Why is homophobia tolerated here?

[Haven]

If a person were to join this forum making racist comments, using and implying racial slurs, and saying that racial minorities were disgusting, evil, and inherently inferior, they would certainly be swiftly banned (and rightly so!). This person could say the same things about women, people from certain countries, people with disabilities, and the reaction would be the same -- a swift ban.

However, on this forum -- which prides itself on civility -- people can make bigoted and untrue comments about lesbians, gays, and bisexuals with absolutely no consequences. Not so much as a warning. Certain members have been making blatantly homophobic statements for years without even a moderator comment.

Why the double standard? Why is racism banned, but homophobia and heterosexual supremacy tolerated? Are LGB people somehow a less-deserving minority?

[Lion IRC]

I beg to differ.

Well, to be sure, there is something called "conversion therapy"- its just neither therapy nor involves an actual conversion.

Many gay people even seek professional help to address their own (internalized) homophobia. And there are qualified therapists who claim to be able to help do exactly that.

Unfortunately, that claim has been thoroughly debunked, and most if not all major medical organizations have spoken out against such "therapy" as not only ineffective but dangerous (mainly psychologically). There are people who claim to be able to "convert" gays- but they are lying.

No, it has not been "thoroughly debunked".

"Thus, the purpose of this paper is to illustrate the application of a theoretical framework in the selection and implementation of an evidence-based intervention that supports effective clinical work with sexual minority adolescents, in particular, who may be struggling with the challenges associated with internalized homophobia."

http://www.academia.edu/4152219/Accepta ... dolescents

[Ancient of Years]

I beg to differ.

Well, to be sure, there is something called "conversion therapy"- its just neither therapy nor involves an actual conversion.

Many gay people even seek professional help to address their own (internalized) homophobia. And there are qualified therapists who claim to be able to help do exactly that.

Unfortunately, that claim has been thoroughly debunked, and most if not all major medical organizations have spoken out against such "therapy" as not only ineffective but dangerous (mainly psychologically). There are people who claim to be able to "convert" gays- but they are lying.

No, it has not been "thoroughly debunked".

"Thus, the purpose of this paper is to illustrate the application of a theoretical framework in the selection and implementation of an evidence-based intervention that supports effective clinical work with sexual minority adolescents, in particular, who may be struggling with the challenges associated with internalized homophobia."

http://www.academia.edu/4152219/Accepta ... dolescents

The paper linked is not about 'conversion therapy' but about Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) to address the internalized homophobia (IH) that can arise from societal stigma. IH is not seen as inherent in LGBT but the result of such things as social non-acceptance or bullying. ACT helps the victim of IH accept who they are, not try to change it.

[Lion IRC]

[Replying to post 81 by Ancient of Years]

Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to. Those links are quite deliberate and relevant to my point.
See post #74

I think Divine Insight didn't read my post carefully enough and presumed I was talking about therapy to reverse homosexual tendencies.

I specifically stated "homophobic".

And it is quite factual that many people who identify as gay have unwanted feelings about homosexuality - namely, internalized homophobia. They seek and apparently obtain professional therapy which 'cures' them of their homophobia.

Which raises an interesting point.

There are a whole range of unwanted sexual behaviours such as porn addiction, low libido, impotence, hypersexuality, etc. for which people can and do seek professional reparative therapy. Surely, professional sex therapists are not all liars. Surely there is evidence-based clinical science which supports this field of medicine. Otherwise, rape victims who suddenly find themselves with an aversion to heterosexual intimacy are being lied to by the trained sex therapists and psychologists from whom they seek help.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 77 by Lion IRC]

Divine Insight wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:

If I was born with a genetic aversion to homosexual behaviour I would simply assert my right to be who I am.

No one here is questioning your right to be who you are in terms of sexual orientation.

They might if I was genetically predisposed and environmentally conditioned to have an aversion to homosexual behaviour. They might call my entirely natural feelings - 'homophobia'.
I see people being labelled 'homophobic' all the time and having their perfectly normal heterosexist feelings challenged.

I see you failing to make a distinction between 'having an aversion' and the opening of one's mouth to share the ins and outs of said aversion.

Sexual aversions are universal (OK, that's a speculation), so they are like, um, bellybuttons. Everyone has one, and nobody's are more special or significant and worthy of demanding respect than others'.

