Talk:Homophobia/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Lede change

I've already reverted twice and am not going to edit war so maybe somebody else can take a look at the change and see if they agree with it or not. I obviously don't. The article is far more encompassing the the first definition that appears in a dictionary. Not to mention it's redundant to the last sentences in the same paragraph. Capeo (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

In addition to your reverts of EsEinsteinium seen here and here, I have also reverted EsEinsteinium here. EsEinsteinium needs to make his or her (or their) case on this talk page, or face being WP:Blocked for WP:Edit warring. As noted at the top of this talk page via its FAQ, we do not rely on dictionary definitions for initially defining homophobia. We do not rely on dictionary definitions for defining many things on Wikipedia. Dictionary definitions are often outdated, simplistic, and/or not too reflective of the literature (at least in an in-depth way). And per WP:Due weight, we go by what the vast majority of the literature states. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The dictionary aspect is already covered in the second sentence of the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The introduction of the article by usage of the widely held dictionary definition is the most definitive means of ensuring that it reflects the formal definition. Any further extensions in meaning resulting from popular usage of the term can then be utilised in the second sentence of the opening paragraph. To place the formal definition in the second sentence serves to try and diminish its significance and clearly violates WP:NEUTRAL. The argument that dictionary definitions are outdated and unsuitable for usage is moot, given that major dictionaries are updated up to four times a year in order to ensure that they reflect appropriate usage of the terms, so while they may not reflect all that such terms connote, they do serve as an appropriate formal definition. While Wikipedia is obviously not a dictionary, in order to ensure comprehensive coverage it is essential that the formal usage and definition of words are taken into account, and not side-lined due to a lack of correlation with editors' personal preferences in regards to their usage. Furthermore, two of the three Reliable Sources actually acknowledge the dictionary definition of homophobia, so the "majority of literature" appears to further support the incorporation of such a definition as the opening line of the article per WP:Due weight. EsEinsteinium (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Taking all the RS into consideration the first sentence, as it currently is, best summarizes the article, which is the point of the lede. Strictly speaking we don't even need sources in the lede but in more contentious articles it can avoid constant changes. The lede reflects the article, not formalized definitions, and the article clearly shows that the dictionary definition doesn't come close to encapsulating the subject. Capeo (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

In order for the lede to be appropriate for the encyclopaedic entry, it should appropriately define and summarise the topic in question, which is most appropriately achieved by utilising the formal definition, as supported by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which has utilised a very similar lede. Furthermore, a number of the RS that are being used to "support" the current lede actually directly acknowledge the formal definition as an accurate introduction to defining the topic, so to ignore this risks being a clear example of WP:ADVOCACY and is demonstrably most unsuitable, as it contradicts WP:NEUTRAL. The primary concern of my edit was to ensure the balance and suitability of the lede, and as such it should have been treated under WP:ROWN in good faith, and it is very unfortunate that was escalated into an WP:EDITWAR. I shall compile a new version which incorporates the last line of the introduction into the lede in order to reach a compromise EsEinsteinium (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I have now instituted a revised version of the edit in line with criticism made in regards to the previous edit. EsEinsteinium (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Which has quite rightly been reverted. The overwhelming majority of articles don't cite a dictionary definition in their lead. I wonder why this one in particular has attracted your attention? William Avery (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The status quo definition is appropriate and due weight. This seems to be cherry picking a single source to demonstrate the whole "phobia means fear and we're not afraid of gays" thing I've seen on social media. At best, it's WP:OR to emphasize that point. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

First off, I would like to thank everyone who reported me for edit warring and "ignoring the consensus" instead of actually communicating with me to demonstrate what the consensus was - I found that to be very helpful and it is most encouraging for editors merely trying to ensure the accuracy and reliability of Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia for all. Contrary to the claims made by a number of editors, there are numerous sources cited, many which were already included in the article itself prior to any of my edits, which clearly acknowledge the common and appropriate definition of homophobia as in line with the dictionary definition, so if anyone is cherry picking, it is those who chose to ignore that these numerous RS exist, and instead like to pretend that the know better than the frequently updated and most prestigious dictionaries in the world, and countless RS published by authors across the political spectrum. Furthermore, if Wikipedia is truly striving to be a reliable and well-orchestrated online encyclopedia, it would be entirely appropriate to acknowledge the means by which neutrality has been achieved in more professional encyclopedias on the matter, with the likes of the Encyclopedia Britannica clearly introducing the topic by utilising the formal definition, in order to ensure neutrality and accuracy of information. I completely agree with the statement of User:EvergreenFir that the claim homophobia is still directly interpreted in line with its etymology is highly inaccurate, but for those of us who actually check the wealth of RS present on the topic, the reality is that (whether editors like it or not) the term is still applied formally to the "fear and strong dislike [or hatred] of homosexual people", and to claim otherwise contradicts the very sources cited, and is a clear demonstration of WP:ADVOCACY. The current consensus of the editors opposed to my edits appears to be clear that they value triumphing their own personal views over the fundamental principles of WP:VERIFY AND WP:NEUTRAL, but it is important to acknowledge that, in accordance with the fundamental rules of Wikipedia, WP:NEUTRAL is "non-negotiable" and "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor editoral consensus".EsEinsteinium (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Communication was done here, which you engaged in, but decided to continue editing the lead regardless. You claim that there are numerous RS which support your claim, but the burden is on you to demonstrate that. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

If one would care to observe the dates, they would notice that the only discussion that I had prior to my last edit was with Capeo. All of the editors who have further critised me will find that I have not made any further edits since they brought up their objections. The rationale of my edit is clearly supported by the first three RS already present in the article: see and by four out of the seven sources in the homophobia bundle. I can't help it if editors haven't taken the time to read the sources that were present within my edits that clearly support my reasoning. EsEinsteinium (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2017‎ (UTC)

