The root cause of transphobia and homophobia?

[Anhedonic Lake]

I've been thinking recently. Neither group interferes with the private lives of others. So why do the said prejeudices exist? I've noticed it tends to be more prevalent in males,especially the more aggresive/masculine,disgruntled and socially disenfranchised males and the religious fundamentalists. I have several theories on this issue,but I'd like to hear your thoughts first.

[Samoan Corleone]

My best guess would be insecurity. There are a lot of guys insecure of their own masculinity that they have to bash homosexuals. They see the stereotypical flamboyantly effeminate homosexual man and, in contrast to their own insecurity, don't understand it at all.

In writing that, I know it's a misconception that most homophobes are closeted gay men.

[stasis]

I've been thinking recently. Neither group interferes with the private lives of others. So why do the said prejeudices exist? I've noticed it tends to be more prevalent in males,especially the more aggresive/masculine,disgruntled and socially disenfranchised males
People who buck traditional gender roles can create confusion in others within a culture that has ritualized standards of behavior attached to gender. If a significant portion of an individual's identity is bound up in their culture's gender narrative, and that individual is confronted by the need to interact with somebody whom they can not deal with in the manner indicated by this narrative (say, a transsexual), a significant portion of their own identity may seem obstructed.

The resulting confusion and affront facilitates the thrusting of these sexual non-traditionalists into out groups. And then of course you have the disenfranchised, immobile (but ambitious), and those with low self-esteem being perhaps the most inclined to elevate themselves socially by cannibalizing any out-groups they can find.

[Anhedonic Lake]

People who buck traditional gender roles can create confusion in others within a culture that has ritualized standards of behavior attached to gender. If a significant portion of an individual's identity is bound up in their culture's gender narrative, and that individual is confronted by the need to interact with somebody whom they can not deal with in the manner indicated by this narrative, a significant portion of their own identity may seem obstructed.


In the case of the transsexual, I believe they would argue that they do not want to alter traditional gender roles, merely they were born on the wrong side of the gate and wish to change without creating a drama.

[plotthickens]

The loudest haters are those who respond to similarly named dirty movies. And that's the answer right there: self-hate.

[stasis]

In the case of the transsexual, I believe they would argue that they do not want to alter traditional gender roles, merely they were born on the wrong side of the fence.
Sure, they may argue that. And that's fine. There are some cultures where transsexualism is traditional to some degree (in Samoa, for example), and it does not create these problems. But wherever it is not a mainstream part of the gender narrative, they are altering the roles nevertheless.

[Anhedonic Lake]

The loudest haters are those who respond to similarly named dirty movies. And that's the answer right there: self-hate.

The type who in private are aroused by shemale porn, but swear they are straight? Self hate deflected to the innocent instigator of self hate. Yes, I'm inclined to agree.

[Kisai]

The origin? The Book of Leviticus. St. Augustine, St. Clement, John Chrysostom...

But really, not so much. Homosexuality was openly practiced in Augustine's and Clement's time. Leviticus is as quaint as not eating pork or sorting your lepers into huts.

The real reason, crazily enough, is that homosexuality was directly identified with Muslims during the Crusades. Previously in their history, Muslims were very much more at ease with homosexuality, even out and out flaming queens[1]. Europeans in general formed an "Us Vs. Them" mentality in the latter 12th century and homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, pagans, and heretics were all on that list. French witchhunts, the Spanish Inquistion, and all sorts of fun where to be had.


[1]William of Ada:

"According to the religion of the Saracens [Muslims], any sexual act whatever is not only allowed but approved and encouraged, so that in addition to innumerable prostitutes, they have effeminate men in great number who shave their beards, paint their faces, put on women's clothing, wear bracelets on their arms and legs and gold necklaces around their necks as women do, and adorn their chests with jewels. Thus selling themselves into sin, they degrade and expose thier bodies; "men working that which is unseemly" they receive "in themselves" the recompense of their sin and error. The Saracens, oblivious of human dignity, freely resort to these effeminates or live with them as among us men and women live together openly."

[vash]

I don't think there is any difference between this and any other type of "ism." People are indoctrinated at a very early age and seem to believe that there is one "correct" way to be or to do things. Any deviation from that one way of being is "wrong" and must be eradicated. Fear of the unknown is the root cause of much social hatred. So often the fear is just plain irrational.

[sunlover]

I've been thinking recently. Neither group interferes with the private lives of others. So why do the said prejeudices exist? I've noticed it tends to be more prevalent in males,especially the more aggresive/masculine,disgruntled and socially disenfranchised males and the religious fundamentalists. I have several theories on this issue,but I'd like to hear your thoughts first.

Probably due the fact there both abnormal.

[Firebrand]

I just like guys that are guys. Guys who seem too effeminate or woussy irritate me, because they actually expect me to give a frog's fat ass about their trivial feelings. It's not insecurity, I just like predictability. Guy's guys don't get offended as easily.

[Billy Hardcore]

I just like guys that are guys. Guys who seem too effeminate or woussy irritate me, because they actually expect me to give a frog's fat ass about their trivial feelings. It's not insecurity, I just like predictability. Guy's guys don't get offended as easily.


Until you question their masculinity (since we're playing on stereotypes) or play at some insecurity that goes against everything they've been taught should make them a "guy's guy"..


