who use the term homophobia. Finally, despite its claims to NPOV this article makes no mention of the (obvious) fact that most of the people accused of being homophobes deny the accusation - no-one wants to be a homophobe in the same way that no-one wants to be a racist, yet they exist. I don't understand how, given Wikipedia's claim to neutrality, this article got discussed in such detail yet ended up with such bias. --Axon

Going through some stuff I was dubious about:

The term is more commonly used to describe prejudice ordiscrimination against homosexuals.

Do we have any evidence on which usage of the term homophobia is the most common? I seem to recall that in old Talk we looked for some, and couldn't find any.

I just assumed from my day to day reading of newspapers that this is the common usage of homophobia. Most people use it in this sense in my mind. Certainly, its the definition that springs to mind when I use it. It is, in my mind, the homosexual equivalent of racism, since the term homsexualism or sexualism is already used for something else. Is there really any dispute of the most common usage of this term? --Axon

Some people ... consider all forms of prejudice against homosexuality to be fundamentally based upon this irrational hatred and fear, and therefore equate all such disapproval with homophobia

Well... yes, but you're putting the justification for this use first, and putting the fact (that some people consider all dissapproval homophobic) second. I think putting the fact first and the justification first is better.

Perhaps that would be clearer: --Axon

Many supporters of homosexuality and homosexual equality consider most, if not all, opposition to, or dissaproval of, homosexuality to be homophobia and based upon an irrational hatred and fear.

Opposition to the definition of homophobia

Bad title - it assumes that there is the definition, and that opponents of gay rights oppose this one correct definition, and are therefore wrong. "Deliberate Blurring?" may be non-optimal, but at least it has a question mark... :)

Deliberate blurring is also highly POV. Perhaps 'Oppposition to the labelling of homophobia' would be more satisfactory? If not shorter than at least satisfactory to both parties. --Axon

Oh, and the "straight supremacism" bit is related to blurring, and should probably follow below it.

Many in the anti-gay lobby claim reject the terms homophobia and homophobic

I think that's misleading. Firstly, these people reject what they see as the overuse of the term homophobia - they generally don't reject the term itself. Secondly, most of these people would not describe themselves as part of the "anti-gay lobby" - "opponents of gay rights" would be fairer. Martin

I agree with the first part: they dispute the over use of the term, although I imagine some also refute the term itself. The second is more dubious. Most of the people who use the term homophobia don't really consider themselves to be gay rights advocates: there just members of society who find opposition to homosexuality distasteful. I suggest if you refute the use of 'anti-gay lobby' then you should similarly refute the use of this exotic creature 'gay rights advocate'. --Axon

re: "blind reverts" - I'm sorry you believe that. :-(

re: psychiatric usage - Some people mistakenly believe that homophobia is a psychiatric term, and that such a thing as "clinical homophobia" exists - I don't think that confusion exists w.r.t. xenophobia. But I like what you've done to that section, and I think I agree that it doesn't have to be in the very first para.

re: legal definitions - thing is, neither hate crime, nor gay panic defence have information on how these laws and this defence define homophobia. Sure, repeating information is bad, but it'd be good to have that information, at least somewhere.

re: a "POV agenda that homophobia doesn't exist" (when is an agenda not a POV agenda?) - I'm really not seeing where you get that idea. :-/ Nobody who's edited this article thinks that homophobia doesn't exist.

re: most common definition - *shrug* I'd hesitate, based on my own experience, to come to a decision one way or the other. Dictionaries are inconclusive - see onelook results (http://www.onelook.com/?w=homophobia&ls=a). I think it's best to avoid any implications over which is most common, as much as that's possible. Incidentally, I like the changes you just made to the intro, I got in an edit conflict because I just tried to make near-identical changes! :)

re: "completely unreasoning or in some way principled. "... So the problem is that this section assumes that it is possible to have reasoning, principled objections to homosexuality, where some people (many people?) would argue that it is not in fact possible? Ok, I see your point here - I didn't quite understand what you were saying before.

re: "this article makes no mention of the (obvious) fact that most of the people accused of being homophobes deny the accusation" - actually it does. The article says "People who are called homophobes in the second sense typically do not accept that label. They believe they have rational and morally sound reasons for opposing homosexuality."

re: gay-bashing. I always thought that "gay-bashing" was more about actual actions or words, whereas "homophobia" was more about internal beliefs and attitudes. Your experience differs? Martin

re: "Oppposition to the labelling of homophobia" - I don't think that's an improvement. I'm in favour of some labelling, and oppose other labelling... we've got to somehow get across the concept of "overuse" or "blurring", without implying that any particular point of view is correct.... tricky... Martin

I removed this: "Societies current feelings toward homosexuality are well illustrated by the 1999 outing of the Teletubbies character Tinky Winky as a homosexual." Apart from being overly UK-centric and grammatically wrong...er, I think it's wrong in essence. It's not at all clear how society's feeling towards homosexuality are illustrated by that. :) --AW

Another thought - is describing the word as a "neologism" superfluous, perhaps? I've always been an advocate of approaching writing a Wikipedia article as if everything you're writing about happened a thousand years ago and is ancient history, because it seems to me that's the proper style for an encyclopaedia, which is intended to be timeless and authoritative. "Neologism" is an inescapably relative word - *all* words are neologisms looked at from one perspective in time, soon after they are invented. (All the words Shakespeare invented would be neologisms if you lived in 1630, for instance). I sincerely hope this page will be around in some form in another hundred years, at which point homophobia will no longer be a neologism. I think it's probably sufficient simply to say when and by whom the term was coined. Comments? --AW

I agree in a way, but the link to neologism is probably of interest - in fifty years or so, when the word definitely isn't a neologism any more, we can remove it ;) --Camembert