I'm the one who added those three scholarly sources, and that was to show that homophobia concerns transgender people in addition to gay and bisexual people (since the inclusion of the transgender aspect was being contested at the time). That first source is more diverse than stating "irrational fear or hate of homosexual people." Indeed, your first sentence (the one you added to the article) focuses solely on gay/lesbian people. The three sources I provided do not, despite the quotes I focused on for the latter two sources. Your wording states "by its strictest definition." The sources you added do not support "by its strictest definition," and neither do the sources I added. So there is a bit of WP:Synthesis to what you added. The point that I and others are trying to get across to you is that homophobia is widely discussed beyond a fear of homosexual people. So, per WP:Due, it should not be the first definition, even if amended with "or hatred," "or strong dislike." The fear aspect can come second, like it currently does, and, above, I already noted that it comes second with dictionary sources. So did Capeo. There is also no need to state "homosexual people" and then later "lesbian, gay." The lead can just state " lesbian, gay," and then state "lesbian, gay" again if needed. We don't state "homosexual" or "homosexual people" unless for clarity or professionalism (such as in an article specifically about sexual orientation) or otherwise needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who added the sources, what matters is that they directly support my use of the definition to the letter. If directly writing upon what a source directly states constitutes WP:Synthesis, then all edits supported by reliable sources ever made would violate it, so you are clearly throwing that at me to try and distract from the fact that I have demonstrated my edit to be fully substantiated by the sources in question and doesn't violate any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I only added "by its strictest definition" to try and appease those in the Wikipedia community who would endlessly critise the phrasing of the lede - which funnily enough you have resorted to now that I it couldn't be clearer that I have numerous RS backing up my revision. Clearly I should have read the article Appeasement first and realised that trying to reach a compromise that worked for all in line with WP:CON was futile. The community asked for me to discuss my edits - I have now done so; the community has asked me to explain my rationale - I have done so; the community has asked me to abide by the Wikipedia policies and guidelines - I have done so; the community demanded that I use reliable sources that support my edits - I have done so; the community has asked for me to cite the sources - I have done so, posting links to the very sources on this talk page, and yet still the community refuses to acknowledge the facts in front of them which clearly support my case. It would have been much easier if you had lowered that facade and said outright that nothing anyone ever said would change your own personal views on the article, and as such you would never give even the slightest leeway on the matter. It might be helpful to add that to the FAQs under the heading "Why has this article misrepresented the definition of homophobia for the last 10 years?", but wait... that would require admitting that in spite of the community's claims to strive for verifiability WP:VERIFY, neutrality WP:NEUTRAL and due weight WP:DUE, the editing community actually don't care what the numerous reliable sources say, and don't care what has been clearly demonstrated to be the professional and accurate means of addressing the topic, as shown by the likes of Encyclopedia Britannica. I have been rendered powerless to amend the inaccuracy and apparent bias of this article, as the "community" over-rules and ignores any of my views that do not comply with their desire to ignore the truth, in direct contradiction to the very central Wikipedia polices created to prevent this hippocracy. I came into this edit with the best of intentions, hoping to preserve the noble policies and principles upon which Wikipedia was supposedly founded, and presumed that others would do likewise - but clearly I was wrong. I have done all I can to try and rectify this article, but I can't make those who refuse to open their eyes see. EsEinsteinium (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Why the sources were added and what they address (meaning beyond fear) does matter since they were not added to support what you are going on about. The fact that the literature generally treats homophobia as broader than fear also matters, but you obviously don't care about that even though you keep wrongly citing WP:Due. And how do you think you are not engaging in WP:Synthesis when you are adding "by its strictest definition," which is not supported by the sources? As for the rest, except for stating that your characterizations regarding the experienced editors (including me) are wrong, I don't have anything else to state to you since you are clearly set in your viewpoint. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• You know, we've been down this road before. I don't have time to sift through the archives today, but I'm getting a distinct feeling of déjà vu. EsEinsteinium, please don't insert any more "compromises". You've been edit warring, so at this point you need to stop editing the lede entirely because you do not have consensus for any of the changes you've made. If you can cogently and concisely propose a revision here on the talk page, then we can discuss it, but before you do, please carefully read what the users above are saying about dictionary definitions. This has been discussed previously, consensus was clear, and it hasn't changed. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

EsEinsteinium, why don't you actually take the time to read WP:Neutral? Like I tell everyone else who misunderstands that policy, being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. Per its WP:Due weight section, it means giving the vast majority of our weight to what the vast majority of the literature states. This is why you trying to prioritize dictionary definitions over what the literature usually reports on this topic is a WP:Due violation. Essays or supplement pages such as WP:ROWN and WP:ADVOCACY are not WP:Policies and guidelines. I have been known to cite WP:ADVOCACY (which was only recently updated from an essay to a supplement page) as well, but WP:ADVOCACY is not what is going on here. At the WP:Edit warring noticeboard, you've indicated that you won't continue to edit war on this matter. I hope that is the case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

For your information I have indeed read the article - multiple times, but it appears that some of those who oppose my edits do not appear to care what the rules actually state, but instead directly contradict them or try to ignore sections of them in order to support their views. Arbitrarily spitting out un-grounded accusations of rule violation is counterproductive, and I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from perpetuating in doing so in the discussion on this article. EsEinsteinium (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2017‎ (UTC)

I've already said my opinion on this but I'll try to be more concise: the lede summarizes the article, the article encompasses far more than a simple dictionary definition, thus giving precedence to an over-simplified dictionary definition in the first sentence of the lede makes no sense. There, done. Now, EsEinsteinium, it's tough to buy these arguments that you were unaware that your edits were against consensus. The first clue was me reverting you. That unto itself denotes a lack of consensus. See the BRD cycle. You then reverted me, I reverted you and invited you to the talk page where I went, joined by Flyer22. You didn't engage on the talk page and proceeded to revert again. Then Flyer22 reverted you and you finally came to the talk page, promptly ignored us, and then tried to reinstate nearly the same edit, glaringly without consensus. This is one of those rare instances where a dictionary definition is valuable. Look up consensus. Capeo (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the times, you will notice that nothing was said on the talk page by you, or anyone else for that matter, about the lede until AFTER my penultimate edit - please check the facts before throwing around false accusations. The sole comment which I received from anyone other than yourself prior to my last edit was one from Flyer22 Reborn, which I took as positive advice in regards to how it would be necessary to justify revisions to the article, as I naively assumed that they, like myself, had the best interests of the accuracy and due weight of the article at heart, which I mistakenly took into account. Then, having justified my edit on the talk page in line with the criticism you gave, and the "guidance" given by Flyer22 Reborn, and rectified any clear contradictions to the issues that had been raised, an hour later I made the ONLY EDIT which I performed following the initiation of any discussion on the talk page. Following a torrent of criticism and accusations on the Administrators' noticeboard from a number of editors, and simultaneous criticism on the talk page from such editors, only two of which had any communication at all with me beforehand, it then became apparent that there was more widespread opposition to any editorial improvement to the lede of the article, and following that, I made a sum total of NO EDITS. There is nothing to buy - it's all there in black and white. EsEinsteinium (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

EsEinsteinium, WP:Neutral is not a Wikipedia article. It is a policy. And if you read it and it still do not understand its WP:Due weight portion, I don't know what else to tell you. But do look at this similar discussion at Talk:Nigger. Although the lead uses a dictionary source in its lead (and not for the first sentence), the discussion I linked to shows that there can be issues with using dictionary sources for topics, and the dictionary source in the lead of the Nigger article is specifically used for how the word originated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

EsEinsteinium, I cannot help being intrigued by your implication that you have a better grasp of Wikipedia policies than the rest of us. You've been here for eight months; the five users who have engaged with you in this thread have all been here for years, and we collectively have made 11,494 times more edits than you. This is not to say that you might not be right and the rest of us might not all be wrong—stranger things have happened in the history of the universe—but it seems quite unlikely. Before lecturing established editors further over their alleged failings, please consider reading the archives of this talk page. (There are 14 pages of them.) If you do, you'll see that your arguments are neither new nor unanswered. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it is because with my more recent exposure to the policies I am able to take them at face value, without having my view of them twisted by over a decade of utilising them to best suit my own editorial preferences. EsEinsteinium (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong. Probably why you did not address my comparison above regarding the Nigger article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

____

References

Inaccuracy To Be Corrected

I don't know how to edit (or if I even can), but the following inaccuracy seems worthy of correction by someone who knows how.

