From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Not really a phobia?

Such a condition is displayed by homosexual persons and/or their supporters in response to perceived "anti-gay" bias by those who are straight.

This sounds like a flawed diagnosis, Dr. Karajou. Unless those people are suddenly afraid of ALL straight people and ALL straight behavior, "heterophobia" is likely the wrong term to use.

Can you give me just one example of a heterophobic person? A person who can't stand to be close to any person they know to be heterosexual?

At the moment, this looks like a very odd, purely political message. Or, to use CP's own phrasing, here's my view of what the "Heterophobia" article should look like:

The term heterophobia is a snarl word used by conservative activists to verbally tar and feather anyone who dares to oppose anti-gay bias. The term implies that everyone who opposes anti-gay bias is being irrational, i.e., literally suffering from a mental illness (see also Phobia).

It is primarily used by conservative activists to portray opposition to the anti-gay agenda as irrational, based on fear or hatred, and to smear homosexuals and anybody who supports them. It is intended to sound like a form of mental illness, but unlike actual phobias, it is not a term for any recognized psychological condition.

Food for thought, maybe? --Jenkins 15:18, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

You must have been reading the definition of homophobia and changed a couple words. Karajou 15:37, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

You must have missed where I linked to the Homphobia article and said "to use CP's own phrasing". --Jenkins 15:39, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
No, you missed the point when and where the word homophobia was created, and it wasn't by a doctor. Karajou 15:40, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
No, you missed where I observed that the concept of heterophobia sounds so unlikely in itself (unlike the concept of homophobia, as I might add) that I honestly doubt that a doctor created it, either. So re-using the Homophobia phrasing seemed like the obvious choice. --Jenkins 15:42, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
And why is it so unlike homophobia? Do tell. Karajou 15:44, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
The point is technically moot since the article just got deleted. (*approves*)
But I'll humor you: It's practically possible that there is a truly homophobic person out there - a person who watched what CP calls the Gay Agenda and is afraid that it will undermine The System in its very foundations. Such a person could truly become afraid of anything connected to homosexuality, even the nice guy next door who turns out to be a homosexual.
Heterophobia would imply being afraid of anything heterosexual. I honestly can't see how anybody could ever develop such a fear and live. It's practically Omniphobia - the fear of EVERYTHING. Those people who drove by in the car? Likely heterosexual. Those dogs? Most likely straight. Wedding ceremony in church? Going shopping? Better find some village where EVERY customer and employee is certified gay. Most friends? Likely straight. And so on, and so on.
I don't see it happening, and I have never heard of a heterophobic person. However, I have seen people who could be called homophobic (even though I have not asked to see an official diagnosis). --Jenkins 15:53, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

So your definition of "homophobic" is to fear that the gay agenda will undermine society? If so, do you mean to brand this fear as irrational - or simply to say that you disagree with it? --Ed Poor Talk 15:57, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

If you meant me: No. I just went with the view that CP apparently pushes (that homophobia is a "snarl word used to tar and feather etc etc etc") to show how homophobia is a possibility, as opposed to heterophobia.
The reasoning that the gay agenda will undermine society could certainly lead to genuine homophobia (just like me watching some horror movie about spiders could drive me down the road towards arachnophobia until I'm genuinely afraid even of tiny house spiders). It's the difference between cause and effect. For example, I'd say that people usually don't discriminate against other races just because their skin has a slightly different hue. There is usually some (rational or irrational) cause behind it, no matter whether they acknowledge it or not (the literal -phobia part comes when you develop a fear that doesn't go away, even when the cause is gone or neutralized). So I think that homophobia is more than just some political word and that the current homophobia article is simply pushing an opinion.
Man, this stuff's complicated, and I had to revise a lot on the fly. Summary: There are people who are afraid that the "gay agenda" succeeds, and there are people where this concern develops into an irrational fear of everything that is connected to said agenda, namely homosexuals and any sort of behavior that is what they regard as gay. I would call the latter group homophobic (although it should be noted that the cause listed here is not the only possible way leading to homophobia, of course). --Jenkins 16:13, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Tit for tat

