What is the defintion of homophobia?

[Excalibre]

[QUOTE=mhendo]
That fact doesn’t make me uncomfortable. what makes me uncomfortable is that people throw around the word “normal” in situations like this as if they were using its commonly-understood meaning, and then, when asked about it, claim with wide-eyed innocence that they were only using the narrow, statistical distributive meaning. It’s disingenuous.
[/quote]

Which makes your leap to essentially accusing Balthisar of being homophobic suddenly seem perfectly reasonable!

Again, the fact that you infer this does not mean it was what i was implying.

The fact that you don’t like the implications of what you’ve said doesn’t mean they’re not there, particularly when you can’t seem to muster up an alternative reading of your own words.

In fact, an argument i was going to make, but didn’t, was precisely that the most flamboyant or stereotypical (or whatever term you want to use) gays also deserve equal treatment, and that gay men and women shouldn’t have to conform to straight or mainstream behavioral norms in order to be accepted and to be treated fairly. I didn’t make that argument because i assumed that you understood my feelings on this issue from the dozens of similar threads i’ve participated in on these boards.

Prior to reading what you’ve said to Balthisar in this thread, I would have thought it was a safe assumption about you.

Well, people disappoint sometimes.

Yeah, that’s all i’m after. This is really nothing more than credential-hunting exercise. You got a toaster oven for me?

It’s not obvious what other purpose your attempts to alienate Balthisar could possibly have.

You’re a real disappointment. I don’t expect people who i’ve interacted with in hundreds of threads on this board to agree with everything i say or do—far from it—but i like to think that they’ll use intellectual honesty and a certain pre-existing respect in their dealings with me. I think i’m done with you. Best of luck.

The ironing! It burns!

[DrDeth]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]

Having said that, I’m pretty sure that homophobia is not really classified as a clinical phobia (I looked and couldn’t find it listed anywhere). As far as I can tell, it’s a completely informal, non-clinical designation for certain kinds of attitudes about gay people, not really a “phobia” the way mental health professionals would use the term.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, in most cases, the word “homophobic” is misused as someone who is bigoted against gays. Although there are some racist bigots that actually have an unreasoning fear of black dudes, in general we just consider tham “bigots”. Thus, we should not use the term “homophobe” instead we should call them what they really are= “bigots”.

I knew a dude that after he found out that the guy he shook hands with was gay, the dude had to run to the bathroom and wash his hands, he was trembling. He might actually have been really “homophobic”. In his case, I would not even call him a bigot, since I’d say he was mentally ill.

Some other dudes have other degrees of “homophobia” such as not wanting to use a shower that was used by gay men. There it appears we might have a “real” “phobia” but it doesn’t seem to rise to a mental illness. You might call them “homophobes” but mostly they are just plain bigots. (It’s possible :dubious: that they are just mind-numbingly ignorant, see below)

OTOH, I have seen dudes here and other places called “homophobes” as they said they wouldn’t vote for a law allowing Gay marriage. Or because they are ignorant of what Homosexuality is and what “Gay culture” is- if there is such a thing. But they aren’t bigots- they are ignorant. Nor are they afraid of gay dudes, so they aren’t homophobes either. In most cases, we are facing ignorance, not bigotry and rarely homophobia.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
And would state it:

• I think the reason people use ‘homophobia’ is because of a political agenda by some people to reprogram people’s thinking by changing the language and redefining mental disorders.

And I think you will see that I have not called you a lier
[/quote]
Ah, I see. It’s just “some people” you’re referring to. No, you haven’t called me a liar, but you have implied I might be. How many people would you say, roughly, are involved in this attempt? Could you estimate a percentage?

IMHO it’s a very hard message to push, I personally feel they think it’s better working on a subconscience level for now, and may cause the loss of that term due to a backlash.

You’ve still got the problem thought that even a subconscience belief that homophobia is a mental illness would engender sympathy and a removal of much blame. But we don’t see that. Either it doesn’t happen in the way you suggest or the message just isn’t getting through.

Flip it around, though, and there are plenty of people who are happy to claim homosexuality is a mental illness. They’ll put that right in their sites and material, and probably with links to some scientific study that backs them up. Why do they go for the direct route, while pro-gay people go for a subtle route?

I have used anti-homosexuality or ‘against homosexuality’, though as you stated I have bowed to the pressure on occasion and have also used homophobic

Do you mean pressure? Pressure from what? If i’m pressurizing you to use “homophobic”, I apologise.