The article states: "The Bible, especially the Old Testament, contains some passages commonly interpreted as condemning homosexuality or same-gender sexual relations."

I propose the "especially the Old Testament" portion should be removed, and a reference should be made to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament

The view expressed in the current version is a common misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.158.210 (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

My impression is that Leviticus gets cited at least as often as the allegedly relevant verses in any of the other books, Old or New, but it's only an impression. Clearly, your impression differs. Can you point to a reliable source? Incidentally, I just looked at Homosexuality in the New Testament and Homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible, and both are a mess. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting that inaccuracy. Indeed there are verses in the New Testament which are also commonly interpreted as condemning homosexuality or same-sex relationships, such as Romans 1:26-27 and Matthew 19:4-6, and as such I have cited these passages and removed the clause referring specifically to the Old Testament. EsEinsteinium (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I should say you're welcome, but I reverted you. Your wording lacked neutrality. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 01:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

When on this subject, I think it's worth mentioning that Jesus did not comment on Homosexuality. One value of clarifying both the Old and New testaments is to clarify that the sacred texts of both Jews and Christians contain this kind of material— and, to that end, clarifying that Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality in particular and that all (check me on the "all") mentions in the New Testament are from the writings of Paul helps to clarify. Lukacris (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, true. But the concept of homosexuality per se didn't really exist in Jesus' time (or Paul's time). Are you proposing a change to the article? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about clarifying the textual support insofar as helpful to understand its theological relevance. I assume you're talking about adult males' exclusive, lifelong homosexuality; obviously same-sex intercourse was all the rage in Rome (I'm being cheeky). Lukacris (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Cheeky or not, it's a valid point, but I wasn't talking exclusively about what you assumed. What I meant is that we need to be careful not to apply modern interpretations, likely based on sloppy translations, and that applies to the concept (or construct, if you prefer) of homosexuality—not just homosexual orientation but also sexual behavior between members of the same gender. This is all rather vague, however, and it probably would be easier if you'd either edit the article or propose a specific edit here, so that we have something a bit more tangible to consider. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080424055449/http://www.operationrebirth.com/ to http://www.operationrebirth.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Weinberg and introduction

The term homophobia, as is mentioned in the article body itself, was coined in 1964 by George Weinberg (psychologist), an American psychologist who advocated removing homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. This fact needs to be mentioned more prominently in the introduction itself.

At the moment, the article introduction is heavily skewered towards presenting "homophobia" as an objective phenomenon, rather than a neologism coined by George Weinberg (we also do not even bother to mention his conflict of interest as an activist who supported homosexuality and intended to use his coining "homophobia" to pathologise his opponents on the other side of the debate in the APA). The fact that Weinberg is an American is also very important to mention as it bases his term (which has spread internationally through American media influence) into a context of the cultural setting that it emerged.

We should describe homophobia in the introduction as a term used to describe rather than an objective phenomenon, to abide by WP:NPOV since there is no hard, scientific evidence that homophobia exists outside of the theoretical framing created by Mr. Weinberg. Nobody (pro or anti) would dispute that the term homophobia is used to describe, etc so this would appear to be a more balanced wording. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• We've been over this dozens of times already (see the archives of this page ad nauseam, not to mention the FAQ at the top of this page) and the consensus is always that the article is not about the etymology of the word, it's about the phenomenon. We really don't need to go over this again. Incidentally, how is a word that is 54 years old and pretty much used exclusively worldwide to describe anti-gay sentiment a "neologism"? Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The English language has existed for around 1,500 years... 50 years is the blink of an eye in the history of a language. Also when considering, in a broader sense, how long humans have existed on the earth before some random American guy decided one day in the 1960s that there was a psychopathology called "homophobia" the idea that it is an objectively existing phenomenon is highly questionable. To give a comparison, on the article for dictatorship of the proletariat on Wikipedia, we mention who coined the phrase and whose theories it is associated with in the second sentence of the introduction. The only reason I can see not to mention Weinberg in the same way here is because Anglo-Americans tend to favour belief in the framing with a quasi-religious piety. In other words, a questionable cultural POV is presented as normative and objectively existing in the article. Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but as I'm sure you're aware, that's not the point. If "some random American guy decided one day in the 1960s that there was a psychopathology called homophobia" and that word had stayed hidden away in the annals of psychological writing since then you might have a point. However, since this word, per reliable sources as mentioned in the article, has become the standard to describe anti-gay sentiment (and not just in English), the article resides here per WP:COMMONNAME. As I say, there are numerous re-hashings of your argument in the archives of this page which it might be worth reviewing. Black Kite (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Black Kite. Been there, done that, consensus clear. The term describes a series of related phenomena that most certainly do objectively exist, and we have any number of reliable sources to attest to that. Also, while there is no precise, agreed-upon cutoff point for when neologisms stop being neologisms, I find it patently absurd to apply that term to a 50-year-old word that has been in widespread use by scientists and laypersons alike for decades. Incidentally (and admittedly a little off-topic), the English language—as any present-day English speaker would understand it—has been around a lot less than 1500 years. Middle English was functionally a very different language than modern English, and Old English might as well be gibberish. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Weinberg only died last year, so I think it is reasonable to classify a term as a neologism if the inventor was kicking around until a few months ago.

