Talk:Homophobia/archive2 - Definition and Overview

This is the second archive page for Talk about the homophobia article.
Currently contains entries that seem to span from Feb. 2004 to Aug. 2004 (hard to tell as many did not date their comments, and the older-to-newer rule was not always followed), and some earlier ones from 2003.
Further discussion archive at talk:Homophobia/archive1

Use of 'Gay Rights Advocate' (July 2003)

I've been noticing a lot of use of the terms 'gay rights advocate' or, even worse, 'gay rights activist'. It would seem that when people disapprove of the use of any pro-gay opinion, they typically attribute it to these exotic creatures 'activists'. When they are ambivalent, they attribute them to the even stranger 'advocate'.

By advocate, I understand that people (probably) mean 'those who support gay rights'. My feeling is that the term is slightly POV - after all, those who support gay rights may also support human rights, religious freedoms, etc. However, attributing pro-gay sentiment to 'gay rights advocate' would seem to suggest an individual whose focus is nothing but gay rights, which is not usually the case. Perhaps creating an article under Gay rights advocate would be useful, or defining the term in the Gay rights article?

In summary, all uses of the term 'gay rights activist' should either be deleted or normalised to be more NPOV. And 'gay rights advocate' needs to be properly defined or replaced with a less POV term. --Axon Tue Jul 22 11:45:44 GMTDT 2003

I agree, Axon. Particular, an "activist" is someone who goes around actively spreading their POV. The article probably isn't interested that much in the views of activists, per se. "Advocate" could also be confused with activist. Perhaps the longer phrase those who support gay rights will work better. Why don't we try it? --Uncle Ed 14:54 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think that sounds a bit wishy-washy, myself, but there you are...

I changed Bidstrup's description from "gay rights advocate" to "gay rights activist", based on this page: [1] (http://www.bidstrup.com/flames.htm), in which Bidstrup self-describes using this phrase. Martin

The advantage of 'gay rights adovcate' is it's succinctness. The those who support gay rights is a step in the right direction but is quite lengthy to reproduce throughout a long article like this. Anyone else have any ideas?

Martin: Whilst Bidstrup may describe himself as an activist, it does not necesarily follow that his opinions are representative only of a narrow band of peoples who are 'gay rights activist'. Mentioning Bidstrup is an 'activist' implies that only activists share his views, which is certainly not the case. For example, I agree with some of what Bidstrup says but I'm certainly not an activist. --Axon

I don't think it implies this. Saying that he is an activist tells the reader that he is an authority on the subject of gay rights, and therefore his opinions on homophobia might be worth listening to. This is standard practice in newspapers and such. For example, in Rachel Corrie we quote an Amnesty spokeswoman saying that Israeli bulldozers have been "weaponized". This quote does not imply that only members of Amnesty share her views. Martin 20:39 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you, but we cannot discount the idea that it also suggests that only 'activists' share his views. And if we use the term 'gay rights activist' i think it needs to be fairly and neutrally defined. Is it just someone who says they are an activist? Is it someone who is highly active in the gay rights movement and, if so, how active is enough? Someone who writes letters to his political representative on a regular basis? Or someone who rattles cans outside shopping malls?

I'm leaning more and more to replacing occurences of both gay rights activist and advocate with Some believe, including gay rights advocates, or Some believe, including some members of the gay rights movement. Any ideas? --Axon Thu Jul 31 12:03:29 GMTDT 2003

"homo-prejudice" gets 54 non-duplicate google hits. "homosexual-prejudice" gets 277 non-duplicate google hits. Is it worth discussing in this article? Genuine question. Martin 20:47 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It sounds, from my own research, to be another synonym for homophobia. I've also seen frequent hits on "anti-homosexual prejudice" as well as another snonym for perhaps a more neutral way of refering to homophobia. I see no problem adding it to the article, although I do see much fuel in it for further discussion. What do you have in mind? --Axon

About activists thing (Oct 2003)

I don't really understand why the term activist is POV. Is the term really different from advocate? In my dictionary, if someone who publicly support something, then he is just an open supporter. But if someone constantly push his opinion through news media, then he is an activist.

Every movement needs an activists to push it, or otherwise it will never materialize. If there is no activist, there will be no improvement in the world. If there is no human right activists, I guess we are still living in a miserable world. -wshun 05:21, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The article seems to take as a premise something which it also denies. This is confusing, unless it's a deliberate tactic, in which case it's dishonest.

Whoever is saying that homophobia is an "illness" should be credited with this POV

There is no such thing as clinical homophobia, though the phenomenon of homophobia continues to be studied...