[you_with_the_face]

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Yes, in most cases, the word “homophobic” is misused as someone who is bigoted against gays. Although there are some racist bigots that actually have an unreasoning fear of black dudes, in general we just consider tham “bigots”. Thus, we should not use the term “homophobe” instead we should call them what they really are= “bigots”.
[/quote]

I don’t get this. If a person is bigoted against blacks, it is not a misuse of the English language to call them “racist bigots” anymore than it is wrong to call a teacher of science a “science teacher” or a tree which grows apples an “apple tree”. Why is it incorrect to call someone who is bigoted against gays a “homophobic bigot” or for short, a homophobe?

I knew a dude that after he found out that the guy he shook hands with was gay, the dude had to run to the bathroom and wash his hands, he was trembling. He might actually have been really “homophobic”. In his case, I would not even call him a bigot, since I’d say he was mentally ill.

I don’t think you understand where hate usually comes from. It comes from fear. Study how prejudice and discriminated have presented themselves historically and you’ll always see a component of the same kind of disgust that sends people washing their hands after coming in contact with “the other”. It’s not mental illness. It’s having the belief that “the other” is dirty, vile, and/or subhuman. Black people had seperate water fountains and swimming pools for this reason. Were all the whites who didn’t want to do laps in the same water that the darkies swam in mentally ill, or were they simply victims of an irrational, fear-based belief system?

[Slypork]

Back to the OP, I do understand the dictionary definition of (according to the Encarta Dictionary) an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, homosexual men and lesbians, and their culture (bolding mine). I have no problem with GLBT people, my uncle was gay, two of my wife’s cousins are lesbians, I have gay friends (who took us to a great cabaret on North Halsted).

I can’t understand, though, the gay people who take offense when I tell them that I can’t imagine myself being sexually attracted to a man. It’s not the way I am wired and is not a turn-on. I’ve had some call me a homophobe because I think that it’s gross. I wouldn’t watch gay porn because it’s not something that gets my motor running, so does that mean I’m a homophobe?

And despite the protestations from certain people, there really is a GBLT sub-culture. Not all homosexuals are transvestites but there is a certain portion that enjoys cross-dressing (both ways). Not all gay men are effeminate, prancing, lisping stereotypes and not all lesbian women are the plaid shirt, Birkenstock wearing diesel dykes with a voice deeper than Barry White. But some gay and lesbians glorify the stereotype and push it to the front as a way of “sticking it in the face” of straight people.

To me a true homophobe is someone that is so bothered by GBLT people that they cannot accept them as an individual away from their sexual orientation.

[DrDeth]

[QUOTE=you with the face]
I don’t get this. If a person is bigoted against blacks, it is not a misuse of the English language to call them “racist bigots” anymore than it is wrong to call a teacher of science a “science teacher” or a tree which grows apples an “apple tree”. Why is it incorrect to call someone who is bigoted against gays a “homophobic bigot” or for short, a homophobe?

[/QUOTE]

Well, becuase to a large extent, they really don’t have a phobia about gay dudes. But if you must you must. I think “bigot” says all we need to say.

[Johanna]

Speaking of homophobia, or by extension queerphobia in general, I wish the word “effeminate” would die out from the English language. It’s derogatory, its only purpose in being said is derogatory. If it isn’t your intention to put someone down, why not just say “feminine”? It’s OK to use the phrase “feminine man”, it carries no connotation of a negative value judgment the way “effeminate” always does.

[Slypork]

[QUOTE=Johanna]
Speaking of homophobia, or by extension queerphobia in general, I wish the word “effeminate” would die out from the English language. It’s derogatory, its only purpose in being said is derogatory. If it isn’t your intention to put someone down, why not just say “feminine”? It’s OK to use the phrase “feminine man”, it carries no connotation of a negative value judgment the way “effeminate” always does.
[/QUOTE]
It might be considered “derogatory” but it is the correct word for describing certain behavior according wot Websters:

1 : having feminine qualities untypical of a man
2 : not manly in appearance or manner

The alternative would be to say that the man is acting in a feminine manner. However, in the interest of being concise people will use effeminate.

[Johanna]

Not so many years ago “Negro” was considered the “correct word” too. “Miss” and “Mrs.” used to be the “correct” choice of words too. Language is always changing, especially when liberation movements are afoot.

At least for people who are conscious about gender issues, “effeminate” is already going the way of “Negro” and I just want to give it a push out the door, make it go away a little faster, 'cause I’m damn sick of it.

[Balthisar]

[QUOTE=Johanna]
Not so many years ago “Negro” was considered the “correct word” too. “Miss” and “Mrs.” used to be the “correct” choice of words too. Language is always changing, especially when liberation movements are afoot.
[/QUOTE]

Am I that out of touch? What’s wrong with “negro”? Err, not that far out of touch, but we still use “miss” and “Mrs.” and “Ms.” and “Mr.” – what the hell do you use???