I've read through the archives and the FAQ and as far as I can see, mentioning Weinberg, when he invented it and where he was from in the introduction itself has never been raised, so how can there be a consensus on it? All that I can see there, is that people have previously argued about the slap-handed nature of the term (-phobia as "fear of") or object to the way we bend to the use of the term "homophobia" on Wikipedia as a smear-term/political propaganda tag (valid complaints in themselves, but not what I have raised here). Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Claíomh Solais: You said, "[T]here is no hard, scientific evidence that homophobia exists." Do you really believe this? I'm having a hard time believing you're not having us on. Not to get all epistemological on you or anything, but do you believe something doesn't exist until it is named? I can assure you homophobia existed before 1964; read Stone Butch Blues. Mathglot (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Maintaining the word is a neologism implies, as that article says, that it "has not yet been fully accepted into mainstream language". William Avery (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

All I can say is, if you're right about 'homophobia' as neologism, we might have to get rid of a lot of other articles that appear to be neologisms as well. Mathglot (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't make it clear: I don't think that 'neologism' is a correct description at this stage. William Avery (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

potential split

Perhaps we should consider the term homonegative. Regardless of what is popular, it seems like a much more neutral term for what has become such a large umbrella. Hudson and Rickets are entirely right, it is presumptuous to think all negative attitudes are rooted in fear.

Churchill's term is also superior, constructively speaking, for describing fear-motivated negativity because it is a fear of eroticism between the same, not fear of same. ScratchMarshall (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The current title is the correct one, per WP:Commonname. Words can take on meanings not reflected in their etymologies, and in any case the Greek φόβος includes the meaning of ‘hatred’ as well as ‘fear’. Hydrophobic substances aren’t afraid of water either. Seph Shewell Brockway (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Homophobia or homophoby, we also add the alternative words, but the article is locked without it

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4116:b300:f5e9:c2f2:5f4c:f780 (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2018‎ (UTC)

It's not clear what you're referring to. Please rephrase your comment in plain English below this reply, and consult talk page guidelines for formatting advice. Be sure to include one or more reliable sources if you'd like content added to the article, and sign your post by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-clinical

I would like to add clarification that the term is non-clinical, in that it is not an actual phobia. This seems important enough to put in the first line so that people aren't misled into believing that homophobia is a psychological disorder. At the moment it is too vague, and its ambiguity is suspiciously partial. Sometimeswrong (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It strains credulity to believe anyone would be misled. The –phobia suffix is not limited to indicating fear, and appears in various words that do not denote a clinical disorder. Do you also propose to add "clarification" to Islamophobia? Xenophobia? Hydrophobia? Following reliable sources isn't "suspiciously partial". I'll tell you what is, though: brand-new accounts and IPs showing up here parroting the same debunked arguments that account for a good portion of the 15 pages (!) of archives for this talk page. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 22:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: Given it stands beside numerous *clinical* phobias that are named so similarly, I cannot see how it "strains credulity". Islamophobia has similar issues so cannot be used as an example. Xenophobia is an actual phobia, as an excessive fear of foreign or strange things. Homophobia is not an actual phobia, and the inclusion of the word 'phobia' makes it misleadingly appear so. This isn't a question of sources (the reliability of which is rather subjective anyway), but of a word that, at face value, seems to clearly and deliberately be constructed to mischaracterize opposition to homosexuality. It is a simple fact that against the definition of the word 'phobia', and the vast number of actual phobias, it is confusing to have a word also named as a phobia which is *not*. So what is exactly wrong with clarifying that the term is non-clinical in this article? It is an important part of information about this word and it would be reasonable to include it prominently in the article. Sometimeswrong (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll respond once more, and then I'll let someone else step in if you decide to continue. (I've devoted quite enough time to this talk page over the years.) What you're saying is wrong on multiple levels. First, assuming you really are new here and aren't someone returned in another guise, you have no idea how Wikipedia works, how our articles are structured, what our standards for including and excluding content are. That's fine, up to a point. No one expects newbies to know this stuff. What we do expect is some degree of willingness to learn, not innuendo about partiality and pronouncements about what's reasonable. I advised you to read "at least a broad sampling" of this talk page's archives before beginning this thread. Six minutes later, you opened this thread. Fail.

Second, lead sections are supposed to summarize what's in the body of an article. Nothing gets placed "prominently" at the top unless it's well covered further down. It is my belief that the "Criticism of meaning and purpose" section already gives ample—perhaps undue—weight to objections to the word. Many of these objections are part of a manufactured controversy, some of which has spilled over onto this very talk page. Fact is, we're not concerned with any user's opinion about what constitutes an "actual phobia" or alleged mischaracterizations of opponents of homosexuality. (Such opponents are certainly pursuing a lost cause, though. It's sort of like being opposed to left-handedness or blue eyes; all the opposition in the world won't make it cease to exist.) We're only concerned with what reliable sources say. You're free to consider their reliability subjective if you like, but not to act on such an opinion: we have a noticeboard for evaluating the reliability of sources, and we depend on consensus to enforce what's decided there.

Finally, re "Homophobia is not an actual phobia", there is no such thing as an "actual phobia". If you mean that the term is generally not used clinically, no one said it is, and the article doesn't imply that it is. There are analogies to this, of course. Unlike crabapples, pineapples aren't varieties of apple. Neither are gila monsters monsters or crawfish fish. The English language is funny that way sometimes. Xenophobia, which you term an "actual phobia," is generally used to describe prejudice and dislike, not just fear. Every major dictionary indicates that, as do a plethora of scholarly writings by political scientists, sociologists, and historians, as well as literally innumerable other reliable sources. Bottom line: you're presenting your opinions as if they're facts, and your arguments are almost identical in every particular to ones made by one or more users on this page in the past. I call bullshit. Now, if you really are a newbie and you're here to help build an encyclopedia, please forgive me for being blunt and suggesting you put what looks very much like a personal crusade aside, stop courting controversy, and go find something non-contentious to edit. We have millions of articles, many in desperate need of attention. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: River is correct. We've been over this enough times. The FAQ is at the top of the talk page for a reason. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been through all of the archives to review mentions of the term 'non-clinical' and none of them were properly addressed. Please check yourself. I simply want to add in the first paragraph that the term is non-clinical and is not considered a mental disorder. And I justify having it in the first paragraph because, juxtaposed against all other terms with a phobia suffix, it is easy to be led into believing it is in fact a clinical term. It would serve the interests of keeping this article neutral and providing valuable information into those looking into the topic. Do you honestly disagree with that? If so, why? Sometimeswrong (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please. I wasn't going to spend any more time on this, but briefly: I just now glanced at the archives and in less than one minute found ten threads dealing with this same question. Then I lost count. If you're limiting it to a search for mentions of "non-clinical", that's pretty much pointless; different users employ different terms, and of course there are variations on the theme, but I wouldn't be exaggerating to say that the essence of your argument has been made here dozens of times. Just where is this juxtaposition of other terms that you refer to? It doesn't show up in my browser. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 23:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

This has been explained in detail, and repeatedly; editors here are not paid, and are under no obligation to spend endless amounts of time persuading you of something. The bottom line is this: you are in a minority; consensus is against you on this issue. Time to let it drop, and go contribute productively to the encyclopedia in some other way, because anything further about this is simply a waste of breath. Sorry, but that's just the reality, here. Mathglot (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Why the fuck is this article full of mistakes locked for editing?

