Talk:Homophobia

POV check tag

I have added it to the article so a neutral editor can address the glaring bias 71.204.179.212 (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What glaring bias? You must be specific. Otherwise, it's just your bias on display in a sweeping generalisation. Never helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. You need to be specific. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a specific! "Among more discussed forms are institutionalized 'homophobia' (e.g. religious and state-sponsored[5])". The footnote refers to the International Lesbian and Gay Association. There's no way that's a neutral or scientific source. PaulSank (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

But it is a reliable source. ILGA is an UN accredited organization. I see no need for an NPOV tag. --Scientiom (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliability is not what's in dispute at the moment. We're trying to make this article neutral. As far as I can tell from its website, the ILGA is at least in part an activist organization. Activist organizations do like to make definitions, but their definitions are designed to support what they're doing. Activists often use definitions to re-frame the debate. I wouldn't use Focus On The Family, either, even though I agree with them on many points, because, again, they're not a neutral source. Activists, regardless of which side they're on, should never be used as sources for definitions that are supposed to be neutral. PaulSank (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand the WP context of the word "neutral," neutral on WP does not mean that subjects are presented uncritically, or that wikipedia treats all sides of a subject equally. Neutral means that the reliable sources of any given subject are given the appropriate weight in an article based on their prominence as sources. We as editors have to be neutral, which means that our opinions are not put into the article. Sources only need to be reliable and mainstream. Because this source is a UN accredited organization, it meets our standards for reliability and thus is acceptable. If you disagree, you're welcome to get a second opinion on the reliable sources notice board. N^oformation ^Talk 05:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Unless someone else wants to take up the issue of neutrality re this article, I say it's time to remove the tag. PaulSank (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If this is the defnition of neutral, why is it that a link to http://conservapedia.com/Homophobia was immediately removed? This site represents the views of a significant portion of the population and, whether people like it or not, the views expressed on that page are mainstream as well. 142.151.202.168 (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Because Conservapedia is the antithesis of what WP regards as a reliable source. AV3000 (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is a confusing POV & synthesis mess by blending in off-topic items

What a mess! Nearly every part of the article seeks to define (by inclusion here) any opposition to homosexuality (or the societal normalization of homosexuality) on any grounds as a/the "phobia". This article needs paring (to put it mildly) to limit it's coverage to actual phobia.

It could have a section to cover efforts/tactics to try to label any opposition to homosexuality or the societal normalization of homosexuality as a phobia, but the article should cover rather than participate in that effort. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Explain. What are the examples in the article? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

About 80% of the content of the article. These are the parts that are about mere opposition or disdain for homosexuality, or opposition to the societal normalization of homosexuality, or to efforts opposed to those I just listed, all where there is no particular "phobia" aspect. Here are the three largest scale examples:

• The entire "Institutionalized homophobia" section, including all of its subsections
• The entire "Distribution of attitudes in the UK and US" section
• The entire "Efforts to combat homophobia" section

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, we've had this before. "Opposition" to homosexuality is a cloak for homophobia (one cannot be "opposed" to it, just as one cannot be "opposed" to someone being black or white). Secondly, "-phobia" also means aversion, so most of what's mentioned here is warranted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Your first answer (including and parallel to race) is founded on a presumed answer to the "is it a choice/behavior vs. an embedded attribute?" debate. Second, it skipped all of the other types of opposition (e.g. opposition to the societal normalization of it) Finally, and most fundamentally, an aversion does not equate to a phobia. E.G. an aversion to eating liver does not mean a phobia of liver, an aversion to conservatism does not mean a "phobia" of conservatism. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as relevant experts in the subject are concerned, that question has been answered. Not all words follow their literal etymological roots, see the collapsed discussion a couple topics up as this has already been discussed. N^oformation ^Talk 18:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The OED says under "-phobia, comb. form" : "Forming nouns with the sense ‘fear of ——’, ‘aversion to ——’." Whatever other problems there may be with this article, the extension of the sense to 'aversion' is not one of them. William Avery (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Noformation, I see absolutely nothing like you describe. I see someone making a very weak and flawed argument argument to get the person who made the very valid point to "go away". And we're not talking about following literal etymological roots, we're talking about following the first paragraph in the lead, and which include the common and accepted meaning of the word "phobia". North8000 (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