[Malthus]

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Yes, in most cases, the word “homophobic” is misused as someone who is bigoted against gays. Although there are some racist bigots that actually have an unreasoning fear of black dudes, in general we just consider tham “bigots”. Thus, we should not use the term “homophobe” instead we should call them what they really are= “bigots”.

I knew a dude that after he found out that the guy he shook hands with was gay, the dude had to run to the bathroom and wash his hands, he was trembling. He might actually have been really “homophobic”. In his case, I would not even call him a bigot, since I’d say he was mentally ill.

Some other dudes have other degrees of “homophobia” such as not wanting to use a shower that was used by gay men. There it appears we might have a “real” “phobia” but it doesn’t seem to rise to a mental illness. You might call them “homophobes” but mostly they are just plain bigots. (It’s possible :dubious: that they are just mind-numbingly ignorant, see below)

OTOH, I have seen dudes here and other places called “homophobes” as they said they wouldn’t vote for a law allowing Gay marriage. Or because they are ignorant of what Homosexuality is and what “Gay culture” is- if there is such a thing. But they aren’t bigots- they are ignorant. Nor are they afraid of gay dudes, so they aren’t homophobes either. In most cases, we are facing ignorance, not bigotry and rarely homophobia.
[/QUOTE]

While I like your distinction between bigotry, ignorance and phobia (as in mental illness), and I think it is quite logical , I do not think that it is in general use. To my mind, whatever “homophobia” ought to mean, in general usage it simply means “bigotry against gays” whatever the source; and to use it in that manner is not a “misuse” until the language itself changes so as to accept a more logical structure.

Of course, what counts as “bigotry”, or prejudice sufficient to amount to homophobia, varies somewhat from person to person. Myself, I draw the line at those who talk about or treat gays as if their sexual orientation was their (negative) defining characteristic, overshadowing their individual qualities as human beings. I would use the same test for skin colour and the term “racist”.

I realize this sets the bar pretty high, but I prefer that those labelled with those sorts of labels be pretty clearly deserving of them - so as to not devalue the strength of the label.

[Kimstu]

@Balthisar

Am I that out of touch? What’s wrong with “negro”? Err, not that far out of touch, but we still use “miss” and “Mrs.” and “Ms.” and “Mr.” – what the hell do you use???

Whew! I admit you startled me at first by seeming not to know the current status of “Negro”. Mind you, it’s a perfectly good word in and of itself, but it suffered during the civil rights era from racists’ attempts to conflate it with the slur “nigger”, and consequently “black” became the generally preferred term among non-racists.

More recently, the honorific “Ms.” has become the default honorific for women, similar to “Mr.” as the default for men. Of course, you wouldn’t use “Ms.” if you know that the woman in question prefers “Miss” or “Mrs.” (or “Dr.”, for that matter) instead. But in situations where you don’t know a woman’s marital status or preferred form of address, “Ms.” is the default.

[DrDeth]

[QUOTE=Malthus]
While I like your distinction between bigotry, ignorance and phobia (as in mental illness), and I think it is quite logical , I do not think that it is in general use. To my mind, whatever “homophobia” ought to mean, in general usage it simply means “bigotry against gays” whatever the source; and to use it in that manner is not a “misuse” until the language itself changes so as to accept a more logical structure.

.
[/QUOTE]

No, you’re right and I am wrong. :smack: The “usage” is as you say. My saying that it’s wrong won’t stop the tide from making Canute’s feet wet.

Umm, Kimstu? From my expereince, “Ms.” is now oudated. Really.

[betenoir]

[QUOTE=Excalibre]
zelie, betenoir, mhendo, and (to a lesser extent) Kimstu, could you guys knock it off with the patronizing comments about how gay people are exactly the same as straight people and don’t have any distinct subculture of our own?
[/QUOTE]

Ok I haven’t read the rest of the discussion which is a major infraction (I will but I have to say something now). When the hell did I say their wern’t gay subcultures? I use the pural because there are plenty. There are also straight subcultures. Plenty.

Aside from the acceptence of society (which I realize is not something you can really put aside) how are we different?

[Nava]

[QUOTE=enigm4tic]
Similarly, people who are scared or hate homosexual influences are not “homophobic” although I suppose they could be diagnosed as such if they were so intensely scared of running in to gays that they never left their house
[/QUOTE]

Or if they refused to work one of their factories’ three shifts because “Miguel is gay and I don’t want him looking at my ass!” That certainly fulfills the definition of “negatively impacts your ability to live a normal life”. Another coworker snorted and said “dude, want me to list you every guy I’ve seen staring at my dick? It includes several married ones :rolleyes: .”