Later in the article, a note says that the second half of the article:

discusses the mental illness, not the disapproval...

This hopelessly cripples the article.

We probably need to separate out the confused concepts. --Uncle Ed 19:14, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

RE: neologism (Feb 2004)

From the neologism page: When a word or phrase is no longer "new," it is no longer a neologism. Exploding Boy 13:52, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

From the neologism page: Versions of Neologism  : Stable - Having gained recognizable and probably lasting acceptance. JDR

Do you claim that "homophobia" has not gained recognizable and lasting acceptance? I defy you to find one English-speaking adult who doesn't know what it means.

That is not what I claim ... it's gained recognizable and lasting acceptance ... that is why it is Stable! JDR

Also... I hate what you've done with the references on this page. (1) they're very confusing (a bunch of numbers) and (2) exactly what is wrong with having URLs on a page? You seem intent on getting rid of them all. I really suggest you have another look at wikipedia: cite your sources. Exploding Boy 13:57, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

It seems that they already like that (ie., OTHER editors citing the sources as they go) .... but I was going to format them ... (I don't think I did that though ... you did ... see change between Revision as of 08:38, 9 Feb 2004 and Revision as of 08:18, 9 Feb 2004) JDR

No, I mean the References section.Exploding Boy 14:16, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

What?!?!?! SEE the article's version history ... you changed it ... I just now formatted it ... your change is @ Revision as of 08:38, 9 Feb 2004 JDR

I don't know what's going on; looking at the history it looks as if I changed it, but I assure you I didn't.Exploding Boy 14:27, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

I do not know .... I did not mess with the inline links (when they were @ the end of each of the prghs). Usually it's ok to do that though [like what they do @ "current events"). Putting them in a ref section is good too (and a bit more formal) ...

As to what's "going on" ... I don't know ... I don't have access to mess with it (mabey it's that "cabal's magic"?) ... are u sure u didn't move them? (mabey thinking I mv'ed them up into the article's body?) it's ok if you did and forgot ... it's all good now anyways ... so hope things meet the "std" (but that is only a guide ... not a rule)... JDR

I changed the end-of-paragraph links to links to a new "Reference" section; I did not change the links in the reference section to just a series of numbers, but anyway they're changed back now. I think what happens sometimes is edit conflicts screw up the history. Anyway, no harm done.Exploding Boy 14:54, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

oh ... i see what happened ... Exploding, if you do a link ( ie., http://en.wikipedia.org ) and put it in brackets [http://en.wikipedia.org] it turns into this : [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org) ... and that's what happened ... but it's all good now ... Sincerely, JDR

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

Causes (March 2004 through Sept 2004)

Removed from article:

    The most basic roots of homophobia lie in the instinct of procreation,
    the most fundamental of instincts. The very thought of a parent that his 
    child may become a gay or lesbian and thus will break the biological 
    chain of generations makes the person to consider gays and lesbians as a 
    source of a potential threat to his family line. Besides religion, the 
    thought that we continue to live in our children and children of our 
    children keeps us at peace with death, and gays and lesbians are 
    percieved to threaten this peace. 

Exploding Boy 01:22, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

, on March 2, 2004 you added ([3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Homophobia&oldid=3418795)) content that removed (see above). Do you have an sources? I sympathize your effort to add an explination for a phobia, by definition an irrational fear, but it seems that a short summary of the general cause, which is known, is in order here.

Exploding Boy, while I imagine you felt it was more than obvious, you should have included a reason for your removal of the text to talk.

Mikkalai, however, I'll provide a reason now. It isn't true that gay and lesbian people would or do pass on their genes far less frequently. Consider the intense pressure to be straight and reproduce over the last few hundred years. Gay people pass on their genes all the time, in fact, gay and lesbian teenagers are twice as likely to impregnate someone or be impregnated (http://www.lesbianinformationservice.org/pregnancy.rtf). See: situational sexual behaviour.