William Arvey, if you care to give the full definition that you pulled those words out of context from... Certainly you can't be saying that they said that all aversions are phobias. In the meantime, here's the one for phobia from dictionary.com:

"a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it. "

North8000 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

North8000, it really does seem like you're taking issue with the use of the "phobia" in homophobia. That would seem to relate strongly to etymology. This really has been very well covered territory on the talk page of this article. A quick search through the archives will provide you with plenty of reading material in the form of past discussions. The definition on this page is what is supported by reliable sources. What exactly are you suggesting that we change? Henrymrx (t·c) 18:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

North8000, as has been stated before words do not always follow their exact etymology. Antisemitsm means discrimination againist Jews not all semites (which would include Arabs and Iranians). Racism when it was coined was similarly challenged as should have meaning the study of race. The new use of the -ism wasn't firmly established until much later. If you had cared to read the history of this page you would know this. One could also argue that homophobia really DOES come from fear. A fear that homosexuality will become mainstream. A fear that oneself could be gay or be influenced by gay people. I highly suggest you read the history of this talk page before commenting again as this topic is one of the most covered on this page. Etymology is not always the way a word is used in the english language. PERIOD.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I did a quick scan of talk pages and see that this has been an ongoing problem that has never been resolved, just that multitude of people who bring it up get ganged up on and chased away, one by one. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look below I gave a link to the dictionary.com defintion of the word homophobia check it out.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

North8000, I don't appreciate the allegation of bad faith. The entry I quoted was the one relevant in this case: its meaning as a combining form in compound words. It is is you who are mistaken in confusing this with the meaning of the free-standing word 'phobia'. William Avery (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I said it badly. But could you provide the full definition that you found? North8000 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted. What I gave was the full definition under headword "-phobia, comb. form", indicating what it means when found in this suffixed position . Not the same as "phobia". William Avery (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should try finding current defs for the full word "homophobia"

• Websters: ": irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" (structurally, "irrational" applies to all)
• Dictionary.com: "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality." (structurally, "unreasoning" applies to all)
• Oxford Dictionaries "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people"
• Macmillian "Hate or fear of homosexuals"

North8000 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The medical dictionary also adds discrimination it is the third dictionary listed on dictionary.com. However apathy can also imply prejudicial beliefs and actions.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok so lets just say I had this thing we call homophobia. I had a deep fear or aversion to homosexuality whether for regular or religious reasons. I fire a homosexual from their job because that as their employer I want to "avert" homosexual people. Thats discrimination. The phobia that homophobia may become mainstream or the aversion to homosexuals is homophobia and does translate into prejudice. Prejudice becomes discrimination when it leaves your head and enters into the world by negatively affecting a protected sociological group. Therefore homophobia is a system just like anyother form of discrimination. There are other words that are prejudicial phobias as well. Psychophobia, Judeaphobia, Biphobia, Ephebiphobia, Gerontophobia, Heterophobia, Lesbophobia, Pedophobia, Transphobia, Xenophobia, Albanophobia, Arabophobia, Armenophobia, Catalanophobia, Sinophobia, Anglophobia, Francophobia, Gallophobia, Germanophobia, Teutophobia, Hispanophobia, Indophobia, Hibernophobia, Japanophobia, Nipponophobia, Polonophobia, Lusophobia, Russophobia, Scotophobia, Serbophobia, Turkophobia, Ukrainophobia, Christophobia, Islamophobia etc. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Rainbow, that is faulty logic. You are basically saying that "A can lead to B, therefore everything that is B is A" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm also suggesting homophobia, lesbophobia, biphobia and transphobia on wikipedia by the fact that this argument dosn't occur on the other prejudicial phobia pages. And it is not a faulty argument. Aversion or fear would cause prejudice. However most defintions already include prejudice so I guess I don't need to argue my point anymore.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What specific changes do you think the article needs? Arguing over etymology will go nowhere. What matters is the sources, do you see any source misrepresentation? N^oformation ^Talk 19:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the listed sections should be moved to other articles. They would be useful material in the right place. On the last question, yes. By placement here, that is a statement that all of those things are homophobia, which is unsourced wp:synthesis structurally, and, as a sidebar, contrary to the definitions of the term. I know this sounds big, but I do sincerely think that that would be the way to fix it. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So what would be "the right place(s)"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