There was NEVER in ALL of "Mediaeval Europe" (misspelled as "medieval" with a small initial) death penalty for same sex acts between men. It never applied in Byzantium, Russia, most of Italy, large parts of Poland and Scandinavia, Serbia, Portugal and Bulgaria. Basically, it applied to the Papal Lands in Italy, England and France and most of Spain.

There are many other cases of mistakes and this is just an example. Why the fuck is this article full of mistakes locked for editing?

• It's locked because people keep vandalising it. If you believe something is wrong, simply present what you believe needs to be changed here, with a reliable source, and if you are correct it can be changed. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

New Article

Hello! I am working on creating a new article for Homophobia toward Ethnic Minorities in the United States. To accomplish this, I will use some of the information that exists on the parent article, Homophobia in ethnic minority communities, and add more detail to all of the sections that focus on the United States. I will also create a section for Native-Americans and detail their experiences of homophobia within the US. T.scott0513 (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Homophobia in ethnic minority communities § New Article

Mathglot (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

A More Accurate Clinical Term

Paraphilia/homo Or alternatly homo paraphilia is a problematic sexual interest in, among other things, children and non consenting people. Obviously "homophobes" have a harmful non consensual sexual interest in homosexuals. 98.164.67.205 (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Homophobes have a sexual interest in homosexuals? I think you may need to consult a dictionary. Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

What's the problem?

@Flyer22 Reborn:Intelligence (journal) is a peer reviewed journal and it's impact factor is not bad. So why you had removed it]. Please, don't cite any wikipedia policy based full article. Show me exact line of the policy based article where my edition has been contrasted with. I have no intention to hurt you, still if you feel resentful by my behaviour, I apoliged. Fahim fanatic (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this (followup edit here), how am I not clear on what the problem is? How have I not been clear on your talk page? I do not see what else I can state, since every time you are told that primary sources are not preferred, especially for material regarding biology and/or health, you don't listen. You might not restore the material, but you move on to another article and employ the same behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019

Heading Already There: Criticism of meaning and purpose Heading Already There: Opposition to the term homophobia Add to the sentence already there: People and groups have objected to the use of the term homophobia[119][120][121]

Added: , beginning with the meaning of phobia, defined as a type of anxiety disorder, evidenced by a persistent and excessive fear of an object or situation. Most of the above descriptions do not even reference fear, or suggest any disorder, especially those supported by religious views.

Added: Prejudice is also included in many of the above descriptions, but Prejudice is an effective feeling towards a person or group member based solely on that person's group membership (tribal behavior). Religious views are not feelings, they are widely held doctrine based on sound reasoning and consensus, and therefore do not match the commonly recognized definition of prejudice.

Added: Homophobia likely exists, but it is limited to an irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. TruthSearch777 (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)  Not done. Please see the FAQ at the top of this page, together with previous talkpage discussions. Black Kite (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Not a Phobia

This is covered in the FAQ.

This article should be edited to reflect that such is not a "-Phobia" within the scientific meaning of "-Phobia" and therefore is a technical misuse of the terminology, as "-Phobia" scientifically means "a pathological fear of something" and represents a serious mental health disorder as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). 2605:A601:4515:F400:1507:EF69:28F2:7DB4 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Your objections are entirely irrelevant: "homophobia" is the word used to describe the hatred or fear of gay people. You may as well go to the talk page for Butterfly and complain about the lack of flying butter. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Agreed, reliable sources use this term in this context and not using it due to the scientific meaning is a clear case of the Etymological fallacy. This proposal has been rejected several times for this very reason.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2019

Still covered in the FAQ.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Phobia is an irrational fear. If I don't like something gay or homosexual, I am not a homophobe. I simply don't like it. I have friends who are gay. So this definition put on wkipedia is not correct or sound.You can't just start changing the language based on your feelings. Changing the meaning will cause confussion and misunderstandings. Please change this. The more and more these things are done, the more and more I am pushed away. I will do my do diligence to make sure that I am understood, but this is causing extreme distress in the world. Shall we start changing words that you don't agree with? 2601:6C0:8000:2650:B1CD:7046:C0D3:9BD9 (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Many words in English mean something different from what their individual components might literally suggest. I am typing this on a computer, but it doesn't feel like I or it are computing. The language evolves. And Wikipedia presents what reliable sources say. Have a good read of the section headed Origin of the term, especially the use of the word "aversion", as perhaps better describing your own position as distinct from fear. HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)  Not done. This is covered in the FAQ, at the top of the page. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Exactly, terms evolved and sometimes have completely different meaning toady and I don’t see anyone making these types of arguments regarding other terms. For example, I haven’t see anyone argue that we can’t call a harasser a bully since bully was originally a term for sweetheart in the 1500s and using it to means a harasser is unfairly changing the word.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Contradictory definition between Renzuelli and Schuiling/Adams

Just wanted to point out that these three sources in the lead give contradictory definitions as to the inclusion of transgender persons under homophobic discrimination. I propose that source 2, Renzulli, is separated from 1 and 3 (Adams and Sculling respectively) to clarify this. Especially notable is that Adams specifically states that definitions may vary on this matter, and that (2) refers to a culture that includes homophobia (at least in my interpretation of the source) rather than specifically defining what it is. Changes will be made out into effect when I have free time at my PC in the following days, provided there are no objections from long-standing editors here with better awareness of such issues historically on the article – moving citation templates is a pain in the neck without keyboard hotkeys. Techhead7890 (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources of homophobia list

Moving this content out of the article for now: the linked sources might be helpful in future, but the current content is overbroad, undersourced, and out of place. (Why is "Music" only a black-person problem and "The Arts" a white-person one?) gnu57 20:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended content
Social constructs and culture can perpetuate homophobic attitudes. Such cultural sources in the black community include: Music and music videos Churches Sources of homophobia in the white community include: The Arts Films and literature that project negative gay stereotypes. Churches Professional sports in many countries involves homophobic expressions by athletes and by fans. References

Inconsistency?

The final paragraph states that the term heteronegativism is prefered to the term heterophobia because the later construction implies "extreme or irrational fear".