Making up a word that mirrors the smear word "homophobia" is not the correct antidote to the homosexual agenda. So I deleted the article. It's not a "phobia" to respond to principled criticism with personal attacks and fallacious arguments. It's a calculated strategy. The aim is to get one's opponents off-balance and to sway fence-sitters. --Ed Poor Talk 15:48, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

I'll tell you what, Ed...I'll agree to that. Homophobia is an ugly smear word that should never have been invented. Karajou 15:50, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

According to the BBC, "Plans to give legal status to gay and lesbian couples discriminate against heterosexual couples. and lesbian couples will be awarded the same pension and property rights as married couples. ...The moves will give next-of-kin rights in hospitals, allow gays to benefit from a dead partner's pension and exempt them from inheritance tax on a partner's home. ...'It is divisive, heterophobic and discriminatory...'" [1]
There, per the "Attribution" policy authored by the anonymous avatar who goes by the handle, "SlimVirgin" in WP, we have a mainstream, reliable, source using a term which can nolonger be ascribed as a neologism. Rob Smith 16:43, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
We have a reliable mainstream source that quotes somebody using the word, to be precise (note how every time the word was used, there were quotation marks). That doesn't make it less of a neologism, I think. Then again, I'm not sure how the neologism bit is terribly important; our Internet article also showcases the "Series of Tubes" thing, after all. However, in my eyes, the now-deleted article strayed pretty far away from what the source says.
If anything, the article should point out that it's not a "condition" or a "phobia" in the medical sense. The usage appears to be purely political. Here is my suggestion for a new article:
Heterophobia is a term that is sometimes used to refer to a person or a concept that shows prejudice or bias against heterosexuals.

The word is based on the terms hetero (as in "heterosexual") and phobia (Greek: "fear"). However, unlike other phobias, it is not a medical condition (In a medical sense, heterophobia would mean an irrational fear of heterosexuals); it is usually used in a political context.<ref>http://...</ref>

Just a rough draft, based on the source and my own thinking. Thoughts? --Jenkins 17:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
...uh, no. It's a political expression that can sometimes have a special implication, not an actual phobia in the medical sense. I chose my words in the draft carefully because it's not trivial to distinguish between usage, potentially implied meaning, and the hypothetical medical disorder that would use this name.
Usage: To say that a person or decision shows anti-heterosexual bias or prejudice
Potentially implied meaning: The person is acting irrationally because he is afraid of (or doesn't like) heterosexuals.
Medical disorder: The irrational fear of heterosexuality and heterosexuals in general. (I doubt that this actually exists, see section above this one)
Note how the guy there for example doesn't actually mean that the people making the decision are afraid or acting out of fear. He just uses it to criticize the decision with a word that's sounding fancy and that people can understand to refer to prejudice.
That's why I phrased the opening (and the rest) in the way I did. Hope that makes it clearer where I'm coming from. --Jenkins 18:05, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
Wouldn't a person with the Gay gene show symptoms of heterophobia? Rob Smith 18:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
Generally speaking, I would say that I don't see any connection between a gay gene and heterophobia in the medical sense since that would imply that phobias have their roots in our genes - an extremely bold claim at best. And even then, it's an incredibly large step to link a gene that makes you swing this way to a fear of everything that swings the other way.
Let's assume that there actually is a gay gene that causes people to be gay and that (nearly) all homosexuals have it. what? Are all homosexuals heterophobic by definition? I don't think so, Tim Rob.
So when somebody claims that he was born gay, that's not a symptom of an irrational fear of non-gays. Those two things don't appear to be connected at all. Being gay is quite compatible with being able to hang out with straight people without fear, and the cause or justification of homosexuality doesn't factor into that. --Jenkins 18:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools