Does 'Heterophobia' exist?

[Cherie]

Actually only 47.54% believe it is a thing on here.

Lol. I anticipated this see above :D:

[Firewire]

Lol. I anticipated this see above :D:

That part wasn't there before :fist:

[Cherie]

That part wasn't there before :fist:

I know sorry :laugh:

[MB.]

I'm not really certain on my opinion on this but I voted anyway because I didn't want the 'yes' percentage to be that high and because this thread's messy enough already

[Jessica.]

Like I said since the start, I think gay people can be prejudiced against straight people, that can definitely be a thing but using the term 'heterophobia' will always be an issue since it will always draw comparisons to homophobia and, obviously, straight people will never have to suffer anything like that since they will always be the majority.

You can't use that term without the comparisons. If this topic was called 'Can gay people be prejudiced against straight people' then I'd definitely say yes but I just don't believe heterophobia is a thing.

This is my exact opinion about the situation, thank you for putting it into words.

[user104658]

So it's OK to insult people for arbitrary reasons, because they have it better than others. This seems totally valid. A completely legitimate reason to be a dick to people. That's what I'm getting from this thread really... "I have it worse than you so I am free to insult you and you can't say anything about it, and you DEFINITELY can't do it back, because my life is harder than yours".

What even is that? Really, though?

[Cherie]

So it's OK to insult people for arbitrary reasons, because they have it better than others. This seems totally valid. A completely legitimate reason to be a dick to people. That's what I'm getting from this thread really... "I have it worse than you so I am free to insult you and you can't say anything about it, and you DEFINITELY can't do it back, because my life is harder than yours".

What even is that? Really, though?

That's it in a nutshell !

[Glenn.]

I think you've been reading this thread with your eyes closed if that's what you've got from it.

[user104658]

I think you've been reading this thread with your eyes closed if that's what you've got from it.

No

[Tom4784]

So it's OK to insult people for arbitrary reasons, because they have it better than others. This seems totally valid. A completely legitimate reason to be a dick to people. That's what I'm getting from this thread really... "I have it worse than you so I am free to insult you and you can't say anything about it, and you DEFINITELY can't do it back, because my life is harder than yours".

What even is that? Really, though?

If that's what you've taken away from my opinion or anyone else's then you haven't understood it at all.

Gay people can be prejudiced but heterophobia is not and will never be a thing because gay people will always be a minority and straight people will always be the majority. It's just a biological fact.

I don't think I've ever said that it's okay for the gays to insult straight people either, any gay person that does is a hypocritical dick but you can't call it heterophobia because it will always will always look like a joke in comparison to homophobia because it is. Everything in this world is balanced in favour of straight people and gay people have had to fight for everything they have and, even if they wanted to (very few of them would), they cannot persecute straight people in the same way that the gays have been persecuted thus heterophobia cannot exist.

Gay people can be prejudiced but the whole idea of heterophobia is laughable and nonexistent.

[Kizzy]

If that's what you've taken away from my opinion or anyone else's then you haven't understood it at all.

Gay people can be prejudiced but heterophobia is not and will never be a thing because gay people will always be a minority and straight people will always be the majority. It's just a biological fact.

I don't think I've ever said that it's okay for the gays to insult straight people either, any gay person that does is a hypocritical dick but you can't call it heterophobia because it will always will always look like a joke in comparison to homophobia because it is. Everything in this world is balanced in favour of straight people and gay people have had to fight for everything they have and, even if they wanted to (very few of them would), they cannot persecute straight people in the same way that the gays have been persecuted thus heterophobia cannot exist.

Gay people can be prejudiced but the whole idea of heterophobia is laughable and nonexistent.

You kind of did with the breeder comments earlier.

[Tom4784]

You kind of did with the breeder comments earlier.

Actually I didn't and I said as much the last time you tried this. Cherie was voicing her annoyance that it didn't go both ways and I explained why that was the case. I never said it was justified.

Keep trying to get one over on me though, you may succeed one day.

[Kizzy]

Actually I didn't and I said as much the last time you tried this. Cherie was voicing her annoyance that it didn't go both ways and I explained why that was the case. I never said it was justified.

Keep trying to get one over on me though, you may succeed one day.

That's not how I remember it.. you stated that being called a 'breeder' wasn't an insult.
But seeing as the comment isn't there we'll never know.

[Tom4784]

That's not how I remember it.. you stated that being called a 'breeder' wasn't an insult.
But seeing as the comment isn't there we'll never know.

Nice unsubtle insinuation there but, like all your little insinuations, it's wrong.

I only deleted comments that went off topic, none of my comments have been deleted. I edited out part of my post on the whole 'the majority is right' thing but nothing I posted on the breeder debate has been removed.

You just remembered it wrong.

[Kizzy]

So it is, It wasn't an insinuation..... I didn't like your comment that being called a breeder isn't an insult, this is me saying that directly.

[Tom4784]

So it is, It wasn't an insinuation..... I didn't like your comment that being called a breeder isn't an insult, this is me saying that directly.

hmm.

I didn't say it wasn't an insult. I said that, in comparison to what the gays face, it was a minor thing (and it is, VERY few gays would use that as an insult) and that it wasn't something to base an argument that Heterophobia exists on.

[bots]

Nice unsubtle insinuation there but, like all your little insinuations, it's wrong.

I only deleted comments that went off topic, none of my comments have been deleted. I edited out part of my post on the whole 'the majority is right' thing but nothing I posted on the breeder debate has been removed.

You just remembered it wrong.

I just want to say Dezzy, I think you are about the most inappropriate moderator I've ever come across. Straight people have been victimised on this thread by self entitled idiots and you have supported/condoned/excused that behaviour.

I no longer feel i can contribute to this forum, so I have asked Josy to delete my account.