If that's the case, wouldn't the same be true of homophobia -- that it also implies extreme or irrational fear (it always has, to me)? And in that case, shouldn't the term homonegativism be preferred to homophobia as it is commonly used (or misused) today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Certainly "homophobia" implies irrational fear and it would be consistent with the protection given to heterophobia to term it homonegativism. But as seen from the article, since attitudes and actions "may be based on irrational fear and ignorance" then this inquisitorial mind-reading justifies the broad branding use of the term "homophobia." Thus the statement, "themes of homophobia and heterosexism may be read in almost any document of our culture" and which solution requires "actively imagining a necessarily and desirably queer world." (Michael Warner, Fear of a queer planet). But which aversion to heteronormativity cannot be called heterophobia, while the broad use of the term "homophobia" goes way beyond what it would mean based upon the meaning of the words. Thus no one can escape it who is suspected or judged to have anything but affirmation for homosexual attraction and activity, even quoting factual statistics about over 80% of new HIV cases btwn men aged 13 and older occurring among men who have sex with men (which epidemic itself is blamed on homophobia) Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect use

This word is not actually correct. It is factually wrong and a random political stab at all people who disapprove of any form of behavior involving a homosexual activity. It is a claim that those who disapprove are scared of homosexuality in general. This is an accusation not based on reality and abuse. The word is defined as fear of homosexuals. Same as arachnophobia: it is not linked to prejudice against spiders. It is defined as fear of spiders. It is a psychoanalysis based on nothing that people who dissaprove or dislike homosexuals are scared of homosexuals. This should be the main point of topic. Rjenman123 (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this talk page. The "Q: Why isn't the article limited to a dictionary definition?" piece. Check the archives. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, add?

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and Ralph Drollinger for Cabinet of Donald Trump:

• Andrew Naughtie, Coronavirus: Trump cabinet’s pastor blames gay people for ‘wrath of God’; Ralph Drollinger has a history of doom-laden remarks about LGBT+ people March 26, 2020 Independent.co.uk

See Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.

X1\ (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

With the exception of Ralph Drollinger none of the other articles even mentions homosexuals (let alone tie it to the virus) so unless I’m missing something this seems more relevant to his article.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2020

Sexcpeppapig (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC) I would like to remove the information about heterophobia, given that it is not a real thing.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how the word can be described as "not a real thing" when the Merriam-Webster dictionary of the English language has an unambiguous definition for it. Flybd5 (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

66

the 66 link doesnt go anywhere?

Link 66 seems to be this one. It works, but it can only be accessed with a subscription. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you think if "heterophobia" stands with article?

Heterophobia is currently merged to homophobia and it overlapped to the definition of homophobia. For heterophobia, it should be with single article. The Supermind (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have sufficient sources for such an article? We have to establish independent notability. 16:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

Of course, it is possible to collect sources and consolidate as article. This type of phobia is distinct coexisting, rather than the term to be pejorative in other side of homophobia. I can establish it and you can aid to expand it. The Supermind (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Image

Image and caption have no source. Should be removed. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The image is directly relevant to this article. It's highly unusual to have an inline ref in an image caption; besides, any information in the caption is referenced in the target article, and none is required to be cited inline. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2021

In the „Origin of the term“, in the first sentence, there seems to be a bracket missing: „ Although sexual attitudes tracing back to Ancient Greece (8th to 6th centuries BC to the end of antiquity (ca. 600 AD) have been termed homophobia by scholars…“

Should be

„Although sexual attitudes tracing back to Ancient Greece (8th to 6th centuries BC to the end of antiquity (ca. 600 AD)) have been termed homophobia by scholars“ 141.70.45.131 (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Is lesbophobia necessarily sexism?

"lesbophobia is the intersection of homophobia and sexism directed against lesbians" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.66.32.176 (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2021

Change "Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT)" to "Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuals or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT)"

This edit request pertains to the very first line of the page. The reasoning for this request is that the sources used in the creation of the original statement (on the page) do not reference any association of homophobia with negative attitudes pertaining to homosexuality as an abstract idea or character trait; rather, the sources more-or-less define homophobia as predjudice against people (of whom happen to have those traits).

AIRopant (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC) AIRopant (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The lead is a summary of the entire article. If it is explained and sources in the body it's fine as is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

U.S. Supreme Court case law

I recently spent several hours, all night, writing an entire section for this article. I discussed an important landmark case by the SCOTUS, and I discussed criticisms of the SCOTUS decision. I added dozens of paragraphs to the end of this article, because I think that public animosity towards gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals was being very thoroughly discussed by the SCOTUS, and animosity is a version of homophobia. Isn't it? Why has all of my addition to this article been erased? Vincent Labine (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• For the reason in my edit summary - this article is a worldwide overview of the subject of homophobia. It is not a forensic examination of a few legal battles regarding gay rights in one particular country. I'm sure the material belongs somewhere, but it isn't here. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Vincent Labine All the material is preserved here and it could be useful in starting an article like List of LGBT-related cases heard by the United States Supreme Court (c.f. List of LGBT-related cases before international courts and quasi-judicial bodies) (t · c) buidhe 06:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, thank you very much for that constructive suggestion. I will have to learn about starting new articles in Wikipedia, but I will follow up.Vincent Labine (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

"Gaycism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Gaycism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17#Gaycism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. AFreshStart (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Criticism Section possible revisions

While a criticism of the term is welcomed as there is a lot of debate academically, are such outdated sources and possibly fringe views (such as those in the section about the non-neutrality) necessary? If not supplemented by the consensus view, a reader of the article could come away thinking these views are more valid than they are widely seen. Are my concerns at all reasonable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.204.252 (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• • I’m nor sure what you’re asking. Please be more specific and provide reliable sources. Dronebogus (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Hi thanks for a quick response. Basically, i’m simply questioning the validity of using the sources used under the specific section mentioned under the criticism portion of this article. I’m not trying to add new information necessarily, but questioning whether we should trend away from fringe ideas. Also, i wouldn’t usually note this if they weren’t also frankly outdated sources (over 20 years old).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.204.252 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

"Homophobia" definition

I just want to clarify that Homophobia is not the same as Transphobia. Trans people experience homophobia not because they are trans or because of transphobia, but they can be if people think they are homosexual(whether or not they self-identify as homosexual) or any other orientation that involves attraction to members of your own sex/gender.

I feel that the transphobia stuff should be a separate section because it could conflate the two issues. I believe trans and nonbinary people deserve a place in the LGBTQ+ community, but there are obvious differences between discrimination based on gender identity and discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Thank you for your understanding.