On my first try I'm not going to very good job at this because I'm not knowledgeable or fluent on the related articles, so please forgive men, but here are my initial thoughts:

• In the top level homosexuality article, a condensed summery in the "Law, politics, society and sociology" section in areas not already covered there.
• Some of it for the Discrimination article
• Find the sub-articles of the top level homosexuality article that cover legal and religious prohibition of it, including views opposed to that prohibition.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I find strong disagreement with all of your premises. In this country, some level of homophobia, largely based off religious beliefs, is exhibited by somewhere around 50% of the population. Much of their beliefs are contrary to medical and scientific understanding of homosexuality. This causes two scenarios: (1) a bunch of this article is going to discuss such, and (2) they, who aren't qualified to talk about such are going to be pointed out as wrong. I don't ask a plumber about rocket science and then pretend his view holds equal weight. I don't ask a preacher about biological and medical things and give it equal weight to the experts in the field.

Because this article is about homophobia, it does require bring up their beliefs - ones they are not qualified to discuss in any fashion other than "my god says this" (yet do so anyway), and it does require pointing out that all other aspects of their beliefs (such as when they pretend they are experts on genetics and biology) are not things they are qualified to speak about - doing so requires using reliable sources on the matter - such as... you know... the experts cited in the article. This is the same thing done on articles such as "Flat Earth" and numerous other topics.

To date, I have yet to see any recent study that supports those beliefs (the ones they are not qualified to speak on) - and thus, it creates what you perceive as a POV - when instead, it's simply an accurate portrayal of reality: "these people/groups, even though not qualified to speak on this part of the topic in any way, believe this" and of course homophobia is "the irrational fear of (or), aversion to (or), or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."[1] The definition fits. Period. Especially because that "aversion to" or quite "irrational fear of" homosexuality is based on beliefs by those not qualified to discuss such. Thus, no bias in the article... unless we deem citing plumbers on matters of rocket science as experts with qualified opinions is permitted as well. If someone has an aversion to homosexuals, they are homophobic. If they have an irrational fear of such, they are homophobic. WE didn't write the universally agreed upon definition - and we can't change it. We are bound to do no more than apply it properly - which, we are. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Just one additional note, North8000, I read this comment "I think that the listed sections should be moved to other articles. They would be useful material in the right place.[...]" as "Let's move all the stuff about discrimination, hate and aversion to other articles" - but (a) those are the topics of homophobia, as noted by the article's name, and (b) doing so leaves no article for homophobia. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering about my own POV, it's that homosexuals should be able to live nice lives just like everybody else. Including discrimination-free, and 95% societal normalization of homosexuality. Note: in the USA, "anti-discrimination" always actually means reverse-discrimination, which I'm not in favor of. I'm a libertarian. If I were in the mideast, I'd be a homosexual activist to get it to that middle ground. In the US, homosexuality is PC, and the main persecuted people are those who feel that it is wrong. The persecution includes defining their beliefs as "phobic", that angers me as well as some other tactics/persecution that homosexual activists in the US have promulgated. And what they are finding out in the labs that keep getting firebombed is that the answer to the "choice vs. embedded" is looking like something that neither "side" wants to hear; it's not a choice, but it is a preventable condition caused by certain issues during pregnancy. Research has included the ability to cause homosexuality in the lab (in animals) by imposing those conditions during pregnancy.

