Talk:Homophobia/Archive 2

447:

term in widespread usage by many people, not just those concerned purely with gay rights. Opinion is clearly dressed up as fact and, particularly at the start of the article, it shows a clear bias against homosexuals and those people who support gay rights or who use the term homophobia. Finally, despite its claims to NPOV this article makes no mention of the (obvious) fact that most of the people accused of being homophobes deny the accusation - no-one wants to be a homophobe in the same way that no-one wants to be a racist, yet they exist. I don't understand how, given Knowledge's claim to neutrality, this article got discussed in such detail yet ended up with such bias. --

932:-- The term "homophobia" has been way overused and, frankly, misused in recent years. Homophobia, like all phobias, is a mental disorder, and while it certainly exists, it is extremely rare. Before the last decade or so, you'd only see the word occasionally in Psychology Today-type articles on phobias: it would be listed along with literally hundreds of other equally unusual irrational fears such as fear of crowds, fear of insects, fear of the sun, etc., etc. These are actual clinical syndromes, however, and they should not be appropriated by political or ideological advocacy groups regardless of how worthy the cause. 1104:

encyclopaedia, which is intended to be timeless and authoritative. "Neologism" is an inescapably relative word - *all* words are neologisms looked at from one perspective in time, soon after they are invented. (All the words Shakespeare invented would be neologisms if you lived in 1630, for instance). I sincerely hope this page will be around in some form in another hundred years, at which point homophobia will no longer be a neologism. I think it's probably sufficient simply to say when and by whom the term was coined. Comments? --

959:

31: 304:"It is usually not the case, for homophobic persons, that the basis of their attitudes towards homosexuality is rational reasoning, or intellectual argumentation. Such endeavors have, as a rule, been added afterwards, to try to give the homophobia a nicer and more respectable framing. However, these attempts to argue intellectually against homosexuality are utter failures." 293:

as fact, it assumes that are rational opposition to homosexuality can be held, when there is an obvious controversy and debate over this issue. Therefore, it is certainly not neutral. I would rather it attributed these opinions to those who actually hold them: people in the anti-gay lobby, religious groups, etc. than just assert them as fact --

1140:

If you've got the slightest criticism against homosexuals and their right to marry each other and to adopt children, then you're instantly branded as a homophobic. This is truly pathetic! The Holy Bible teaches that homosexual acts are a sin. Not a sin that's more severe than any other sin, but STILL

169:

Regardless, mentioning this in the first paragraph without even properly defining the use of the term homophobia first strikes me as being highly POV which is why I moved it to the definitions section (directly) below. Psychiatrists don't use the term hosiery, but I don't see mention that 'hosiery is

98:

It seems to me that this article is highly NPOV. I will be giving a detailed description of its faults next, but overall it gives the incorrect impression that the term homophobia is not widely accepted or widely disputed term. The fact remains that while homophobia is not a psychaitric term, it is a

1459:

Hyacinth, the source is me.:-) All the many Iranians that I meet say the same. Today, people almost wanted to kill me just when I asked them what is wrong with homosexuals. I would agree that my experience need corroboration to get included in the article but I personally can not seriously doubt it.

1324:

is not officially regulated by anybody, including whatever dictionary you manage to dig up they are not the end of all debate, as i'm sure you are aware dictionaries are written after (common?) usage in the language and not the other way around, they're a reference, but not an authority. Anyway, the

812:

I agree with you, but we cannot discount the idea that it also suggests that only 'activists' share his views. And if we use the term 'gay rights activist' i think it needs to be fairly and neutrally defined. Is it just someone who says they are an activist? Is it someone who is highly active in the

775:

Martin: Whilst Bidstrup may describe himself as an activist, it does not necesarily follow that his opinions are representative only of a narrow band of peoples who are 'gay rights activist'. Mentioning Bidstrup is an 'activist' implies that only activists share his views, which is certainly not the

446:

No where did I dispute this and I think making an issue of this is side-tracking the discussion: what I dispute is the neutrality of this article. From reading this anyone would get the opinion that homphobia is a term only used by a handful of strange beasts called 'gay rights advocates', and not a

292:

I notice that despite the fact that I moved the highly POV 'Deliberate Blurring?' section to the more NPOV 'Opposition to the definition of homophobia' section, right next to the 'Opposition to homophobia' section. Why revert my changes without noticing this? This section dresses up opinion and POV

936:

I won't address the issue of clinical homophobia or homophobia as a mental disorder, but I'd like to point out that besides the traditional meaning of "irrational fear of homosexuals," which is what you're alluding to, there is another, commonly understood definition of homophobia, namely "aversion

678:

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

641:

re: "Oppposition to the labelling of homophobia" - I don't think that's an improvement. I'm in favour of some labelling, and oppose other labelling... we've got to somehow get across the concept of "overuse" or "blurring", without implying that any particular point of view is correct.... tricky...

485:

I just assumed from my day to day reading of newspapers that this is the common usage of homophobia. Most people use it in this sense in my mind. Certainly, its the definition that springs to mind when I use it. It is, in my mind, the homosexual equivalent of racism, since the term homsexualism or

157:

The APA discuss homophobia (they discuss many things), but they do not regard it as a bona fide phobia, nor do they seek to define the term. The evidence we had to back this up was a psychologist - see old Talk. The APA also discusses hosiery - this does not mean that hosiery is a psychological or

150:

Doing a quick search of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association came up with several hits for this term. It may well be correct to say there is no such thing as 'clinical homophobia' - although some evidence to back this up would be useful - but it certainly

1428:

It may be true that "some argue against the use of the term homophobe", but the quote from Jarrod Carter doesn't really support that. He only argues that he isn't homophobic, not that the term in general shouldn't be used. His starting with "the real homophobes are..." strikes me as a rhetorical

1103:

Another thought - is describing the word as a "neologism" superfluous, perhaps? I've always been an advocate of approaching writing a Knowledge article as if everything you're writing about happened a thousand years ago and is ancient history, because it seems to me that's the proper style for an

958:

682:

By advocate, I understand that people (probably) mean 'those who support gay rights'. My feeling is that the term is slightly POV - after all, those who support gay rights may also support human rights, religious freedoms, etc. However, attributing pro-gay sentiment to 'gay rights advocate' would

384:

Homophobia is certainly an emotive topic, but that's besides the point. The use of 'emotive tactic' is highly pejorative and suggests deceit and manipulation on the part of 'gay rights advocates'. The only people who I've ever heard make the 'alienation' claim are anti-gay lobbyists or religious

859:

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

649:

I removed this: "Societies current feelings toward homosexuality are well illustrated by the 1999 outing of the Teletubbies character Tinky Winky as a homosexual." Apart from being overly UK-centric and grammatically wrong...er, I think it's wrong in essence. It's not at all clear how society's

566:

I agree with the first part: they dispute the over use of the term, although I imagine some also refute the term itself. The second is more dubious. Most of the people who use the term homophobia don't really consider themselves to be gay rights advocates: there just members of society who find

1220:

Mikkalai, however, I'll provide a reason now. It isn't true that gay and lesbian people would or do pass on their genes far less frequently. Consider the intense pressure to be straight and reproduce over the last few hundred years. Gay people pass on their genes all the time, in fact, gay and

396:

The statement 'is consider emotive' is highly POV yet is stated as a matter of fact. In fact, the 'deliberate blurring' is conjecture and opinion dressed up as fact. Similarly, why would it alienate those opposed to the gay rights movement against the gay rights movement: sure they are already

1167:

That said, if one felt that people on the list should not be included because, for instance, they simply believe that same-sex sexual acts are one sin among many no better no worse, then one would have to document that. Or, assuming that the burden of proof is on those who claim someone is

89:

I did a "snapshot" of the User Talk page for a moment of time (User Talk: Revision as of 04:52, 3 Jul 2004 ), as chronology was not clear in previous approach. Then deleted duplication from current (as of 10 Feb 04) Talk Page. Then compared this page to current "archive2" page and captured

406:

Some people say that they are not opposed to gay rights, but feel alienated from the gay rights movement by what they consider an emotive tactic of labelling opponents as homophobic. They may be lying - the reader must judge this for hirself. Would you like a quote attributed to a named

1475:

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

1068:

I changed the end-of-paragraph links to links to a new "Reference" section; I did not change the links in the reference section to just a series of numbers, but anyway they're changed back now. I think what happens sometimes is edit conflicts screw up the history. Anyway, no harm

119:

First of all, I would like to note that none of edits actually deleted any of the text in the article except where it seemed to make little or no sense or be to confusing or POV to rescue. Rather than blindly reverting my edits, perhaps this should've been taken into account.

1306:

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

663:

Hi there! There is no mention about the over-usage of the term "homophobia" among gay right activists. For example, many gay right activists use the term "homophobia" to describe all those who oppose "same=sex marriage". Of course, emotional words are always over-used!

792:

I don't think it implies this. Saying that he is an activist tells the reader that he is an authority on the subject of gay rights, and therefore his opinions on homophobia might be worth listening to. This is standard practice in newspapers and such. For example, in

1041:

Also... I hate what you've done with the references on this page. (1) they're very confusing (a bunch of numbers) and (2) exactly what is wrong with having URLs on a page? You seem intent on getting rid of them all. I really suggest you have another look at

582:

is a psychiatric term, and that such a thing as "clinical homophobia" exists - I don't think that confusion exists w.r.t. xenophobia. But I like what you've done to that section, and I think I agree that it doesn't have to be in the very first para.

1210:

removed (see above). Do you have an sources?on Mar 6, 2004. I sympathize your effort to add an explination for a phobia, by definition an irrational fear, but it seems that a short summary of the general cause, which is known, is in order here.

887:

Every movement needs an activists to push it, or otherwise it will never materialize. If there is no activist, there will be no improvement in the world. If there is no human right activists, I guess we are still living in a miserable world.

613:. I think it's best to avoid any implications over which is most common, as much as that's possible. Incidentally, I like the changes you just made to the intro, I got in an edit conflict because I just tried to make near-identical changes! :) 385:

groups. There is absolutely no way this sentence is NPOV. Perhaps if you find a study to 'prove' this, if it is even provable, maybe, but otherwise it should be deleted or otherwise attributed to opinion in a more fair and neutral manner. --

318:

Nowhere do this quote claim that homophobia is rational: rather, the author is claiming that attempts to disguise their homophobia as reasoning. This sentence seems a little out of place and the quote doesn't make any sense in this context.

357:

The use of the term homophobic to imply irrationality is considered an emotive tactic, and some people have stated it as a reason for alienation from the gay rights movement, or insisted that their opposition is grounded on solid facts.

1368:

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

1234:

Given that, its hard to imagine that parents would be horrified that their children would not procreate, but seemingly disinterested in their children's sinfully deviant socially unacceptable sexual activities or inclinations.

500:

Well... yes, but you're putting the justification for this use first, and putting the fact (that some people consider all dissapproval homophobic) second. I think putting the fact first and the justification first is better.

174:

because, on assumes, that information is obvious. Also, it does not mention that several studies on homphobia are underway and that homophobia is a term in commmon usage amongst psychiatrist and psychologists... highly POV.

698:

I agree, Axon. Particular, an "activist" is someone who goes around actively spreading their POV. The article probably isn't interested that much in the views of activists, per se. "Advocate" could also be confused with

624:

to have reasoning, principled objections to homosexuality, where some people (many people?) would argue that it is not in fact possible? Ok, I see your point here - I didn't quite understand what you were saying before.

221:

The word homophobia is also sometimes used to characterize anyone who disapproves of homosexual behavior. This use of the term is considered unfair or incorrect by many who feel that there are rational reasons to oppose

1168:

homophobic, there should be documentation of homophobia (beyond thinking butt sex is gross like picking one's nose or fellatio is immoral like telling someone their new haircut looks fine, even though it doesn't).

170:

not a pscychiatric term' in the first paragraph in the hosiery article either. So, other than to further someone's POV agenda that homophobia doesn't exist, why mention it here? Similarly, it isn't mentioned under

605:

re: a "POV agenda that homophobia doesn't exist" (when is an agenda not a POV agenda?) - I'm really not seeing where you get that idea. :-/ Nobody who's edited this article thinks that homophobia doesn't exist.

244:

I still don't understand what was wrong with my definition of homophobia and why it was automatically deleted: most people agree with my definition, even if they disagree as to whether it exists or not.

690:

In summary, all uses of the term 'gay rights activist' should either be deleted or normalised to be more NPOV. And 'gay rights advocate' needs to be properly defined or replaced with a less POV term. --

1325:

only thing that can apply in all cases here is phobia; hate or discrimination may follow but it's not part of homophobia. It may follow, but that doesnt mean it's part of this concept, related perhaps.

683:

seem to suggest an individual whose focus is nothing but gay rights, which is not usually the case. Perhaps creating an article under Gay rights advocate would be useful, or defining the term in the

513:

Many supporters of homosexuality and homosexual equality consider most, if not all, opposition to, or dissaproval of, homosexuality to be homophobia and based upon an irrational hatred and fear.

1387:

But according to both dictionaries and common usage, it's not incorrect. That's like saying that me pitching my tent on a hill is not camping, because it's not a large flat open space (Latin

418:

See my points above... BTW, I notice you've just used the term 'advocate' and its used throughout the article. What do you mean when you say advocate. Its not clear here, or in the article. --

529:

definition, and that opponents of gay rights oppose this one correct definition, and are therefore wrong. "Deliberate Blurring?" may be non-optimal, but at least it has a question mark... :)

495:

Some people ... consider all forms of prejudice against homosexuality to be fundamentally based upon this irrational hatred and fear, and therefore equate all such disapproval with homophobia

1328:

The reason i object to this is that i've ( in the real world™ ) encountered some homophobes which showed no discrimination or hate agains them, just similar reactions as any other phobia. --

628:

re: "this article makes no mention of the (obvious) fact that most of the people accused of being homophobes deny the accusation" - actually it does. The article says "People who are called

1199:

child may become a gay or lesbian and thus will break the biological chain of generations makes the person to consider gays and lesbians as a source of a potential threat to his family."

884:? In my dictionary, if someone who publicly support something, then he is just an open supporter. But if someone constantly push his opinion through news media, then he is an activist. 635:

re: gay-bashing. I always thought that "gay-bashing" was more about actual actions or words, whereas "homophobia" was more about internal beliefs and attitudes. Your experience differs?

559:- they generally don't reject the term itself. Secondly, most of these people would not describe themselves as part of the "anti-gay lobby" - "opponents of gay rights" would be fairer. 813:

gay rights movement and, if so, how active is enough? Someone who writes letters to his political representative on a regular basis? Or someone who rattles cans outside shopping malls?

567:

opposition to homosexuality distasteful. I suggest if you refute the use of 'anti-gay lobby' then you should similarly refute the use of this exotic creature 'gay rights advocate'. --

227:

This information is repeated below and I see no reason why it is repeated at the start of the page, esp. considering it doesn't reperesent the opposing view in a fair or NPOV manner.

533:

Deliberate blurring is also highly POV. Perhaps 'Oppposition to the labelling of homophobia' would be more satisfactory? If not shorter than at least satisfactory to both parties. --

1437:

Can somebody add this? I want to do it but do not know where. "Homophobia is very widespread and strong in Islamic countries such as Iran and not confined to orthodox Muslims."

1402:

No that was not the point, i was just saying that generally it ends up in that. I still think that since it's a phobia it should be so defined in the article as opposed to

1257:

Thank you for explanations. The first time it was removed without any comments. Therefore I restored it. I will try to look for public sources. If I will not find, I will

344:

I still think the quote is misleading and this segment is confusing and somewhat superfluous. Perhaps eliciting a better/cleare quote from the author would be an idea. --

852:"homo-prejudice" gets 54 non-duplicate google hits. "homosexual-prejudice" gets 277 non-duplicate google hits. Is it worth discussing in this article? Genuine question. 1249:. This time I let it stand and added content disputing. I am disapointed to learn that you either don't read talk pages or ignore others', specifically my, concerns. 1126:

I removed Le Pen from list of homophobes, since this is not documented in wikipedia (although I am inclined to believe it is true). Accusations must be supported.

1012:

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

797:

we quote an Amnesty spokeswoman saying that Israeli bulldozers have been "weaponized". This quote does not imply that only members of Amnesty share her views.

609:

re: most common definition - *shrug* I'd hesitate, based on my own experience, to come to a decision one way or the other. Dictionaries are inconclusive - see

901:

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

1348:

In a way that decks it, however all phobias are just irrational fear, whats the argument for having this one phobia also covering hate and so on? --

1310:

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

333:

cases, as exceptions to the "rule", homophobia can be rational. I confirmed this by emailing Niclas Berggren, incidentally - see old Talk. --mrd

1141:

A SIN! If every homosexual has the right to say that homosexuality is normal and morally acceptable, then I've got the right to deem it a sin!

632:

in the second sense typically do not accept that label. They believe they have rational and morally sound reasons for opposing homosexuality."

266:

sort of disapproval of homosexuality, whether subtle or explicit, unconscious or conscious, completely unreasoning or in some way principled.

937:

to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." In this context, the word has not been misused, and frankly has probably been

1172: 1215:

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

373:

is an emotive word, meaning that it raises strong emotions. A case study would be useful here - I'll see if I can dig something up. --mrd

1155: 1278:

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

1151:

What has this got to do with anything? Talk pages are not soapboxes. If you have a legit concern about the article, then express it.

673: 1372:

Thing is that the general sense is that phobia is irrational fear, people who hate them are often incorrecly labeled homophobic. --

758:

is a step in the right direction but is quite lengthy to reproduce throughout a long article like this. Anyone else have any ideas?

1130: 1059:

It seems that they already like that (ie., OTHER editors citing the sources as they go) .... but I was going to format them ...

1183: 1164:

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

1115:

is probably of interest - in fifty years or so, when the word definitely isn't a neologism any more, we can remove it ;) --

970:

is probably of interest - in fifty years or so, when the word definitely isn't a neologism any more, we can remove it ;) --

1407: 1373: 1349: 1329: 1287: 281:

in this particular manner. It does not say, or suggest, that only gay rights advocates use the term in this manner. --mrd

432:

Some people do insist that their opposition to "gay rights" is grounded on solid facts. Again, would you like a quote?

1145: 200:

I guess nobody was aware of them - thank you for adding a brief stub - though more information would be helpful. --mrd

953: 486:

sexualism is already used for something else. Is there really any dispute of the most common usage of this term? --

1432: 896: 909:

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

363:

Totally POV: the above opinion is mostly maintained by anti-gay lobbbyists and no where is this made clear.

1226: 1247: 867: 733:

I changed Bidstrup's description from "gay rights advocate" to "gay rights activist", based on this page:

277:

The suggestion is that it is especially, but not only, people in the gay rights movement who use the term

1043: 211:

I think the linked articles in question are more than sufficient surely? Why repeat matter there, here?

38: 1286:

is an irrational fear of something, pleace back this up because it sounds like senseless POV to me. --

81: 76: 71: 59: 540:

Oh, and the "straight supremacism" bit is related to blurring, and should probably follow below it.

1135: 1023:

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

481:

is the most common? I seem to recall that in old Talk we looked for some, and couldn't find any.

776:

case. For example, I agree with some of what Bidstrup says but I'm certainly not an activist. --

555:

I think that's misleading. Firstly, these people reject what they see as the overuse of the term

1272: 826:

I'm leaning more and more to replacing occurences of both gay rights activist and advocate with

616:

re: "completely unreasoning or in some way principled. "... So the problem is that this section

1203: 1429:

device, not an actual claim that people are misusing the word. --] 05:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

186:

Similarly, no mention is made of the various legal definitions of homophobia that exist in

8: 1222: 1417: 1361: 1313: 1207: 1070: 1047: 983: 942: 305: 1196:

procreation, the most fundamental of instincts. The very thought of a parent that his

1282:

Just since when does whateverphobia mean hate of?, or prejudice or discrimination. A

591: 310:

It can be argued that this use of the term homophobia is self-contradictory, since a

187: 1423: 1261:

be fighting against the removal. It was only apparent insolence that made me move.

1321: 904:

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

47: 17: 1460:

Somali guy too. I also read it in the Dutch newspaper Volkskrant about Morocco.

610: 233:

k - we can cut the second sentence, but I think we need to keep the first. --mrd

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1221:

lesbian teenagers are twice as likely to impregnate someone or be impregnated (

1152: 1116: 971: 853: 798: 737: 643: 636: 560: 469: 433: 106: 1477: 1446: 1299: 1262: 1250: 1244: 1236: 1169: 1127: 1105: 982:

page: When a word or phrase is no longer "new," it is no longer a neologism.

960: 794: 651: 1461: 1438: 926: 708: 271:

The suggestion here is that it is only gay rights advocates use the term.

1298:

senseless POV, but rather an example of defining a word by common usage.

1142: 134: 1092: 1028: 1003: 913:

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

889: 684: 665: 587: 259: 191: 171: 1091:... and that's what happened ... but it's all good now ... Sincerely, 1112: 991: 979: 967: 861: 835: 777: 734: 691: 568: 534: 506: 487: 465: 448: 419: 398: 386: 345: 294: 246: 176: 121: 847: 598:

homophobia. Sure, repeating information is bad, but it'd be good to

720:

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

1084:

oh ... i see what happened ... Exploding, if you do a link ( ie.,

329:

not the case that homophobia is rational, but allows that in some

141:, homophobia is not a psychiatric term. There is no such thing as 754:

The advantage of 'gay rights adovcate' is it's succinctness. The

1283: 832:

Some believe, including some members of the gay rights movement

138: 1002:- Having gained recognizable and probably lasting acceptance. 151:

appears to be widely accepted by these worthy institutions.

650:

feeling towards homosexuality are illustrated by that. :) --

578:

re: psychiatric usage - Some people mistakenly believe that

99:

term widely used to describe prejudice against homosexuals.

1192:"The most basic roots of homophobia lie in the instinct of 925:

We probably need to separate out the confused concepts. --

1416:

Actually, there's no such thing as clinical homophobia.

1223:

http://www.lesbianinformationservice.org/pregnancy.rtf

736:, in which Bidstrup self-describes using this phrase. 575:

re: "blind reverts" - I'm sorry you believe that. :-(

93: 1243:

The content was added again, near word for word, by

918:

discusses the mental illness, not the disapproval...

594:

have information on how these laws and this defence

477:Do we have any evidence on which usage of the term 544:Many in the anti-gay lobby claim reject the terms 860:further discussion. What do you have in mind? -- 1088:) and put it in brackets it turns into this : 459:Going through some stuff I was dubious about: 828:Some believe, including gay rights advocates, 880:is POV. Is the term really different from 464:The term is more commonly used to describe 1345:hatred of...". ] 01:25, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1089: 1085: 586:re: legal definitions - thing is, neither 521:Opposition to the definition of homophobia 1184:Remove Procreation as Cause ? (July 2004) 707:will work better. Why don't we try it? -- 674:Use of 'Gay Rights Advocate' (July 2003) 876:I don't really understand why the term 14: 1360:What on earth are you talking about? 922:This hopelessly cripples the article. 602:that information, at least somewhere. 369:I think most people would accept that 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 525:Bad title - it assumes that there is 25: 1433:Prevalence of homophobia (Aug 2004) 1202:Mikkalai - you apparently re-added 23: 1111:I agree in a way, but the link to 966:I agree in a way, but the link to 897:Homophobia is a psychiatric term ? 24: 1494: 505:Perhaps that would be clearer: -- 29: 694:Tue Jul 22 11:45:44 GMTDT 2003 314:does not have rational motives. 262:movement, use the term to mean 258:Some people, especially in the 838:Thu Jul 31 12:03:29 GMTDT 2003 679:the even stranger 'advocate'. 397:alienated from each other? -- 13: 1: 1391:). ] 01:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1227:situational sexual behaviour 1044:wikipedia: cite your sources 756:those who support gay rights 705:those who support gay rights 703:. Perhaps the longer phrase 325:The quote claims that it is 7: 1273:About the intro (July 2004) 10: 1499: 1420:02:58, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) 1364:01:28, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) 1316:00:59, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) 1441:18:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) 1290:22:39, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC) 1253:03:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) 986:13:52, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC) 929:19:14, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC) 892:05:21, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC) 1480:22:48, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) 1464:21:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) 1449:21:35, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) 1410:02:35, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC) 1376:01:44, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC) 1352:01:44, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC) 1332:01:14, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC) 1302:00:15, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1265:07:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) 1073:14:54, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC) 1050:13:57, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC) 954:RE: neologism (Feb 2004) 945:04:35, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC) 856:20:47 25 Jul 2003 (UTC) 105:k - my comments inline. 1408:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 1374:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 1350:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 1330:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 1288:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 1239:04:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1188:Removed from article: 1173:00:20, 9 May 2004 (UTC) 1156:11:23, 8 May 2004 (UTC) 1146:10:04, 8 May 2004 (UTC) 1131:06:11, 7 May 2004 (UTC) 1086:http://en.wikipedia.org 801:20:39 25 Jul 2003 (UTC) 711:14:54 23 Jul 2003 (UTC) 158:psychiatric term. --mrd 1445:Do you have a source? 1424:Etymology (July 2004) 996:Versions of Neologism 42:of past discussions. 1404:or something or that 472:against homosexuals. 143:clinical homophobia 1208:User:Exploding Boy 592:gay panic defence 188:gay panic defense 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1490: 1322:English language 1136:If... (May 2004) 872:thing (Oct 2003) 834:. Any ideas? -- 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 1498: 1497: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1435: 1426: 1339:Thus the "fear 1311: 1275: 1200: 1186: 1138: 956: 920: 911: 899: 874: 850: 676: 611:onelook results 576: 553: 523: 515: 307: 137:and some other 96: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 18:Talk:Homophobia 12: 11: 5: 1496: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1453: 1451: 1450: 1434: 1431: 1425: 1422: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1334: 1333: 1326: 1309: 1304: 1303: 1280: 1279: 1274: 1271: 1269: 1267: 1266: 1241: 1240: 1231: 1230: 1217: 1216: 1198: 1194: 1193: 1185: 1182: 1180: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1165: 1159: 1158: 1137: 1134: 1124: 1122: 1120: 1119: 1102: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1007: 1006: 977: 975: 974: 955: 952: 951: 949: 947: 946: 915: 906: 898: 895: 894: 873: 866: 865: 849: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 805: 804: 803: 802: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 713: 712: 675: 672: 670: 661: 659: 647: 574: 573: 572: 571: 542: 538: 537: 519: 511: 510: 509: 498: 497: 491: 490: 475: 474: 470:discrimination 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 439: 438: 437: 436: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 411: 410: 409: 408: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 389: 377: 376: 375: 374: 361: 360: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 337: 336: 335: 334: 303: 302: 301: 300: 299: 298: 297: 285: 284: 283: 282: 269: 268: 254: 253: 252: 251: 250: 249: 237: 236: 235: 234: 225: 224: 222:homosexuality. 217: 216: 215: 214: 213: 212: 204: 203: 202: 201: 184: 183: 182: 181: 180: 179: 162: 161: 160: 159: 148: 147: 129: 128: 127: 126: 125: 124: 112: 111: 110: 109: 95: 92: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1495: 1479: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1463: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1448: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1440: 1430: 1421: 1419: 1418:Exploding Boy 1409: 1405: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1375: 1371: 1370: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1363: 1362:Exploding Boy 1351: 1347: 1346: 1344: 1343: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1315: 1314:Exploding Boy 1308: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1289: 1285: 1277: 1276: 1270: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1252: 1248: 1246: 1245:User:Mikkalai 1238: 1233: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1219: 1218: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1209: 1206:content that 1205: 1204:March 2, 2004 1197: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1181: 1174: 1171: 1166: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1157: 1154: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1144: 1133: 1132: 1129: 1123: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1094: 1090: 1087: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1072: 1071:Exploding Boy 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1049: 1048:Exploding Boy 1045: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 988: 987: 985: 984:Exploding Boy 981: 973: 969: 965: 964: 963: 962: 950: 944: 943:Exploding Boy 940: 935: 934: 933: 930: 928: 923: 919: 914: 910: 905: 902: 893: 891: 885: 883: 879: 871: 864: 863: 857: 855: 848:homoprejudice 837: 833: 829: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 800: 796: 795:Rachel Corrie 791: 790: 789: 788: 779: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 757: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 739: 735: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 710: 706: 702: 697: 696: 695: 693: 688: 686: 680: 671: 668: 667: 660: 657: 654: 653: 646: 645: 639: 638: 633: 631: 626: 623: 619: 614: 612: 607: 603: 601: 597: 593: 589: 584: 581: 570: 565: 564: 563: 562: 558: 552: 549: 545: 541: 536: 532: 531: 530: 528: 522: 518: 514: 508: 504: 503: 502: 496: 493: 492: 489: 484: 483: 482: 480: 473: 471: 467: 462: 461: 460: 450: 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 435: 431: 430: 429: 428: 421: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 412: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 388: 383: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 372: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 359: 355: 354: 347: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 332: 328: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 316: 315: 311: 306: 296: 291: 290: 289: 288: 287: 286: 280: 276: 275: 274: 273: 272: 267: 263: 261: 256: 255: 248: 243: 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 232: 231: 230: 229: 228: 223: 219: 218: 210: 209: 208: 207: 206: 205: 199: 198: 197: 196: 195: 194:legislation. 193: 189: 178: 173: 168: 167: 166: 165: 164: 163: 156: 155: 154: 153: 152: 146: 142: 140: 136: 131: 130: 123: 118: 117: 116: 115: 114: 113: 108: 104: 103: 102: 101: 100: 91: 90:differences. 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1452: 1436: 1427: 1415: 1403: 1388: 1359: 1341: 1340: 1312: 1305: 1295: 1281: 1268: 1258: 1242: 1201: 1195: 1187: 1179: 1139: 1125: 1121: 1101: 1024: 999: 995: 976: 957: 948: 938: 931: 924: 921: 917: 912: 908: 903: 900: 886: 881: 877: 875: 869: 858: 851: 831: 827: 755: 704: 700: 689: 681: 677: 669: 662: 658: 655: 648: 640: 634: 629: 627: 621: 617: 615: 608: 604: 599: 595: 585: 579: 577: 556: 554: 551: 547: 543: 539: 526: 524: 520: 516: 512: 499: 494: 478: 476: 463: 458: 395: 370: 362: 356: 330: 326: 317: 313: 309: 308: 278: 270: 265: 257: 226: 220: 185: 149: 144: 132: 97: 88: 65: 43: 37: 1406:blabla.. -- 620:that it is 135:agoraphobia 36:This is an 1320:Since the 685:Gay rights 630:homophobes 588:hate crime 580:homophobia 557:homophobia 550:homophobic 546:homophobia 479:homophobia 371:homophobia 279:homophobia 260:gay rights 192:hate crime 172:xenophobia 1294:It's not 1153:Dysprosia 1117:Camembert 1113:neologism 992:neologism 990:From the 980:neologism 978:From the 972:Camembert 968:neologism 870:activists 687:article? 466:prejudice 407:advocate? 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 1478:Hyacinth 1447:Hyacinth 1300:Hyacinth 1263:Mikkalai 1251:Hyacinth 1237:Hyacinth 1225:). See: 1170:Hyacinth 1128:Mikkalai 927:Uncle Ed 882:advocate 878:activist 709:Uncle Ed 701:activist 622:possible 1462:Andries 1439:Andries 618:assumes 331:unusual 327:usually 139:phobias 133:Unlike 39:archive 1389:campus 1296:at all 1284:phobia 1143:Rienzo 1025:Stable 1000:Stable 994:page: 868:About 854:Martin 799:Martin 738:Martin 644:Martin 637:Martin 596:define 590:, nor 561:Martin 434:Martin 312:phobia 107:Martin 94:NPOV ? 1069:done. 941:used. 939:under 890:wshun 666:wshun 16:< 862:Axon 836:Axon 778:Axon 692:Axon 600:have 569:Axon 548:and 535:Axon 507:Axon 488:Axon 449:Axon 420:Axon 399:Axon 387:Axon 346:Axon 295:Axon 247:Axon 190:and 177:Axon 122:Axon 1259:not 1093:JDR 1029:JDR 1004:JDR 830:or 656:-- 527:the 517:-- 264:any 1342:or 1106:AW 1046:. 1027:! 998:: 961:AW 652:AW 468:or 245:-- 175:-- 120:-- 1229:. 916:: 907:: 888:- 664:- 145:. 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index