The root is society and that's it. Our Judeo-Christian heteronormative upbringing makes most children see anyone peculiar as an outcast to avoid or ridicule. Unfortunately most people don't question why traditions and norms exist, and they teach their children the same 'values' they were taught (one being a 'Christian' stance of homophobia), unless they have had a life experience to change their view on a particular 'moral' stance.

The increasing visibility of gay people and rise in coming-outs means people no longer have to avoid confronting their beliefs because it never affected them- now it does since so many people have an openly gay friend or family member, if not being gay themself. Which is why support for gay rights and same-sex marriage is rapidly increasing.

[athenian200]

It depends on the person involved, but several common reasons are:

1. Religion.
2. Failure of empathy.
3. Fear of "corruption," if they have such feelings themselves but have resisted them hitherto.
4. Bad experiences with gays/transsexuals, possibly including sexual abuse.

All except #4 have a root in tradition.

I just like guys that are guys. Guys who seem too effeminate or woussy irritate me, because they actually expect me to give a frog's fat ass about their trivial feelings. It's not insecurity, I just like predictability. Guy's guys don't get offended as easily.

I don't think that's necessarily accurate.

What most of them want is really just to be left in peace to do as they wish. They want respect and tolerance... they could care less how you feel about them. If they want anything more, they're unreasonable individuals.

[DanteFalling]

Rant:

The pyramid structure of classically-constructed masculinity requires gang or hazing behavior. From a young age, boys are taught to downplay and protect girls from boys (yeah, that makes a lot of sense), taught to call them 'insufficient' and hypersexualized names. Then they are taught to weed each other out for dominance, using the already-created category of

woman=weak, willing to be raped, other, deserving of servitude, etc

and they apply these names to each other, finding those who crack under the pressure. These males are deemed boys, fags, women, sissies, pussies, gays, etc.

Then, when actual sexuality begins to develop and people make orientation choices (or act on them), they take on social identities.

Males (who often feel as if they have the most to lose [afterall, what can a woman, who is nothing lose?]) will have a fear of being a woman or gay or submissive or passive or weak or deserving of abuse.

It's all a creepy construct used to lick the butt of the guys around you, letting them shit on you in hopes that they'll accept you and allow you to shit on others.

Often (and this is the really odd part about "male heterosocial culture"), "straight men" will anally rape other men and even some women in order to name their victims as gay or aberrant, even though the perp is enacting the homosexual or "deviant" behavior. This form of "corrective" or "naming" rape is also prevalent by "straight males" with lesbian victims in order to "make them women."


Further, because of the socialization of sex, that is, the association of gender roles with each sex, some people who are attracted to the opposite sex (and are therefore hetero) do not fit into their prescribed gender role. These people are often persecuted for being Nancy Boys, etc. They don't fit the totem-pole, dog lick anus of other dog gang mentality, and so it is assumed they are "gay."

/rant :)
Sorry for the multiple paragraphs: I just had another talk with one of my guy friends who was molested repeatedly by bullies when he was a child. They insisted he was gay because he wouldn't play with them, and so they repeatedly got into fights with him until the fighting escalating into group sexual abuse. :angry:



Addendum:

Also, I do think some groups believe they are legitimately protecting their way of life by refusing to recognize the social "status" of certain groups (take this with a grain of salt because I'm the type of person who is bothered the govt recognizes ANY marriages).

If there is a group of citizens in a private environment: club or church and they don't receive govt funds or provide life services to the public, then I don't think they should be forced to do things they don't want to do. So, for example, there's a club that holds parties for its members, including celebrations of unions/marriages. They don't believe in marriage between people wherein one is over 30 and the other is under 18. That state holds the marriagable age as 16. A couple who are 35 and 17 want to hold their party there. Why should they be able to force that wish on a private group of individuals? Are the married couple getting food, insurance, medical, tax goods, political and security goods? Yep? Okay, then don't make every private citizen or group of private citizens recognize them. Yes, they deserve basic human rights, plausibly (if the govt could prove to me as a tax-payer that marriage recognition by a government body was worth anything), they should get marriage goods too, but no, they don't seem to have a need to force their choices on the individuals.

Criminal laws should apply in the cases of abuse of individuals (beating a kid because he's perceived as gay, raping a lesbian to "turn" her straight, etc). That crap's messed up. And I don't understand why groups (long-term threesomes, straights, gays, etc) don't all get govt recog for their marriages IF the govt can prove it behooves the govt to recognize these groups as beneficial to society/children, etc. But with divorce rates and child abuse by all of these groups, I don't feel convinced the govt has sufficient evidence to recog any marriages.

[gestalt]

Whenever I happen on the 'u fucking homo' 'omg she was he' I tease, nettle, and cackle without remorse. Telling a hater to STFU has been just as effective, if escalative.

[Firebrand]

I don't think that's necessarily accurate.
Except that I sometimes have to work with said individuals, so interaction is unavoidable. I do avoid them. The ones I have the issue with are the "Gay Blade" stereotype. If you're gay, and you don't act Fabulous!, I probably won't have an issue with you.

[Billy Hardcore]

Except that I sometimes have to work with said individuals, so interaction is unavoidable. I do avoid them. The ones I have the issue with are the "Gay Blade" stereotype. If you're gay, and you don't act Fabulous!, I probably won't have an issue with you.