--HelloHamburger (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

"but they can be if people think they are homosexual" You generally do not have to be homosexual to be a victim of gay bashing. The perception of the aggressor is often more relevant than the identity or past history of the victim. Dimadick (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2022

Change "and is also related to religious beliefs." to "and is sometimes related to religious beliefs." Ztoddw (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Homophobia is a slur vandalism

Can someone fix the vandalism of the last two edits? I can't do it myself as the page is protected. Thanks! FullBasket (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The definition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is logic to assume that homophobia is prejudice against homosexuals. Google that and that is the definition. Adding bisexual people and trans people is an unnecesary opening of the word, which not only devalues the experiences of bisexual and trans people, but also the experiences of gays. There are articles for transphobia and biphobia, and they accurately reflect who those prejudices affect. Why can't the same apply to homosexuals? It is not fair Heikocvijic (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Upon checking the sources, not even the sources make sense. First one does not say homophobia is prejudice against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans people. It says this 'sexism, heterosexism, and transgender oppression and the ways in which gender roles are maintained, in part, through homophobia.' That is it, that homophobia plays a role in them. The second source is from 2008 and I find it odd because it seems like people tried to find an obscure article to justify expanding homophobia to people who are not even homosexuals. And the third source is from Women's Gynecologic Health. What. This is absurd. Encyclopedia Britannica has an article about the topic. imo a better source than a journal on gynecology https://www.britannica.com/topic/homophobia Heikocvijic (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Even Planned Parenthood gets around the issue in a better way than this article, basically defining it as prejudice against homosexuals and bisexuals (just guessing, maybe because all of them are atracted to the same-sex). They exclude trans from their definition because, maybe because, transphobia is not the same as homophobia. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/sexual-orientation/sexual-orientation/what-homophobia

At this point I feel like an old man yelling at the clouds but this article I find very inaccurate and well, I need consensus and no one is replying. I'm done for now, until someone replies Heikocvijic (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

No is it logic to assume that "homo" means human (or "man", which is contextually the same in this case), and that "phobia" is an overwhelming sense of irrational terror. "Homophobia" means, an overpoweringly, extreme, fear of humans. "Homos" is the prefix of homosexual, which causes confusion, because "homos" actually means "same". It should have a double "S". "Homophobia" means extreme fear of humans. This kind of makes me think that it is a bit of a silly word created by angry people who want to insult people, right?92.238.237.65 (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, you'd have to ask the people that coined "homosexual", since that's where the derivation comes from. Since that word dates from 1868, however, I think you'd have some problems contacting them. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It comes from "homos", which means "same". The sexual part is obvious. So homosexual means "same-sexual", i.e. those who have sexual interactions, with those of the same sex. "Homo" on its own (without the "S") means "man", but more likely in context "human". The meaning of homo has not changed (like homo-sapiens). It still means man or, rather, "human". Phobia is definitively, an abject terrifying fear of something, like aqua-phobia is an irrational fear of water. Homophobia is an extreme/ irrational fear of humans. 92.238.237.65 (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

So "homosexual" means "same-sexual", but "homophobia" means "fear of humans"? That is completely contradictory. (Also, "Homos" and "Phobia" are Greek, whilst "Homo" meaning "man" is Latin). Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It can also be an abbreviation for homogenized milk. It must mean fear of homogenized milk, since we’re playing the “grab-bag etymology” game. Dronebogus (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"Homogenized milk" does not contain the suffix "phobia". So it has no relation to terror/ fear. This is actually a good example of "homos" meaning "same". The idea is to make it (the milk) the same or, in this case "similar". That word "homogenized" also does not use the "s", so it does seem a recurring theme. "Homo" can actually present problems, linguistically, but it still either shares the meaning with the "s" or not. It could be tricky. 92.238.237.65 (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Because homos, and homo are different prefixes. One has an "s", the other does not. "Homos" means "same" literally. "Homo" means contextually "human". It can be defined "man", but, as we know, "man" is often used to denote simply "humans". Yes, and also we do need to consider Greek and Latin incongruence. English does obviously use the foundations of both Latin and Greek. The same issue comes up with words like deus/ zeus/ theos. Different alphabet too. 92.238.237.65 (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Homophobia and Fear

It was mentioned in the main article on homophobia that it “may be based on irrational fear”. While the editor goes on to say how they are discriminated against, the author, indirectly or directly, shows a clear presumption of the motives of people who are the instigators of homophobia. (Readers please take note how the sentence say “people”, not “the people.”)The editor also instigates the works of the FBI, who by proclaiming “Here at the FBI, we very frequently use the phrase the FBI family.” shows their standing on the subject of who is feared and who initiates the fear. The article also clearly explains in the following sentences how they treat anyone equal; there has never been an straight summit. This discussion is only written by an amateur on the subject, sharing his opinion on the topic. Reminder to reader, this is only an opinion, not an objectification. Nor criticism.

Sources

None. But if you search up the key words “FBI” and “gay” - proceeding each other by a space - the first article will talk about a “pride summit”. Note: “gay” is only used to describe how the article was found. No offense was intended. 107.3.204.12 (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This article has had 10 different editors in the last four months. Information in the lead and in the body is clearly cited to source material, which means the claims and supplied data can be verified as being in the given sources or not. Can you provide any specific examples of opinions being presented as fact in the article? You do appear to admit you have no sources to support your claims, so it would be helpful if you could provide some sources, too. King keudo (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

A "phobia" is an intense and irrational fear of something. In good/ adequate word usage, "phobias" refer to severe anxiety disorders, and should be defined in the DSM. If a "phobia" is not listed in the DSM, then it is most likely a buzzword made up by activists. The word "homophobia" is completely weird anyway. "Homo" means "human" in context. It may be defined as "man", but it is a contextual thing. Homophobia literally means a terrifying fear of humans. This means it is a buzzword (and apparently one that has gone unchecked). Homo is a prefix. The issue that arises is that the proper meaning of homosexual is related to "homos" (note the "s"). This means that the original person who fabricated the word "homophobia" was pretty much linguistically incompetent. It is an insult created by someone with poor grasp of language. Not only that, but it is assumed "homo" just relates to "homosexual". That is lingo. "Homo" most certainly is in common usage in English, especially things like homo-sapiens. The creation of this buzzword "homophobia" is purely based on lack of knowledge of its common usage in other areas. It assumes that "homo" just means a gay person. 92.238.237.65 (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hardly a "buzzword", since it's existed in its present form for over 50 years. Anyway, this page isn't a forum for discussing the subject in general (see the note at the top of the page), so have you a suggestion for what changes should be made to this page? If not, I think the discussion is at an end now. Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Believe me, buzzwords can last a whole lot longer. No, there is no point in my suggestion that you remove a page relating to a slur, used to denigrate anyone with an opposing opinion. But at least we do know that there are some people, who know what words mean. Homophobia means abject fear of humans. Not a buzzword? Try "stupid word made up by angry illiterate people". No one put that in the article did they? 92.238.237.65 (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

No, because oddly there aren't any reliable sources to back up that contention. And we're done. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Queerphobia

"Queerphobia" redirects here, but it's probably a distinct enough concept to deserve its own article. Homophobia is used mainly for aversion to/bigotry against homosexual people, while queerphobia is used more for LGBT people in general, not just those who are gay. YaeiouUoieay (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands uses homophobia as a blanket term. It’s not great, but it’s in the FAQ so a better option would be to make an RFC discussing changing or splitting the article. Dronebogus (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the FAQ

The discussion above isn’t the first time the Etymological fallacy has been employed to try and claim that the term homophobia has to mean by definition something different than its actual meaning. I believe something regarding this should be added to the FAQ to shown that this argument had been confided and rejected multiple times. 65.92.162.81 (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps some contrast should be made to "Androphobia" (fear of men) and "Anthropophobia" (fear of people), which express with all-Greek roots the two meanings one editor above proposed for "Homophobia" using the Latin sense of that prefix. – _•Raven  ^.talk 15:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Add categories "Phobias" and "Prejudice and discrimination by type"?