The entitlement some theists (Christians and Muslims, in this case) give to themselves to spew their opinions about religious sexual taboos is what Haven's OP is about. Go right ahead and knock yourself out being averse to whatever sexual practices gross you out. That is your right and quite natural. Spewing it indiscriminately, making truth claims from it, and discriminating against people who act it out is the problem, not your aversion.

[Lion IRC]

[Replying to post 83 by Hamsaka]

Why should there be distinction between having an aversion and saying that you have an aversion.

I don't like the habit of smoking. By the same twisting of language which (incorrectly) labels people as homophobes, I ought to be labelled a tobaccophobe. I routinely and deliberately factor in my aversion when discriminating against people who smoke.

But surely I'm allowed to have an aversion to smoking/smokers, and to say so, even if smokers are offended by my right to say as much. And if you say I am NOT allowed to state my aversion or exercise discrimination then I'm going to need to see some identification badge which declares you the boss of me.

And if you are allowed to 'spew' your opinions all around the place, why can't others spew theirs right back at you?

You like equal rights? You like tolerance? You like diversity?

[Divine Insight]

I think Divine Insight didn't read my post carefully enough and presumed I was talking about therapy to reverse homosexual tendencies.

No. I knew exactly what you are talking about. I simply disagree with your perspective on it. In fact, I quite profoundly disagree with your perspective on it.

If you claim to have a fear of homosexuality and you, yourself, have no homosexual desires, then your fear is totally ungrounded. You wouldn't need to go to any therapy to have your fear of homosexuality addressed.

Evidently what you have is nothing more than an aversion to something that you clearly do not understand. People tend to fear what they don't understand. You don't need therapy to learn how to not fear being homosexually oriented. All you need to do is realize that some people truly do have homosexual orientations and that this is perfectly natural for them. Then you would realize that there is nothing to fear, and your fears would then subside. And so would your hostility toward people who do have natural homosexual desires.

[enviousintheeverafter]

No, it has not been "thoroughly debunked".

Sorry, but it has. Its been rejected by the AMA, the APA, the Pan American Health Organization, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Counseling Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the American Academy of Physician Assistants, among others. It has repeatedly been found to be both ineffective and harmful (Shidlo and Schroeder 2002, both the American Psychiatric Associations 2009 meta-study and the American Psychological Associations 2000 meta-study, the American Psychological Associations 2007 SOCE review/meta-study, etc.).

I can only conclude that you are unclear as to what the English term "debunked" means.

I don't like the habit of smoking. By the same twisting of language which (incorrectly) labels people as homophobes

There's no twisting of language, look it up- if you oppose, judge as immoral, find icky, or otherwise attach negative valuations to homosexuality, that's homophobia. Sorry, but if the shoe fits...

[Haven]

I always show civility and respect to LGBTQI people.

But sometimes the political correctness of language gets in the way and everyday words are labelled as "offensive" despite the fact that the person using them has no malice and no idea that certain minorities regard those words as tantamount to hate speech.

It's kind of tricky for non-LGBTQI people like me to know in advance which expressions people will and won't find offensive and its sad that many pre-judge the motives of people who otherwise seek open dialogue.

FWIW and I'm not concern trolling - spokespeople for the interests of LGBTQI folk would do well to allow more good-faith dialogue which recognizes that billions of CIS gender human beings would have no idea which words LGBTQI ppl find offensive.

What is hard about showing others basic human respect by not using words they consider offensive? If someone finds terms like "homosexual" and "transgenderism" offensive, then why continue to use them, especially when perfectly good alternatives are available? Refusing to use non-offensive language just seems like doubling down on prejudice to me.

If you want to know which words are offensive to the LGBTQIA community, this site is a good place to start: http://www.glaad.org/reference/offensive ; http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 87 by Haven]

Oh snap, I didn't realize "homosexual" was considered offensive, I use this term pretty consistently..

I see that "gay" and lesbian" are preferred when referring to individuals, but what would one use instead of "homosexuality"? "Same-sex attraction"?

[Haven]

[Replying to post 88 by enviousintheeverafter]

"Homosexuality" is fine when referring to the orientation, but try to avoid calling people "homosexuals."