Talk:Homophobia - Definition and Overview

Post talk here using guidelines for talk pages
Sign and date your posts! Type four tildes: ~~~~
Older talk at:

• talk:Homophobia/archive1
• talk:Homophobia/archive2
  

Version as of 30 Dec 2004

I feel that this article (version as of 30 Dec 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homophobia&oldid=9084483)) 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. Dec 29, 2004

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. -anonymous

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.html)

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

Hi there! There is no mention about the over-usage of the term "homophobia" among gay right activists. For example, many gay right activists use the term "homophobia" to describe all those who oppose "same=sex marriage". Of course, emotional words are always over-used! -wshun

Homophobia is a psychiatric term

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.) Liberty Miller 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.) -Liberty 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. -Liberty 4 Feb 2005

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. - Liberty 04 Feb 2005

Explain your Feb 2005 changes here

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. - Liberty 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.
-Liberty

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. ] - Liberty 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 (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=homophobia&x=10&y=12)

• "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

The American Heritage 2 (http://www.bartleby.com/61/90/H0259000.html)

• "fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men and behavior based on such a feeling"

Which discrimination:

Marriam-Webster 3 (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=discrimination&x=13&y=8)

• "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 (http://www.bartleby.com/61/32/D0263200.html)

• "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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homophobia&oldid=510215) 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. -Liberty 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? -Liberty 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)

Liberty 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)