Talk:Heterophobia

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)