Some guys are born with an inclination toward the effeminate, it isn't a chosen behavior.

That said, everyone has a tendency to become friends with certain types of people. Some gay guys, and I'm sure girls too, seek to define their lives by their sexuality and that's pretty fucking obnoxious, but don't assume that of every gay person. And if someone wants to turn everything into a musical shopping spree and call everything 'fabulous', well then that's their prerogative, haha. These are people I don't tend to make friends with, but I don't tend to make friends with straight guys who constantly have to talk about pussy because it's the only way they think they can get some comaraderie going with other guys. Both are equally obnoxious and pathetic to me. :-)

You can make a million assumptions about people for any one of their characteristics, but it's usually best not to, especially when it's one single inborn trait.

[athenian200]

Except that I sometimes have to work with said individuals, so interaction is unavoidable.

That's rather unfortunate... for everyone concerned.

I do avoid them. The ones I have the issue with are the "Gay Blade" stereotype. If you're gay, and you don't act Fabulous!, I probably won't have an issue with you.

I think that's fair enough. After all, even if you're "gay," there's no reason that you have to make a production out of it. A lot of people don't appreciate things that stand out, and ultimately you have to learn how to avoid setting off alarms in such people. Many gays are actually just so masculine that they can't even appreciate feminine qualities... even though the opposite is assumed.

The guys you'll ultimately clash with the most are the effeminate ones, even if they're straight.

[MikeC]

My best friend in primary school was an all-out camp homo.

My favourite artist in the world was a homo... Freddie Mercury. Have you guys seen Summer Heights High? Hilarious show. Mr. G is my favourite character. Reminds me of the best teacher in my district.

Withsaying that, I have been hit on by gay lifters at the gym. They know I'm straight, but I feel extremely flattered nonetheless. I do feel uncomfortable as they can be pretty forward, but didn't phase me out a slight bit. I just wished girls would do the same :o

Fear for non-straights? Never had it. It's been accepted in my upbringing (muslim) culture for the longest of time.

[athenian200]

Fear for non-straights? Never had it. It's been accepted in my upbringing (muslim) culture for the longest of time.

Really? That's kind of shocking. I always thought Islamic culture was one of the most critical of homosexuality...

I guess that's just a Western stereotype.

[MikeC]

Really? That's kind of shocking. I always thought Islamic culture was one of the most critical of homosexuality...

I guess that's just a Western stereotype.

I knew someone would bring it up.

Granted I grew up in the Malay archipelago (which has the highest muslim headcount by territory), not the middle east, but the 'third' sex has been socially and culturally accepted - not a hamlet that does not have its girly man. The teacher that I mentioned in my earlier post was actually my neighbour as well; He's living with another man, and people are not unhappy about it.

It's not very different at all to the fa'afafine (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) phenomenon in deep Christian country i.e. Samoa.

[Nemesis]

I'm going to side with Stasis on this one. Whether gay people or transsexuals mean to disturb the traditional cultural notions of gender or not is irrelevant. There will always be segments (large or small) within a culture that will perceive these things as a threat nevertheless. There are plenty of cultures that incorporate 3rd gender categories as part of their traditions... such as the Hijra in India, Sworn virgins in the Balkans, Berdache of the North American Natives, and (as both MikeC and Stasis pointed out), the Fa'afafine in Samoa. Although many within these categories there is still hostility directed at them, much of this hostility can be traced to the influence of traditional westernized binary social constructs of gender.

[thod]

Suppose you belong to a tribe and all around are other tribes identical to your own. You must still oppose and fight them in the war for resources. Since all are identical, searching for answers there is futile. However, your tribe will invent differences in order to justify what must be done. The ones they have killed provide justification to your continuance of the war. Those that refuse to join a tribe become victims of those that do.

I am normal, in my heart I know this, and so does everyone else. Thus people that are not like me are abnormal. They are placed into the out group and made war against. Humans dislike the other. They are unpredictable.

Homosexuals are defective humans. Whether by genes or conditioning, they are defective units. Thus they are rejected from the group in the same way as lepers. The group does not want them infecting it leading to its own destruction. The best that they can hope for it pity for their condition, at worst attempted elimination. Mostly they will be sent in exile. We see this now with the homos leaving the small towns to live in the San Francisco leper colony.

Those groups with strong bonds and strong strictures on a right and a wrong way to live DO prosper. I am impressed by how the Mormons have increased their numbers, as with the Amish. The pro gay lobby may be 100% correct, yet they do not win. They die of old age and the next generation is born of those with different values.

[Dru]

it's only natural to fear things that are a direct threat to one's person. intolerance, phobias, hostility toward certain groups (in this case transgenders/homosexuals) are products of cultural/social conditioning. homosexuality, while not having any apparent purpose as it is does not contribute to the survival of a species, is rampant in nature. ie male giraffes are widely observed to court other males as often as they court females.

why, who can say. probably because they never evolved far enough intellectually to develope a value system rooted in the belief that a higher being wants them to procreate with females and produce babies in its image to please it, and eventually rationalize that any other form of fornication is an insult to said higher being and is therefore wrong.

[themuzicman]

Transphobia and homophobia are invented terms to create a false label for anyone who doesn't fully embrace the liberal gay agenda.

Symptoms include healthy respect for traditional marriage and an understanding of the need for procreation.