At present neither this page nor others wikilinked as related (Transphobia, Lesbophobia, etc.) have "Category:Phobias" or "Category:Prejudice and discrimination by type". Above in the locked discussion, one claim is that "If a 'phobia' is not listed in the DSM, then it is most likely a buzzword made up by activists." Perhaps some such reasoning explains the omission of the "phobias" category, but not the "prejudice and discrimination..." category. Also, I note that the page Xenophobia has both categories, although that too is not listed in DSM-5. (Yet "300.29 (F40.298) Other" is a coded type of phobia, and does not exclude those mentioned here.) As -phobia is used in the same sense — "fear or dislike of..." — in Xenophobia, those mentioned here qualify just as well. Is there some reason I'm not aware of, why these two category labels should NOT be added? – _•Raven  ^.talk 09:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Also cf. Gynophobia, which is not in DSM-5, yet has (only) "Category:Phobias". – _•Raven  ^.talk 09:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

After waiting over 24 hours, and seeing no objection, am proceeding to make these edits. – _•Raven  ^.talk 14:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Homophobia on Youtube

I see a lot of young kids hating on people in the LGBTQ+ community (or choosing not to support them), whether for religious or clout-related reasons (mostly just for clout). I think we should add a section about how homophobia is becoming normalized on the internet (especially on YouTube) BFDICream (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Transphobia

"Negative attitudes towards transgender and transsexual people are known as transphobia." Why is this sentence in the article? It's completely irrelevant to the subject of the article. Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Well, it's not irrelevant, seeing as it's included in the list of bigotry against LGBTQ+ people, but I don't see the point of it in the first paragraph, seeing as it's in the third one as well. Removed. Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Requesting more context about "animals" comparison

I.e. under "Types" then "State-sponsored" then "Past governments" is the text "run counter to the intercourse of male and female natural to animals". This is the only instance of the word animal on this entire page. Words with the root natur* (e.g. natural, nature) only talk about opposition arguing that being homo would be "against nature".

There is an entire wikipedia page about homo animals Homosexual behavior in animals. There should be mention that the claims "that homosexuality is not natural to animals" have thus been scientifically proven to be false. 31.20.106.40 (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This page covers the topic of homophobia, and the history attached. The text you are asking for context on is a quote taken from Thomas Aquinas and is covered "in context" by the first part of the sentence the quote is located in. As you've already linked the article that covers homosexual behavior in non-human animals, I see no need to include any of that article on the article about the existence and development of homophobia. The quote from Thomas Aquinas is to highlight his influence as to how homosexuals were treated and viewed. King keudo (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no mention of that article on this page. Not mentioning that article on this page is stating a view without clarifying that it is an incorrect one which is misleading a reader. 31.20.106.40 (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I pointed out that you linked to the page, here, in talk. I still see no need to include any of that article in this one. This article is about homophobia itself - history, how it has been utilized, affected people, etc. There's no need to "refute" a quote that is being used to showcase historical homophobic responses - it's not being used to justify homophobia and needs no "opposing viewpoint" or "context" to balance it out. King keudo (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Crimea is Ukraine!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Crimea is Ukraine! 178.133.176.140 (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit the map! Immediately! The LGBT+ community in Ukraine is dying at the hands of the russians, and you are showing support for war criminals with this map! How can you fight for rights and democracy and at the same time support people who profess fascist ideology? 31.144.29.239 (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• This should be posted on the talk page of the map image, not here. File_talk:World_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression.svg. Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2023

Why is Citation #76 used? It's linked to an informational piece titled "A link between obesity and autism". Nothing is written in "Homophobia" that uses that information. The information in the paragraph containing Citation #76 should also be reviewed and fact-checked Enderman34345 (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Scroll down. It talks about homophobia underneath the section you mention. I do think that a better source should be provided, however. Panamitsu (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Found a better source; a Science Daily writeup of the same paper (Weinstein 2012), interviewing the same co-author (R. Ryan). I updated the article accordingly.

  I just realized the same section cites Adams 1996, which is an old and familiar friend. It was controversial when it was published, and until at least 2008, it hadn't been replicated that I could find. Given how they measured "erectile responses" I wouldn't be surprised if it still hasn't been replicated. Interesting to see all these years later that other researchers have gone down the same path, albeit not using the same testing protocols.

  But I'm rambling. The section has been "fact-checked" now as @Enderman34345 requested, as in what's in the article is true to the sources. Whether it's true or not, or whether you believe it or not is out of my hands. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 17:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Edit requests should only be used to ask for specific changes to the article, based on reliable sources. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 16:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2023

Change everything about homophobia to fear of gay people, phobia refers to a fear not a hate. I myswlf am homophobic but cant use that term anymore since people seem to think it means I hate gay people, which is in fact semi-not true. 2001:2044:1007:4300:A08D:F3B8:AF73:98C5 (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@2001:2044:1007:4300:A08D:F3B8:AF73:98C5 I oppose such a request. It is already established in science that homophobia is the hatred of homosexuality. It is not in mainstream definition that is a "fear" despite the name. Panamitsu (talk) ^{Please ping on reply} 11:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Multiple previous discussions have established that reliable sources refer to it as a hatred as opposed to a fear. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Heterophobia

This article has a section about "heterophobia", which appears to be quite strange being essentially the direct opposite to homophobia. Heterophobia also redirects to homophobia. Do you think that we should create an article for heterophobia? I haven't done a formal check to see if it meets the notability criteria, but Google Scholar does list thousands of results. Such an article would need to be longer than the section in this article. Do you think that we should start an article on the so-called "heterophobia"? Panamitsu (talk) ^{Please ping on reply} 11:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Heterophobia was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heterophobia_(4th_nomination). However, that article was a terrible piece of mostly-unsourced crap written by a disruptive editor, very unlike the paragraph we now have. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite I'll start working on a draft at some point so that we can figure out if it should be a separate article or not. These deletions appear to be due to serious WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE issues rather than notability. I find it quite difficult to gauge notability by looking at search results. Panamitsu (talk) ^{Please ping on reply} 11:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)