[Excalibre]

[QUOTE=betenoir]
Ok I haven’t read the rest of the discussion which is a major infraction (I will but I have to say something now). When the hell did I say their wern’t gay subcultures? I use the pural because there are plenty. There are also straight subcultures. Plenty.

Aside from the acceptence of society (which I realize is not something you can really put aside) how are we different?
[/QUOTE]

How is it that you manage to write something without even reading it?

[Nava]

Johanna, could you please explain to me the “queerphobia” term? Is it supposed to be some sort of enlargement to include bisexuals and trans? Because I imagine you’ve already noticed by now, but finding someone who’s mentally allergic to homosexuals but not to trans or bis is kind of difficult - so the enlargement doesn’t seem necessary.

And effeminate doesn’t mean feminine. Many of my female friends and relatives are feminine and not effeminate.

[betenoir]

[QUOTE=Excalibre]
How is it that you manage to write something without even reading it?
[/QUOTE]

I was just repying to your one specific post. As I admited. And admited I should read the rest of it, but as this is the one that mentions me…

and said I was patonizing, and I don’t believe I was or ever have been. I have to take that personally.

Anyway address my post rather than me, and I’ll go back and read the rest of the thread. Deal?

[Johanna]

[QUOTE=Nava]
Johanna, could you please explain to me the “queerphobia” term? Is it supposed to be some sort of enlargement to include bisexuals and trans?
[/quote]
Yes, and also some queer people don’t define themselves by any of the above categories and say “I’m just queer, that’s all.”

Because I imagine you’ve already noticed by now, but finding someone who’s mentally allergic to homosexuals but not to trans or bis is kind of difficult - so the enlargement doesn’t seem necessary.

The default assumption in some quarters seems to be that any guy who isn’t sufficienly macho is therefore classified derogatorily as “faggot” like there’s just that one category for all gender nonconformity. But there are lots of varieties of being queer, gay is only one area of queerdom, there are lots of others, and the only terms that cover the whole range are “queer” and “LGBT” (the latter comes with optional extensions). Fairies are not always gay, and gays are usually not fairies.

And effeminate doesn’t mean feminine. Many of my female friends and relatives are feminine and not effeminate.

I’m not sure what you understand by the term, to me it implies a value judgment “feminine when you’re not supposed to be, i.e. male” and therefore a putdown of gender nonconformists.

[Excalibre]

[QUOTE=betenoir]
I was just repying to your one specific post. As I admited. And admited I should read the rest of it, but as this is the one that mentions me…

and said I was patonizing, and I don’t believe I was or ever have been. I have to take that personally.

Anyway address my post rather than me, and I’ll go back and read the rest of the thread. Deal?
[/QUOTE]

You and several other people got in Balthisar’s face because he rightly said that a lot of people are not comfortable around folks who are really obviously gay. Some gay people are hard to read - a lot of lesbians and gay men act pretty much like anyone else. But some of us are easy to read. Do you think there’s no reason behind stereotypes about women with short hair who play softball or men wearing tight clothes and talking in that stereotypical gay male way? Of course there are. And that’s obviously the sort of thing Balthisar was talking about. It’s not fair that people like that face a particularly heavy burden of discrimination - but it’s true nonetheless, and the fact that he brought it up doesn’t make him a homophobe. Beyond that, there really are gay subcultures in our society, and pretending that there’s nothing more to being gay than falling in love with folks of the same sex is disingenuous and irritating.

Bottom line, it comes across as patronizing to be told by straight “allies” that hey, you guys are just like us! We’re not necessarily just like you, and a lot of us aren’t trying to be just like you, and that’s okay. Our acceptance in society shouldn’t be contingent on being just like you. Calls to accept gay people because we’re just like everyone else except for one minor detail are harmful to gay acceptance.

And frankly, if you’re going to take it upon yourself to speak for the queers like you’re the damn Lorax, please don’t decide that someone is a homophobe when there’s no evidence they are. It’s bad enough that folks like erie774 go around claiming they get tarred as a homophobe for not wanting to have sex with men (which, of course, I don’t believe for an instant. Obviously there’s a lot more to whatever went on there - if indeed it’s based on a true event at all.) It’s worse yet that there are folks who go around calling straight people homophobes for not toeing the line and repeating the mantra that The Gays Are Just Like Straight People. It’s harmful to gay acceptance for the reasons I said above, and it’s further harmful because it offends people who might not be hardcore queer allies but don’t have anything against us. And it weakens the idea of homophobia to misapply it - it hurts the credibility of queer people when we use it to describe people who are actually homophobic.