As for those who attack gays, they are simply bullies who look for the weak and vulnerable.

[zibber]

Except that I sometimes have to work with said individuals, so interaction is unavoidable. I do avoid them. The ones I have the issue with are the "Gay Blade" stereotype. If you're gay, and you don't act Fabulous!, I probably won't have an issue with you.

You could live your life so that you never encounter anyone that offends you, but you'll still be a homophobe. This is not troublesome to you?

(I am many kinds of -phobe, including anthropocentrist-phobe and male-chauvinist-pig-phobe, but I see moral faults in those people. Do you see moral faults in non-heterosexuals?)


Previously in their history, Muslims were very much more at ease with homosexuality, even out and out flaming queens.


Well, what I do know is that you possess no islamophobia whatsoever, posting that :laugh:

[Nemesis]

Transphobia and homophobia are invented terms to create a false label for anyone who doesn't fully embrace the liberal gay agenda.

Just wondering if you are aware that there is an entire world outside your borders that, even if a "liberal gay agenda" exists, doesn't give a flying fuck about it. I'm pretty sure all the Hijra and fa'afafine that have been around for centuries aren't thinking too much about their impact on U.S politics.

Symptoms include healthy respect for traditional marriage and an understanding of the need for procreation.

Again, there is a whole entire world beyond your borders that has different ideas about what "traditional" marriages are. Why are your views correct and theirs incorrect?


As for those who attack gays, they are simply bullies who look for the weak and vulnerable.

On what basis do you assume gay people are weak and vulnerable?

I recommend turning off Fox news for a while and reading some anthropology books... or at least looking at an atlas.

[Antares]

Opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with procreation. By that logic, sterile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. There is no evidence that traditional marriage is superior. Nonreligious homophobes and transphobes don't even have a religious doctrine to fall back on, and as such, they're generally much more rare. My mother is one, and her grievance against homosexuals and transsexuals is purely emotional. Moral indignation against those different from her is really another word for thinly veiled arrogance and shameless self importance.

[LaoTzu]

Transphobia and homophobia are invented terms to create a false label for anyone who doesn't fully embrace the liberal gay agenda.


Why you have to throw 'liberal' in there... get a grip dude...I've got a Bat-Phone to the liberal conspiracy headquarters; and we aren't involved in this one. Oh Shit... I've said too much...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I find 'Gay'ness to be annoying, personally. It's nothing regarding insecurity, or my own deep rooted homosexuality I am told is there... (an accusation that annoys me even more)

I simply don't care about gays. I'm offended that I am told to care. The debates regarding gay marriage are rediculous in my opinion... (I do support it btw). I'm annoyed that there has to be a debate at all , don't get me wrong. I know why it's going on.

I am annoyed that Gays seek to define themselves by their sexuality. I am annoyed with anyone who is in my face to 'define' or 'recognize' them... no matter what; but being defined by sexuality simply makes it worse. Why do I care where you put your goodies???

I am doubly annoyed that I'm told I'm intolerant because I don't give a shit about Gays.
There are a lot of people I don't give a shit about. :)
Sure, I find gay-sex to be a bit gross... that's why I'm not gay. But that's not the main reason why I wish they would just stuff a c(s)ock in it... (;D), it's simply that I just don't care...



Go on about your business. I'll support equal rights all day, but don't ask me to approve of you. Don't take it personally either.
I just don't care.

[themuzicman]

Just wondering if you are aware that there is an entire world outside your boarders that, even if a "liberal gay agenda" exists, doesn't give a flying fuck about it. I'm pretty sure all the Hijra and fa'afafine that have been around for centuries aren't thinking too much about their impact on U.S politics.

I am aware of this. However, those terms are primarily western liberal political agenda terms to smear opponents.

Again, there is a whole entire world beyond your boarders that has different ideas about what "traditional" marriages are. Why are your views correct and theirs incorrect?


However, since accusations of homophobia are primary made against western politicians, a local context is warranted.

On what basis do you assume gay people are weak and vulnerable?

I didn't. I think you'll find that the victims of bullies who happen to be gay are also weak and vulnerable.

I recommend turning off Fox news for a while and reading some anthropology books... or at least looking at an atlas.

I suggest you figure out what these terms are and what they are actually used for.

---------- Post added 12-10-2009 at 10:05 AM ----------

Why you have to throw 'liberal' in there... get a grip dude...I've got a Bat-Phone to the liberal conspiracy headquarters; and we aren't involved in this one. Oh Shit... I've said too much...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I know several gays who are opposed to the liberal gay agenda. Thus, it is labeled properly

[Billy Hardcore]

Transphobia and homophobia are invented terms to create a false label for anyone who doesn't fully embrace the liberal gay agenda.

Symptoms include healthy respect for traditional marriage and an understanding of the need for procreation.

As for those who attack gays, they are simply bullies who look for the weak and vulnerable.

I agree that homophobia isn't the correct word to associate with dislike of gay people.

But holy shit the constant use of the phrase "liberal gay agenda" is ridiculous. For one, how is seeking to not be treated as an outcast a liberal idea? A conservative person would be one who does NOT pick another group of people to constantly and publicly ridicule, and deliberately try to deny them being treated fairly...

[zibber]

I am annoyed that Gays seek to define themselves by their sexuality. I am annoyed with anyone who is in my face to 'define' or 'recognize' them... no matter what; but being defined by sexuality simply makes it worse. Why do I care where you put your goodies???


I think the crux of the problem is your generalization of the group "(the) Gays". (Whence the capital G?) "The Gay" does not define shisself by shis sexuality because "The Gay" does not exist. They are defined by their sexuality by others -those of a conventional sexuality, like you!-, because they are exceptions to the norm who must be named as such. This has no bearing on reality. (Someone with a beard will be described as a bearded person, even though having a beard is the physiological human norm, happens automatically and does not require the massive effort of maintaining a shaved face. Still, "beard wearers" are defined in part by this aspect of them.)


I know several gays who are opposed to the liberal gay agenda. Thus, it is labeled properly

Interesting argument.

In all seriousness, though, define "liberal"?

(I see that word used so often to signify left-wing politics, while I have always associated it with laissez-faire capitalism.)

[paleoeco]

I had to think a bit about this to separate personal feelings from my logical thoughts. Here's the best I came up with regarding "homophobia":

"Homophobia" has become a catchword, as other have suggested. I personally think it is overly broad, covering at least three different categories, and possibly more, each which should probably have a separate term, but for the 24-hour news cycle, 144 character Twittering world in which we live, I don't think it'll happen.

First, is for that group of people for whom the moment the term "gay", "queer", etc comes into their mind, they have a gut-wrenching, visceral reaction of negativity. This may be disgust or fear, but it's the kind of reaction that makes you almost want to throw-up. People in this category are those that are so blinded by this reaction, they tend to react with instinct to squash. I think this is the situation for those stupid guys who claim the "gay panic" defense (which, is not to say I buy into the gay panic defense as being a legitimate legal recourse).

Second would be that group which views homosexuals as less-than-human. They don't have the same visceral reaction that the first group, but they obviously don't consider them to be of equal value as heterosexuals. One way to think of this, is along the lines of Nazi Germany. The Nazi party didn't fear the Jews; they didn't have a nasty, visceral reaction to them; what they did was to think of the Jews as "less than people" - they dehumanized them. By being less-than-human, Jews could be denied all sorts of rights, and could even be exterminated like pests.

Third group would be that which considers homosexuals to be human, but because they are "deviant" within the given society, can righly be precribed 2nd class citizenship. These are people who "don't have a problem with gay people", but they just don't think they need to flaunt it, shove it down their throats, etc. These are the people who don't think there's anything wrong with being able to fire someone because he has a boyfriend at home, or thinks its perfectly OK to fire a kindergarten teacher because he's gay because little Tommy's daddy doesn't want his son to be taught by a homosexual. I think of this crowd as like the supporters of segregation and Jim Crow Laws. Those who don't have a problem with African-Americans, but who don't want to eat at the same lunch counter with then, doesn't want to send their kids to school with them, or who couldn't imagine what the problem with having separate water fountains was. This is the primary population of "homophobes" in the US.

Now, we don't have separate words to describe these very different attitudes towards homosexuals. And, given the media culture we live in, we aren't invited to really dissect the nuance of sentiments against gay people or the push for gay rights. The best we've managed to come up with is "homophobia". Unprecise and imperfect, but it's what we have.

[themuzicman]

I agree that homophobia isn't the correct word to associate with dislike of gay people.

We aren't even talking about that. I doubt that most who oppose the liberal gay agenda have a specific dislike of gays.

But holy shit the constant use of the phrase "liberal gay agenda" is ridiculous. For one, how is seeking to not be treated as an outcast a liberal idea?

That's not what the liberal gay agenda is. They want to receive benefits and privileges that they don't qualify for.

A conservative person would be one who does NOT pick another group of people to constantly and publicly ridicule, and deliberately try to deny them being treated fairly...

And that's what conservative do, although you might say "justly" rather than "fairly." We are a just society and a just government, not a "fair" one.

And, to be honest, you should point your disdain at those who maliciously try to label those who oppose the liberal gay agenda as "homophobes." They're the ones who are publicly ridiculing and trying to deny others being treated fairly.

---------- Post added 12-10-2009 at 10:57 AM ----------


Interesting argument.

In all seriousness, though, define "liberal"?

(I see that word used so often to signify left-wing politics, while I have always associated it with laissez-faire capitalism.)


Unfortunately, in the US, liberalism is closely associated with communism and socialism. On a social level, it espouses certain groups to have the right to impose their morals and agendas on other groups, which are less favored.

[Billy Hardcore]

We aren't even talking about that. I doubt that most who oppose the liberal gay agenda have a specific dislike of gays.



That's not what the liberal gay agenda is. They want to receive benefits and privileges that they don't qualify for.



And that's what conservative do, although you might say "justly" rather than "fairly." We are a just society and a just government, not a "fair" one.

And, to be honest, you should point your disdain at those who maliciously try to label those who oppose the liberal gay agenda as "homophobes." They're the ones who are publicly ridiculing and trying to deny others being treated fairly.

---------- Post added 12-10-2009 at 10:57 AM ----------

Unfortunately, in the US, liberalism is closely associated with communism and socialism. On a social level, it espouses certain groups to have the right to impose their morals and agendas on other groups, which are less favored.

When a person or group goes out of their way to deny others of something that they themselves have, there's at least some specific dislike going on.

The point is, gay people should qualify for the rights and privileges everyone else has.

Just: 1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situations.

I get that the term homophobia is way too broad, but calling someone a homophobe doesn't result in them being treated unfairly by law. Campaigning against the rights of others, however unfortunate, often does result in a lack of fairness by law. Gay people don't campaign against people they call homophobic to have their rights denied...

[themuzicman]

I don't want to derail this thread.

I agree that homophobia isn't the correct word to associate with dislike of gay people.

That's what I was looking for, and I'll leave it at that.

[SirJac]

I think that the root cause of generic homophobia comes from a related issue, sodomy. While not all gay sex includes sodomy and you don't need to be gay to practice sodomy, the link between the two is very close in the minds of most people. Because the thought of having their own ass penetrated disturbs the great majority of people, those feelings get focused back towards the gay community because of that link. This also explains why gay women do not get the same negative reactions that gay men do, since lesbian sex does not get associated with sodomy.

[Billy Hardcore]

I think that the root cause of generic homophobia comes from a related issue, sodomy. While not all gay sex includes sodomy and you don't need to be gay to practice sodomy, the link between the two is very close in the minds of most people. Because the thought of having their own ass penetrated disturbs the great majority of people, those feelings get focused back towards the gay community because of that link. This also explains why gay women do not get the same negative reactions that gay men do, since lesbian sex does not get associated with sodomy.

That actually does make sense, but it's stupid that people look past anal sex that occurs in heterosexual sex. My friends are all straight, and from what I've heard, roughly a third to half of them have tried anal. All sex is 'gross' when it's foreign to you. When I was a kid and I heard about man+woman sex I was appalled and disgusted that human beings could do that.

It's only weird until/unless you have that sexual drive in yourself, or you are simply used to it being accepted.

[Samoan Corleone]

It's not very different at all to the fa'afafine (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) phenomenon in deep Christian country i.e. Samoa.

In Samoa, I found that the fa'afines were generally tolerated, if not accepted, as a part of society; perhaps the "other" in contrast to what's "normal". In New Zealand, they're pretty much the same as the average drag queen. Also, the film Milk was banned there. It's a very xSFJ culture.

In regards to the strong Christianity, I remember as a child in the main city having to go indoors whenever the bell from the church rang at 7pm. Only after 10 minutes of whatever (people were meant to be praying during this time) were we allowed back outside. Good times. :wiseguy:

[stasis]

"Homophobia" has become a catchword, as other have suggested. I personally think it is overly broad

[...]

The best we've managed to come up with is "homophobia". Unprecise and imperfect, but it's what we have.
In chemistry, a substance that is molecularly repelled by water may be called "hydrophobic". This does not mean that the substance is literally afraid of the water; rather, it means that the substance resists solution with water. A tendency against integration with water. The term is fine - homophobes take issue with this term because it is understood to be negative and therefore allows other people to identify their bigotry as such. Very similarly, antisemites will regularly contest the definition (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) of antisemitism. If they cannot be labeled then they cannot be strongly critiqued.

Why not nail these people to their positions instead of offering concessions and granting them refuge in ambiguity when they squirm and whine?

[paleoeco]

In chemistry, a substance that is molecularly repelled by water may be called "hydrophobic". This does not mean that the substance is literally afraid of the water; rather, it means that the substance resists solution with water. A tendency against integration with water. The term is fine - homophobes take issue with this term because it is understood to be negative and therefore allows other people to identify their bigotry as such. Very similarly, antisemites will regularly contest the definition (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) of antisemitism. If they cannot be labeled then they cannot be strongly critiqued.

Why not nail these people to their positions instead of offering concessions and granting them refuge in ambiguity when they squirm and whine?

I understand your point - I certainly have no desire to allow anyone a refuge for their odious opinions on the subject. I was attempting to describe how the term "homophobia" encompasses several distinct attitudes, and while someone may say "I'm not scared of gay people, but....", it's clear that in modern usage homophobe is still the most appropriate descriptor.

I believe there are multiple posters on this thread who have attempted this exact argument, arguing that they don't have a problem with gay people but they have issue with the push for gay equal-rights (or in the parlance of some the "liberal gay agenda"). By deconstructing how the term "homophobia" is used, I attempted to show that opposition to the "liberal gay agenda" is still "homophobia", even if only so far as my "third type".

[JoshuaFairtex]

This really has nothing to do with the topic, but my younger sister just came out to me through an email this morning... didn't see that one coming lol Jesus Christ, first person I know in my family ever who has come out, crazy stuff. I'll try to post something relevant while i'm here lol, I think homophobia stems from a persons upbringing, how their parents raised them, telling their children gays are bad, the bible says gays are going to hell etc all those scare tactics which makes this situation more entertaining since my family besides myself are heavily christian, so i'm assuming once my parents are told my sister will be coming to live with me for a while lol (I live on my own).

At the end of the day, however people live their lives is their business as long as it doesn't directly affect me in a negative way, then I honestly do not give a shit. Our lives our short, so if sleeping with someone or marrying someone of the same sex will truly provide you with happiness in your life then by all means please do it. I wish I could find the same happiness in my life and i'm sure most of us are looking for that.

[mathogre]

I've been thinking recently. Neither group interferes with the private lives of others. So why do the said prejeudices exist? I've noticed it tends to be more prevalent in males,especially the more aggresive/masculine,disgruntled and socially disenfranchised males and the religious fundamentalists. I have several theories on this issue,but I'd like to hear your thoughts first.

I'm transgendered, a crossdresser, transvestite, whatever you want to call it. I was born male and internally have the sense that I should be female. While I'll never get SRS (sex reassignment surgery), I've been out in public as female. Generally I "pass" until I speak; my voice is not feminine in the least.

My sense regarding transphobia is that much of it is evolved and biological. Much of it is driven by reproduction and the overall health of the species. The stronger males and the sexiest females are celebrated overall, especially when adolescence is reached (football players and cheerleaders). Males and females are attracted to each other, mostly anyway. That's a good thing! A hundred years without male/female reproduction would clear the planet of humans. We're driven toward reproductive sex. Anything that shows weakness in a male or female is castigated. Think of the book, "Lord of the Flies" and you get a sense of the youth environment.

Those views experienced as an adolescent are subject to modification by the local culture. If the culture sees value in the individuals who are transgendered, then the views of the youth are attenuated and/or altered. If the culture sees no value in the individuals who are transgendered, the views of the youth are unlikely to change, though they may become more subdued in adulthood. If the culture sees transgendered individuals as a threat, then that view becomes reinforced in the young people.

I was raised Catholic. The basic rules of sex and marriage in the Catholic church are to ensure the production of more Catholics. No premarital sex. No extramarital sex. No divorce. No contraception. No abortion. Annulment is allowed, but generally if no children are produced. Ideally what's produced are a bunch of sexually frustrated Catholic youth who marry and have lots of kids who themselve turn into sexually frustrated Catholic youth. If your goal is to produce as many Catholics as possible, there's no room for people who would rather spend part or all of their time outside of an expected gender role. It's neither a criticism or indictment, nor is it unique.

[pip]

In the case of the transsexual, I believe they would argue that they do not want to alter traditional gender roles, merely they were born on the wrong side of the gate and wish to change without creating a drama.

Can you be 100% certain that this is the case for each and every transformer (remember there are many 'types' of people out there...)
Please bear in mind that if you answer 'yes' to this, then I get to call you a huge lair on the basis we have one of these at work and it's made every effort you can imagine to create as much fuss as possible, including leaving notes on managers desks regarding the way people might be looking at hir.
Not to mention spending hours applying make-up (poorly) instead of actually working.

I have no probem with what anyone wants to do with themselves. None whatsoever.
But the instant someone tries to force something down my throat with flimsy justifications of 'or else I'll tell them you did x to me' or 'didn't do y for me' etc etc they can swivel until it comes out of thier eye.
I suppose doesn't help much that no-one really liked him before, and the commonly held belief is that this was a 'stunt' to avoid being made redundant (Which I can well belive given the character of this clown...)

That turned out far more rant-ish than I anticiapted. Sorry :p

[stasis]

My sense regarding transphobia is that much of it is evolved and biological. Much of it is driven by reproduction and the overall health of the species.
Gender roles don't necessarily have anything to do with reproduction though. For instance, not all transgendered people are homosexual. They may be bisexual or even heterosexual, thus having no impact on reproductive viability. Also, as observed earlier in the thread, there exist (and have existed) cultures wherein the gender roles are traditionally accommodating of these inclinations.

You could completely invert the gender roles in the West - have the males in dresses and makeup, acting effeminate, and females in pants, working heavy construction topless, grunting and grabbing asses - and the potential reproductive pool would be identical. So the roles themselves only ritualize reproduction.

I think the attributing of gender roles directly to biology is something people sometimes do to imbue what are otherwise cultural artifacts with a kind of 'natural law', and therefore an objective support. It's an appeal to the authority of nature, the external plan - unchanging and beyond the will of man. And I think that's as bunk as saying "because god doesn't like it".

[Firebrand]

The guys you'll ultimately clash with the most are the effeminate ones, even if they're straight.

Yes. I hate effeminate guys, and unfortunately, most of them I've met have been gay, which is where the stereotypes come from. I value strength. The sexual orientation is not my biggest concern in any face-to-face situation (though I think it must be an evolutionary trait to reduce overpopulation. It does not help propagate the species which is the basis of life).

[admittedheretic]

I've been accused of having homophobia and I've thoroughly considered the possibility of having it. I do not think we should effectively increase the population size of homosexuals because it is counter productive to our progress as a species. It is an injustice that gay couples can't receive the same basic rights, but I understand why some people oppose this because effectively it will increase pominance in society. I believe the only humane option is to lower the occurrence of the condition is through education of how it is caused and in the majority of instances there are no genetic casual factors.

I'm attracted to females. I'm not particularly turned on by the concept of lesbianism, but I don't find lesbian sex to be repulsive. I do find male homosexual sex to be repulsive and I reserve the right to feel this way. I'm not at all advocating that anyone go around and actively prevent people from doing things that do not harm me, but I don't have to embrace it. It isn't just sex, but other signs off affection as well. I don't like it would heterosexual people exhibit PDA and maybe I do like it a little less when males do toward each other. I don't have any issue with hold hands, but please, no groping or kissing in public.

Are there not homosexuals out there who are repulses by heterosexual sex and affection? Nobody goes around harassing them and accusing them of having heterophobia.

[Anhedonic Lake]

Yes. I hate effeminate guys, and unfortunately, most of them I've met have been gay, which is where the stereotypes come from. I value strength. The sexual orientation is not my biggest concern in any face-to-face situation (though I think it must be an evolutionary trait to reduce overpopulation. It does not help propagate the species which is the basis of life).

I'm totally apathetic as to whether one is effeminate or masculine,regardless of sexual orientation. It does'nt bother me and even if it did there are far too many important issues in the world and my own personal life to concern myself with.

I can't understand how some people here are concerned about homosexuality being deleterious to the species. The human population is growing exponentially and resources are finite. The way I see it, it's beneficial to humanity.

[Blum]

I used to be open minded to gays, until i had to hear about them every day. The topic is so overdiscussed, it's turned my point of view from open-minded to don't want to hear it.

[Anhedonic Lake]

Can you be 100% certain that this is the case for each and every transformer (remember there are many 'types' of people out there...)
Please bear in mind that if you answer 'yes' to this, then I get to call you a huge lair on the basis we have one of these at work and it's made every effort you can imagine to create as much fuss as possible, including leaving notes on managers desks regarding the way people might be looking at hir.
Not to mention spending hours applying make-up (poorly) instead of actually working.

I have no probem with what anyone wants to do with themselves. None whatsoever.
But the instant someone tries to force something down my throat with flimsy justifications of 'or else I'll tell them you did x to me' or 'didn't do y for me' etc etc they can swivel until it comes out of thier eye.
I suppose doesn't help much that no-one really liked him before, and the commonly held belief is that this was a 'stunt' to avoid being made redundant (Which I can well belive given the character of this clown...)

That turned out far more rant-ish than I anticiapted. Sorry :p

I think you calling this individual an "it" is degrading,even is she is a poor worker, and rather sad. You can adopt a child and biologically he would'nt be your son but you refer to him as your son even so. Also it shows how far behind gays transsexuals are in terms of rights because I dare say you would'nt refer to a gay person as a "faggot" on this forum as you'd be censured, but a transphobic slur is far less likely to get you into trouble.
Of course not every person who transitions wants to avoid drama,but most do...I can assure you of that. What I will say is that not all people who transition are genuine transsexuals. Some are transvestites(cross dress for sexual pleasure) who take their fetish too far and others have a mental disorder were the symptoms resemble gender dysphoria. These are the types who tend to be the attention whores...and it's a shame that the genuine transsexuals,those who have had gender dysphoria since early childhood, are stigmatised by the behaviour of the aforementioned.

[stasis]

I used to be open minded to gays, until i had to hear about them every day. The topic is so overdiscussed, it's turned my point of view from open-minded to don't want to hear it.
The reason you may be hearing about it every day is that it is still a problem every day. Being tired of an issue is a luxury available only to those who are not saddled with it. And the more people reach for the mute button because the issue isn't fresh or interesting anymore, the more likely that issue is to persist all the longer. So if you're really tired of hearing about gay rights and gay identity and so on and so forth, the thing to do is to oppose those who continue to obstruct these things.

[pip]

I think you calling this individual an "it" is degrading,even is she is a poor worker....

I think a couple of thousand people being expected to behave in a certain manner that they wouldn't do with anyone regardless of gender - on penalty of sacking no less is far worse than degrading.
These people don't help themselves by insisting on being treated as some kind of pseudo-royalty. (At least this one doesn't - I can't speak for any others mind...)
There is a great deal of animosity solely because of this, animosoity which wouldn't exist if IT weren't on an attention trip and loving every minute of it.

[firebee]

There is a great deal of animosity solely because of this, animosoity which wouldn't exist if IT weren't on an attention trip and loving every minute of it.

Does calling this person by a pronoun which is not appropriate for any human do anyone any good at all?

I think it would indeed be ridiculous to claim that there are no transgender people out there who are manipulative bitches, assholes, relate to other people in a disordered fashion, et cetera. You can't say that about any other part of the population, so why think that one could say it about trans folk?

The trick is, when one encounters a member of a given minority group who is also a shithead, a bastard, sucks at math (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), whatever, it seems temptingly valid to generalize to the rest of the group. Hence, as you say, the birth of animosity.

[cannotseethe]

Appealing to evolution or the health of the species as an explanation of a phobia, as if the species were an entity with an immune system that rejects transgendered and homosexual people, fails without a demonstration of the evolutionary advantage of the phobic behaviors. I suspect that if one were to really unroll that, one would land at culture: that is, these phobias are part of an ensemble of persistent social behaviors that do confer an advantage. However, it's important to recognize, then, that there's some amount of contingency and arbitrariness involved. Transphobia and homophobia could be specific manifestations of a general fear of what's different from the norm, in other words, with the latter conferring some evolutionary advantage but the former manifestations arising mostly arbitrarily.

Of course, even if that argument is made to fly, so what? All that would tell us is that during some stretch of time in the past when human beings were dying in large numbers before having children, phobic behaviors were beneficial. We are not in that situation now, so making an appeal to evolution, even if the reasoning is correct, does not justify the persistence of phobic behavior now. An interesting question, then, is why the belief--and subsequent confabulation thereof--that transphobia or homophobia is OK arises and persists.