So, after clearing that up, my thought is to help get this article to neutral ground on the topic of not defining the thoughts of people who merely think differently that I do as "phobic". In the USA, folks that think differently than I do and think that homosexuality (or the societal normalization of it) is wrong are the persecuted bunch that needs anti-discrimination help, just as homosexuals in the US did 20 years ago. Discrimination against them right now seems fine just as discrimination against homosexuals 20 years ago or blacks 60 years ago seemed fine. IMHO The article should be an informative article on the term and the various uses of the term, and pros and cons regarding those uses. North8000 (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You just argued for changing nothing. What we, me, you, whoever would like isn't relevant. It is "what is" that matters, and even if we disagree on many points you just wrote, we do agree that the term is universally applied in the fashion you and I indicate in our posts above. We don't change the world or soapbox by changing an article to what we'd like things to be. That aside, there isn't reverse discrimination here. People aren't being beaten to death, harrased, or bullied for not being homosexual. Nor is anything else the number one cause of suicide in teenagers. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with that characterization of the conversation, but let's take this a little slower. North8000 (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok then, let's try this. You said "So, after clearing that up, my thought is to help get this article to neutral ground on the topic of not defining the thoughts of people who merely think differently that I do as "phobic". In the USA, folks that think differently than I do and think that homosexuality (or the societal normalization of it) is wrong are the persecuted bunch that needs anti-discrimination help, just as homosexuals in the US did 20 years ago." - but I am not sure why. Homophobia has a definition. My opinion on it, and yours, is irrelevant. Homophobia covers topics you wish they didnt. Irrelevant.

And that leaves us back at right where the article is. We aren't going to change it because you dont like the definition or proper application of the word. It's nothing personal. Not in the least bit. Our POVs simply dont matter. Sorry, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You are actually arguing my point. Placing that other material here as being "homophobia" is both unsourced OR/Synthesis by the editors, and also in direct conflict with the definitions. The 4 definitions I found included those from the Webster and Oxford ::::dictionaries. North8000 (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The pure fact that someone is againist lesbian or gay people automatically makes them homophobic whether they like it or not period. Aversion means opposition or repugnance. This means that one would have a homophobic prejudice. Everyone has prejudice and in general it is not seen as a bad thing. However when you use that prejudice to affect the world around you by say calling someone a faggot, firing someone from their job or voting for a homophobic ballot measure then you are no longer practicing homophobic prejudice but homophobic discrimination. Either way however you are still homophobic and actually most LGBT people are in fact to some degree homophobic in the prejudice sense. Just like because of the way society has treated most women and people of color have some sexist or racist prejudice in them.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I second that.

Insert "black" into each statement and if it sounds racist then it's homophobic.

Thanks Jenova20 16:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

To Rainbowofpeace and Jenova20. While I would also dispute many particulars of your arguments, the core point is that you are saying that since you decided that all opposition to homosexuality, or to the societal normalization of homosexuality is "homopobia", therefor the article will list all of those items as being homophobia. That is not how Wikipedia works. Would need reliable sources that say that, and even then it would need to be in as a assertion from one side (and the side that conflict with the dictionaries) of the dispute on this, not in as "fact" as the current article does. North8000 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong. Dictionary.com uses for its defintion "Homophobia n. unreasoning fear or antipathy towards homosexuals and homosexuality. Antipathy means hatred. The world english dictionary uses "intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality". The merriam-webster dictionary uses "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimiation againist homosexuality or homosexuals." The Free dictionary uses "1. fear or contempt towards lesbians or gay men. 2. Behaviour based on this feeling" Everyone of your dictionary defintions and my dictionary definition mentions fear along with some form of opposition or hatred. By the way if you look up phobia on dicionary.com and look at the synonymns it says aversion and hatred. Find another argument otherwise this conversation is basically over.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

From the major dictionaries, you are separating those words from their important adjective with is "irrational". But even all of that is a sidebar to the main point which your response does not address. North8000 (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Give me an example of opposition to homosexuality that is rational. Voting on an anti-gay measure certainly isn't. Yelling anti-gay epitaphs isn't. Firing someone from their previous job isn't. Attacking someone isn't. Irrational means without reason so the only thing that would be reasonable would be say if gays were taking over the world and forcing you into having sex with them then you arn't homophobic. You are rationally protecting yourself. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This is secondary to the main issue but I will answer it. All of the people that consider homosexual behavior (as distinct from innate sexual preferences) to be a choice (whether it be a pure choice, or a choice to act on innate preferences) to be wrong, and something that society should not sanction / normalize. No "phobia", they just think that it is wrong. This may be due to religious beliefs, or the traditional societal mores that others seek to change, or other reasons. And so they might believe that it is inherently based on the the teachings of their religion, or harmful to society. And, as an aside, those with those beliefs based on religion usually following the "hate the sin, love the sinner" concept. But again the main (and unaddressed/ignored above) Wikipedian issue is that presence of the described 80% of the material under "homophobia" is an unsourced assertion that it is "homophbia". And even if such were a majority view (rather than a minority view) amongst objective/quality sources and sourced, it still would represent following one side/POV on a contested (to put in mildly) issue. Which means that this article is deeply in violation of both wp:nor/synth and wp:npov. That said, I realized that in getting in deeper here on this I have violated my self-made sanity-protecting rule of not getting involved in trying to help fix more than one contentious messed up article at a time and I am going to freeze my involvement here and not carry this further except possibly at a much later date. The best to you all despite our disagreement here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me respond to this one. You said nothing relevant. Let's say Joe goes and has sex with Bill. You wouldn't know and shouldn't care. That you DO care is irrational. Thus a phobia. That people care about what others they will probably never meet do in bed is... irrational. That, on top of such, they'll never SEE those people having sex yet still object to it is... irrational (and thus a phobia). That they try to impose their point of view on others over something that has no affect on them whatsoever is... irrational (and thus a phobia).

Final note on this for now. (a) The medical community agrees with the usage of the word. (b) The religious community may not. Which of the two includes trained specialists in the medical and psychological field to make such a determination? I believe it is (a) and not (b). Their numbers may not be fringe, but their beliefs are, because they are not qualified to speak on such matters. Truth is, there's the deciding factor. We don't support a fringe belief to ignore a definition agreed upon by experts in the field just to make those in the fringe happy. And that should truly be the end of the discussion - because doing the opposite will never happen here. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again North8000, apologies, but I think I missed a major point you tried making. If every person in this country was polled and all non-expert sources said "homophobia is pink unicorns and bunnies" and those in the medical profession (such as psychology) defined it as... well, what's written above (and let's presume that's 10,000 experts), then Wikipedia, for the purpose of defining homophobia sees a majority. But not the majority you seem to see. They see 10,000 expert reliable sources who define homophobia as above against... ZERO others.

Now, in moving on to discuss the topic itself, that requires talking about groups and people who promote homophobia - and that's where they come in - but not in defining what it is. Other definitions of homophobia are fringe beliefs, not because of the number of people who believe such, but because expert reliable sources do not believe such. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 09:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm no longer debating here, but would like to answer any question which you have. To boil it down a bit more, there are folks who say that all opposition to homosexuality or the societal normalization of it can legitimately be defined as "homophobia", and those who say such is not legit. My own opinion is that the latter are in the majority amongst both experts and the public. And that such usage is a tactic of activists to try to promulgate the idea that any view contrary to their own is a "phobia". But, in Wikipedia terms, it matters not what you or I think. With respect to wp:npov (and categorization within it) what matters is that there is a significant amount of people and sources (and as covered in sources) on each side of the view. Roughly speaking wp:npov says that both sides of the issue must be represented, roughly following the preponderance in sources. And again the question/issue/disagreement is whether or not all of those things are considered "homophobia". About 80% of this article consists of listing all of those things, and listing them as being homophobia which very clearly puts it deeply in violation of wp:npov. Secondly, each placement of one of those opposition things under "homophobia" is an assertion/statement that each of those items is "homophobia". In Wikipedia, such requires sourcing for that statement-by-juxtaposition, and about 80&% of this article consists of UNSOURCED such statements-by-juxtaposition. That is why I said that the article is deeply in violation of wp:ver/wp:nor (they largely overlap). I also said it is in widespread violation of wp:synth which is just an area within those, a term referring referring to a WP editors making that statement-of-connection without sourcing for that connection. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not debating either. You're simply wrong. Or, prove otherwise, and I will fight to fix the article right alongside you. Find me ten reliable sources that agree with you. Or even five. You cannot. Because (a) religious sources or (b) religiously based sources do not constitute reliable sources on matters of psychology and medicine (and nothing will change that). You want to change the whole tone of the article? Fine. BUT the burden of proof is on you - and you've made some rather interesting claims... while backing up absolutely NONE of them with reliable sources.

So, again, find sources, and I'll fight with you to change the article. Until then, there isn't a real debate - our opinions don't matter. I have sources... you've posted none... and until you do, there's nothing to claim is a debate. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The remedy for unsourced insertions is to tag and/or remove them, not to require that they be refuted. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Except (a) they are all sourced or (b) someone has removed the sources (again) to make an attempt to remove content they don't like from the article for being "unsourced". Which brings us to the following question: What is currently unsourced? Let us know, and we'll stick the sources back in where they belong, and find the perpetrator and warn appropriately.

But, that's different than your original point. You have claimed there are other definitions and counter arguments to this topic that aren't represented - it was to those comments that I said (paraphrased) "find appropriate sources for such... MEDICAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL/ETC sources, and I'll help change the article right alongside you. Hope that helps put things on the correct track.

But honestly, like others before you, it seems you simply don't like the definition of homophobia - and if that's the case, my answer, with no animosity, with no recrimination, with no ill intent; is simply "I don't care. You aren't a reliable source. Your opinion, just like mine, doesn't matter. The article will likely not be changed because you don't like the definition." Only what reliable medical and psychological sources claim is a reliable source for the definition. And of course, if that's not the problem, simply ignore this section of my response. It just seems lately, we've been getting a lot of that here on the talk page. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm no longer debating, but since your post indicates completely missing my point (actually a reversal of it). To start wit, I see nothing problematic with the definitions given in the article. (As a sidebar, about 80% of the article violates those very definitions) They are actual a part of the 20% of this article that isn't severely violating policies and guidelines. For an example of the other 80%, I'll take the first sentence of one of the sections: "Disapproval of homosexuality and of gay people is not evenly....." First, as a sidebar, the improper and erroneous lumping of those two together ( is POV tactic straight out of one of the activists training session. For example, this runs exactly opposite to the near-universal teaching of religious opposition to homosexuality, briefly summarized by "Hate the sin, love the sinner). But, on to this being an example of the main point, placing "disapproval of homoosexuality" under "Homophobia" is an unsourced statement that such opposition per se is homophobia. Not only unsourced, but on the clearly disputed point on whether or not such is per se homophobia, this is both stating the viewpoint of one side as being fact, and not giving the widespread opposing viewpoint regarding that, meaning that it doubly violates wp:npov. This is one example of a problem which is repeated for about 80% of the material in the article. North8000 (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of meaning and purpose

I'm thinking that this section seems a little out of place as the first section after the lede. Would it be better to move it farther down. Also, would it be better to rewrite the section in prose rather than as a list? N^oformation ^Talk 02:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be better in paragraph form. As for the location, I don't have an opinion. CTJF83 03:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Pro homosexual agenda pushing

Removed insipid admin comment

This whole article reeks of gays pushing their agenda for acceptance and entitlement. Also, it rally is more of a theory. People might dislike other minority groups, but there is no "phobia" label attached. For instance, many people hat muslims because of 9/11, but it is not considered a phobia. many hate gays due to their deviant lifestyles, sexual practices and anti-social beavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warlockwatcher (talk • contribs) 02:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually see Islamophobia. And as much as I agree with you and actually use the word sexualist and bigot homophobia is still the most common term. However a phobia is also an aversion or hatred however there is no homosexual agenda anymore than there is a Jewish Agenda, African American agenda or Women's Agenda.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |}

Treatable phobia?

