Defining homophobia
In a reply to an earlier posting of mine, ceejay writes:
You wrote "Rev Joseph Andrews with a further amendment, which sought to introduce his own fairly narrow definition of homophobia ("an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals")". What's your definition?
It's a good question. Universally agreed definitions about psychosexual matters are hard to find, but I think most scholars would find that proposed definition a little myopic. The term homophobia was coined in 1969 by the psychologist George Weinberg (who is, incidentally, heterosexual). Weinberg wanted a word that would capture both the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals that some heterosexuals experienced, as well as the self-loathing that some homosexuals experienced (what psychologists now call 'internalised homophobia'). The wikipedia entry on is a useful guide to the difficulties in finding an agreed definition.
Comments
quite right . . . the def of homophobia is far from agreed ... but the def proposed by andrews is naively narrow.
In asking to define this term better, are we assuming that 'homophobia' is something psycologically distinct from other forms of prejudice or partiality? Is homophobia really any different to racism, for example, psychologically? I think it's true to say that both sides of the homophobia coin as defined above are also true for racism. It seems to me that we're talking about the same thing, and it doesn't appear to be anything more than good ol' fashioned prejudice!
John
Would it be showing prejudice against someone or their beliefs if you prejudged their views/concerns on homosexuality without really being informed about the academic research that may give good grounds for concern?
ie if you are only educated about one side of the argument aren't you prejudiced if you slam someone from that viewpoint?
PB
William
I have checked out the Wikipedia entry on homophobia.
There is quite a bit on homosexuality on this website on various links and I wonder how comfortable you are with all of it.
Some "scholar" on there is seriously promoting the suggestion that paedophilia and bestiality are legitimiate sexualities; with research paper references!
Is the ´óÏó´«Ã½ really wise in referring people to what appears to be a glorified chat forum for definitions in sexuality?
Having said that, I think that now we are binning the bible for our guidance on sexuality (and everything else) it is inevitable that we will eventually accept these viewpoints, which as you will know are already making inroads into academia.
If we have no solid foundation to hold on to these things are sadly inevitable, are they not William?
Sincerely
PB
PB, sometimes I have to bite my tongue. Calm down that moral panic of yours. Wikipedia is a far from a glorified chatroom; it is a highly respected knowledge project and worthy of reference in any publication, including a ´óÏó´«Ã½ blog. As for your comments about bestiality and paedophilia, those terms are not even mentioned in the homophobia entry you're angry about. I'll say it again: calm down. Read the article slowly and think about it. And for the record -- on the internet, as in any other publication, merely citing a reference doesn't mean an author is agreeing with every idea in the cited reference. I hope William Crawley is glad to have the likes of me with time on our hands to defend his use of citations! Enjoying the blog and happy to help out :-)
Davids more polite than me PB. Your comments are just ludicrous. Read a book.
Hi again David
May I ask you one thing please in debating with me - play the ball not the man please and I will do you the same courtesy. Likewise Keiron.
You are giving your personal comment/opinion/perception on me and my views but have actually totally missed my point; the failure to read properly is actually yours; I said:
"There is quite a bit on homosexuality on this *website* on various *links* and I wonder how comfortable you are with all of it?"
nb the links I was talking about were under the "sexual orientation" Wikipedia entry. However, I apologise, I could have been clearer.
And regarding the citiation of this type of research, is doing so without qualification or question not only going to encourage wider acceptance of paedophilia and bestiality?
"Glorified chatroom" was deliberately provocative but you are reinforcing my perception; who edits and moderates Wikipedia and by what standards?
Finally, In the "Irish Presbyterians prepare to accept gay challenge" I challenged David's view that the bible supports slavery and asked him a question for which I am genuinely interested to see if he can answer for me.
Again, thanks for the discussion guys.
PB
PB- To respond. You ask, "Would it be showing prejudice against someone or their beliefs if you prejudged their views/concerns on homosexuality without really being informed about the academic research that may give good grounds for concern?"
I assume you're referring to academic research that supposedly proves that homosexuality has a negative effect on health or society or something like that. But regular homophobes don't particularly care about academic arguments, no matter what their merit (or lack thereof). Homophobia doesn't take account of argument - it is prejudice BEFORE arguments can be made either way.
(I wonder if David Green regards anything that I've just said to be the "ill-informed" rants of someone who obviously listens to too much Rush Limbaugh, or if, because he AGREES with me this time, this post actually makes sense?)
(I further wonder if Rush Limbaugh would agree with my on the United States' proposed gay marriage amendment?)
Why thanks John
I take it you are not therefore slapping the "regular homophobe" label on me at least ;-).
It is just that I feel there is "no" discussion generally allowed nowadays on the causes and roots of homosexuality if it does not conform 100% to the liberal view. Even when it is serious research.
This attitude is of course wholly illiberal, but as an old friend said recently, there is nothing as illiberal as a liberal. Put it another way many liberals now seem to tolerate everyone's viewpoint; so long as it does not conflict with their own strictly defined philospohical worldview. And that in the motherland of freespeech!
PB
PB- I'm not saying anything about homosexuality academically - it doesn't particularly bother me. I have a live-and-let-live approach to the issue. I know I'm not a homophobe; I have gay friends and acquaintances and have no anti-gay axe to grind (more of my thoughts ).
I'm simply making the observation that homophobia - where someone is afraid of gays, for example - derives from the same prejudicial mind-fart as racism. Being homophobic seems like an entirely useless thing to be.
John
I too have gay friends and acquaintances and would certainly not say I have an irrational fear of gays.
At a personal level I would also say "live and let live".
However, on an intellectual level and on a societal level I think this is a defining issue as we move into a post-Christian era; will we sacrifice honest intellectual research/debate and free speech on the altar of political correctness and sentiment? And what implications does that have for the leaders and members of our society in thinking straight in legislating and governing and acting out responsibilities in their professional and personal lives? And what impact will that have for you and I and our children as we live with the results?
PB
PB- What possible impact of any decision we make today on gay issues do you foresee creating a problem our children may be forced to live with?
Sorry, you got the wrong end of the stick there John.
What I am talking about is the closing down of the ability to freely discuss and debate ANY subject that is deemed off limits by the politically correct brigade.
That is not good for anyone...
PB
PB,
I would be very interested to see the reaction of your gay friends if you told them that their sexual orientation shall cause the downfall of society. There seems to be a distinct irrationality here, in contrast to your "live and let live" attitude.
Tim
PS John
Without going any deeper than this section on this blog; I see the term homophobia being falsely applied to anyone who cooly discusses and questions the nature of homosexuality.
I have no irrational fear of spiders ((arachnaphobia) or gays (homophobia) but I know this term is being used to close down questions or discussion before they have begun.
For example David Green gives me personal abuse above in a red mist while failing to properly read what I have written. Keiron too.
This is a fairly commonplace attitude now and is a form of censorship.
Someone once said that when the British press were all going in the same direction they were most likely to be wrong; therefore I think it important that free speech is repected without abusing those you disagree with.
PB
Tim
you have jumped a few dozen assumptions from what I wrote; where did I say what you said I said? I didn't.
Read my last two responses to John if you want to understand.
ALSO....I notice that nobody nowadays has a problem saying that people who believe the bible to be the word of God are a plague on society.
How would you feel about such a statement and does it fit in with your standards of religious tolerance and freedom of speech for minorities Tim?
PB
PB,
Surely your position is just as 'wishy washy' as the liberal position which you 'attack'. Your 'attack' remains within the rules of politically correct discourse, which you say that you are against.
You want free speech without abuse, surely this is the precursor to a dispassionate, uninterested society; debating on that which they do not care enough about to act upon.
Tim
Can I be even more blunt Tim.
I have lost count of the number of professional people in recent years who have seriously told me they believe homosexuality is caused by the gay gene.
However this is not the state of the current research, as we all know (Outrage openly acknowledges this); what has happened is that the media has twisted the results of research to make it say what it doesn't - anything for a good story.
What did the Third Reich say about the size of the lie? Therein is the real danger I am talking about; not gay sex but the willingness of so many people to believe lies so easily. Where are we going?
PB
Tim ref wishy washy.
As seems quite common on this blog, you have totally avoided my points. You are not interested in really engaging, it seems.
PB
PB,
We are posting at the same time and the conversation is out of sync. I have now read your previous comments and understand a little more about your position.
To answer your question, I wouldn't like to term anyone a plague of society. Believing the bible or the Koran as the word of God can be a positive or a negative thing and would not wish to naively issue such a categorical statement.
Tim
Tim ref "irrationality".
I remain friends with many people whose views I do not concur with on a wide range of issues. People have a God given free will to live their lives who they please.
I to have a free will to do the same - where is the problem with that?
PB
Tim
ref free speech without abuse.
No I don't want free speech without abuse, I think the commons works pretty well.
What I mean is that there is a red mist coming down over people on this issue who are determined they are right, but who are clearly wrong; but they will not hear it and it is a socially dangerous thing to do to press the issue.
This is not healthy and I fear it is symptomatic of greater ills ahead.
PB
Attn David Green, John Wright, Tim O'Malley, Keiron, Tim et al
Guys I have been blogging with you a little in recent days and my aim is to see if my views stand up or if you guys know anything I can learn from.
However rightly or wrongly I get the "IMPRESSION" that many of you are only dipping in and out to give a little mild (or not so mild) abuse without really being prepared for a real discussion.
I would much appreciate it if any of you (or anyone else) would commit to sharing your INFORMED views on the following points; I would say I am fairly informed on one side of the argument only.
If you just want to hurl abuse, please don't bother responding.
Discussion points;
#1 The bible does not condone slavery
#2 Homosexuality has not been proven to be genetic
#3 The bible cannot be interpreted to support homosexuality
#4 Sexuality is not fixed and can change
Cheers
PB
So guys no takers?
Is it that nobody has seen this invitation or that nobody feels able to discuss them without sliding into intellectually lazy insults?
I really hope it is not the latter...
PB
William,
I notice you didn't define what YOU mean by homophobia...
I believe that Rev Andrews is pretty close to Weinberg's original definition and that the definition has been 'expanded' by some to silence anyone who disagrees with homosexuality being promoted in society or the church.
Recent UK cases of this are:
Is this the sort of society that we want to live in?
ceejay