Given that, its hard to imagine that parents would be horrified that their children would not procreate, but seemingly disinterested in their children's sinfully deviant socially unacceptable sexual activities or inclinations. Hyacinth 04:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The content was added again, near word for word, by [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Homophobia&diff=5097107&oldid=5003208). This time I let it stand and added content disputing. I am disapointed to learn that you either don't read talk pages or ignore others', specifically my, concerns. Hyacinth 03:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Thank you for explanations. The first time it was removed without any comments. Therefore I restored it. I will try to look for public sources. If I will not find, I will not be fighting against the removal. It was only apparent insolence that made me move. Mikkalai 07:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removed Le Pen as homophobe

I removed Le Pen from list of homophobes, since this is not documented in wikipedia (although I am inclined to believe it is true). Accusations must be supported. Mikkalai 06:11, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

If... (May 2004)

If you've got the slightest criticism against homosexuals and their right to marry each other and to adopt children, then you're instantly branded as a homophobic. This is truly pathetic! The Holy Bible teaches that homosexual acts are a sin. Not a sin that's more severe than any other sin, but STILL A SIN! If every homosexual has the right to say that homosexuality is normal and morally acceptable, then I've got the right to deem it a sin! Rienzo 10:04, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

What has this got to do with anything? Talk pages are not soapboxes. If you have a legit concern about the article, then express it. Dysprosia 11:23, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it is suggested that talk pages are soapboxes, or at least that they, rather, than articles, should be soap boxes.

That said, if one felt that people on the list should not be included because, for instance, they simply believe that same-sex sexual acts are one sin among many no better no worse, then one would have to document that. Or, assuming that the burden of proof is on those who claim someone is homophobic, there should be documentation of homophobia (beyond thinking butt sex is gross like picking one's nose or fellatio is immoral like telling someone their new haircut looks fine, even though it doesn't). Hyacinth 00:20, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

About the intro (July 2004)

The term homophobia means fear or hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice or discrimination against people who engage in homosexual acts.

Just since when does whateverphobia mean hate of?, or prejudice or discrimination. A phobia is an irrational fear of something, pleace back this up because it sounds like senseless POV to me. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:39, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

It's not at all senseless POV, but rather an example of defining a word by common usage. Hyacinth 00:15, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Must we have this whole debate about the definition of homophobia yet again? If you don't understand the word, or don't think the definition is correct, then feel free to look it up in any dictionary. Here's a sample citation from MerriamWebster.com:

    Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia 
    Function: noun
    irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality   
    or homosexuals

Exploding Boy 00:59, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Since the English language is not officially regulated by anybody, including whatever dictionary you manage to dig up they are not the end of all debate, as i'm sure you are aware dictionaries are written after (common?) usage in the language and not the other way around, they're a reference, but not an authority. Anyway, the only thing that can apply in all cases here is phobia; hate or discrimination may follow but it's not part of homophobia. It may follow, but that doesnt mean it's part of this concept, related perhaps.

The reason i object to this is that i've ( in the real world™ ) encountered some homophobes which showed no discrimination or hate agains them, just similar reactions as any other phobia. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:14, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

Thus the "fear or hatred of...". [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:25, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In a way that decks it, however all phobias are just irrational fear, whats the argument for having this one phobia also covering hate and so on? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:44, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Exploding Boy 01:28, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

He was saying that he's encountered homophobes who don't hate gays, just get afraid around them. I replied, saying that the current intro covers those who hate and fear, as well as those who simply fear. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thing is that the general sense is that phobia is irrational fear, people who hate them are often incorrecly labeled homophobic. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:44, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

But according to both dictionaries and common usage, it's not incorrect. That's like saying that me pitching my tent on a hill is not camping, because it's not a large flat open space (Latin campus). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No that was not the point, i was just saying that generally it ends up in that. I still think that since it's a phobia it should be so defined in the article as opposed to or something or that blabla.. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:35, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

Actually, there's no such thing as clinical homophobia. Exploding Boy 02:58, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Etymology (July 2004)

It may be true that "some argue against the use of the term homophobe", but the quote from Jarrod Carter doesn't really support that. He only argues that he isn't homophobic, not that the term in general shouldn't be used. His starting with "the real homophobes are..." strikes me as a rhetorical device, not an actual claim that people are misusing the word. --William Pietri 05:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Prevalence of homophobia (Aug 2004)

Can somebody add this? I want to do it but do not know where. "Homophobia is very widespread and strong in Islamic countries such as Iran and not confined to orthodox Muslims." Andries 18:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Hyacinth 21:35, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hyacinth, the source is me.:-) All the many Iranians that I meet say the same. Today, people almost wanted to kill me just when I asked them what is wrong with homosexuals. I would agree that my experience need corroboration to get included in the article but I personally can not seriously doubt it. Somali guy too. I also read it in the Dutch newspaper Volkskrant about Morocco. Andries 21:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not doubt you, I have read the same, but I would caution to indite the Islamic world without sources. Also, a good source should be able to provide the counter view, that in some ways, or at some times in some places, Islamic society is less homophobic than the "Christian" US. Hyacinth 22:48, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)