I notice that this is labeled as a "phobia" as though it were treatable. The treatment might be of interest. Perhaps victims (phobics) are shown pictures of men copulating and if they react negatively, they are given a mild shock? Anyway, the treatment for this condition would be of interest. Student7 (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There are many sexual therapists around, more information here would be great for those who suffer homophobia and would like to no longer be gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.o 203.198 (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I in fact challenge that the usage of the word Homophobia is simply wrong. As has been mentioned before, a phobia is an irrational fear, a treatable mental illness, not a simple dislike or hatred (which is not). It is another example of the language being further corrupted by common use of incorrect terms. A telescope for instance is called a telescope for a good reason, it makes sense. If everyone started calling a window a telescope, maybe it "kind of makes sense" but would still be vastly incorrect, but if enough people do it, it makes it legitimate? I don't think so. 109.149.173.232 (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it does. Welcome to English, the most rapidly evolving, clumsiest and illogical language in common use. And that last term is the key here. Homophobia means what common usage says it means, not what historical language analysis says it should mean. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is a battle to try to brand any disdain for, opposition to, or opposition to the societal normalization of homosexuality as a "phobia". The opposing side says that such is incorrect. This heavily POV'd article weighs in on just one side of it by pretending that the assertions of one side are fact and writing on that basis. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that regarding homosexuality as not part of normality these days IS homophobia by its common definition. And people who want to suppress homosexuality in society must be scared of something. HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

(As a sidebar, I didn't have "suppress" on that list.) But it's quite a reach to say that disdain for or opposition to something automatically means fear of it. North8000 (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

And that's not what I said either. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well either way, that is what the POV promoted by this article is saying. North8000 (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not! Homophobia does NOT mean fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. That view is an incorrect, POV approach taken by people wanting to deny that the word applies to them. HiLo48 (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You are stating one side of the controversy, just as the article does. Essentially saying that it is valid to apply a "phobia" term to any disdain for or opposition to homosexuality. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm just telling you that mechanical definitions of words don't work in our language where common usage is what counts. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There's one of these arguments on this page every time i see it...

Read the article North8000, phobias do not always mean "an irrational fear", that is the way English works, sometimes words don't mean what you expect.

Denying Homosexual people equal rights, equal treatment, or just stating that it is an illness that is treatable are all homophobia. It has nothing to do with being scared of gay people.

If you can swap the word gay for black in your argument and it seems offensive, then it's homophobic. Thanks Jenova20 11:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Phobia" certainly does mean phobia. That is why folks on one side of this controversy are working so hard to promote use of a "phobia" word to apply to all disdain for or opposition to homosexuality. And again, this article weighs in heavily on only one side of that controversy. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

In saying that you're arguing against what the article says, what common usage says, and what most dictionaries I've looked at say. Dictionary.com says "unreasoning fear of OR antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality". (My capitalisation) You have a big job ahead of you. HiLo48 (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

North you're not going to achieve anything here, your argument won't change common meaning and usage of the words "Phobia" or "Homophobia", please read both articles to see why.

If you disagree with the meaning of the words then i don't know how you fight that but Wikipedia isn't the place. Thanks Jenova20 11:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someday this POV mess will get fixed, but not today=

Well, the "big job" here is that there is a group of editors who LIKES that this article is badly POV'd, that it carries the torch for one side of the controversy, and that it states the view of one side of the controversy as fact, and in the voice of Wikipedia. And somehow, by some reverse logic, the fact that there have been an immense amount of complaints about this is given as a reason for the invalidity of the complaints. (with "same 'ole story" type comments). I'm not ready to spend the time to try to tackle that. So, signing off..... Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)