[user104658]

hmm.

I didn't say it wasn't an insult. I said that, in comparison to what the gays face, it was a minor thing (and it is, VERY few gays would use that as an insult) and that it wasn't something to base an argument that Heterophobia exists on.

You said;

"You will never have to face the same judgement or persecution so complaining about things like being called a 'breeder' is ridiculous, you would crumble if you had to lead the life of an LGBT person if you're complaining about being called a 'breeder'."

Or in other words;

"I have it worse than you so I am free to insult you and you can't say anything about it, and you DEFINITELY can't do it back, because my life is harder than yours".

As I said.

[Tom4784]

You said;

"You will never have to face the same judgement or persecution so complaining about things like being called a 'breeder' is ridiculous, you would crumble if you had to lead the life of an LGBT person if you're complaining about being called a 'breeder'."

Or in other words;

"I have it worse than you so I am free to insult you and you can't say anything about it, and you DEFINITELY can't do it back, because my life is harder than yours".

As I said.

Yes, that's true if you focus on that one sentence and take it out of context with everything else I've said.

As a whole though, I'm saying that it'd a ridiculous thing to complain about in comparison to the abuse that gay people receive regularly and my post to Kizzy after that clarified my position. I don't justify it at all but comparing what would be an extremely rare occurrence to what gay people actually go through on a daily basis is just dumb.

You should definitely apply for a job at the Daily Mail though, you're excellent at cherry picking quotes and taking them out of context.

[Liam-]

Yes winning :clap1:

[Samuel.]

Can we just close this thread now. I think it's been discussed to death and it's making me feel dizzy.

Then just avoid it :shrug: I'm still enjoying reading it.

[kirklancaster]

If that's what you've taken away from my opinion or anyone else's then you haven't understood it at all.

Gay people can be prejudiced but heterophobia is not and will never be a thing because gay people will always be a minority and straight people will always be the majority. It's just a biological fact.

I don't think I've ever said that it's okay for the gays to insult straight people either, any gay person that does is a hypocritical dick but you can't call it heterophobia because it will always will always look like a joke in comparison to homophobia because it is. Everything in this world is balanced in favour of straight people and gay people have had to fight for everything they have and, even if they wanted to (very few of them would), they cannot persecute straight people in the same way that the gays have been persecuted thus heterophobia cannot exist.

Gay people can be prejudiced but the whole idea of heterophobia is laughable and nonexistent.

No. It is actually YOU who does not understand the argument.

For a 'phobia' to exist, it does not depend on numbers or majorities. If one single person dislikes and avoids straight people for no rational reason then 'Heterophobia' exists.

Unless ALL the dictionaries are WRONG and your idiosyncratic FEELINGS are correct.

I will say it again; you are arguing matters OUTSIDE of, and SEPERATE from the question set in the OP; "Does Heterophobia Exist?".

Strictly in the context of the above question, majorities/minorities, and whether gays are persecuted and victimised and straights are not, are TOTALLY irrelevant.

You are arguing outside the strict parameters of the original question, and 90% of all subsequent argument has followed suit - so we ARE off topic.

[kirklancaster]

I just want to say Dezzy, I think you are about the most inappropriate moderator I've ever come across. Straight people have been victimised on this thread by self entitled idiots and you have supported/condoned/excused that behaviour.

I no longer feel i can contribute to this forum, so I have asked Josy to delete my account.

DON'T YOU DARE QUIT THIS FORUM BitOnTheSlide. We have not always agreed - sometimes heatedly disagreed - but you ae an intelligent, knowledgeable member of this community and your posts are always valid and interesting.

If members like you leave, then the intellectual integrity of the forum is weakened.

Think again mate, please.

[kirklancaster]

You said;

"You will never have to face the same judgement or persecution so complaining about things like being called a 'breeder' is ridiculous, you would crumble if you had to lead the life of an LGBT person if you're complaining about being called a 'breeder'."

Or in other words;

"I have it worse than you so I am free to insult you and you can't say anything about it, and you DEFINITELY can't do it back, because my life is harder than yours".

As I said.

Well put T.S.

[Mystic Mock]

So it's OK to insult people for arbitrary reasons, because they have it better than others. This seems totally valid. A completely legitimate reason to be a dick to people. That's what I'm getting from this thread really... "I have it worse than you so I am free to insult you and you can't say anything about it, and you DEFINITELY can't do it back, because my life is harder than yours".

What even is that? Really, though?

I don't think that's what the no camp are trying to say, they're trying to say that it can't be called heterophobia because it's too small of a minority, and that because straight people have never been repressed it can't really be that much of a thing, I haven't seen people saying it's okay for the insults to be okay though tbf.

However on the top part of my post, I don't agree with their stance as a phobia is a fear or hatred of something, having a fear or hatred for straight people imo is a phobia, even if people don't want to call it heterophobia, it definitely has a phobia tone to it.

[Ammi]

..tbf though it is quite complicated ..I don't think that heterophobia is defined or acknowledged in dictionaries, is it..?..and I do completely understand what Dezzy is saying..

..in googling this and trying to understand it a bit better, I've found that there are quite a few social studies on it..in that whether 'homophobia' is how it should be described because it's not a phobia as such or generally based on irrational fears but based on prejudice and actually 'a disgust' was something frequently mentioned in the sites I looked at...also 'phobia' is really also defined as an irrational fear or aversion of something..a 'thing'...and doesn't include 'someone'/people...so yes, really very complicated..and hence the thread and discussions I guess...

[kirklancaster]

..tbf though it is quite complicated ..I don't think that heterophobia is defined or acknowledged in dictionaries, is it..?..and I do completely understand what Dezzy is saying..

..in googling this and trying to understand it a bit better, I've found that there are quite a few social studies on it..in that whether 'homophobia' is how it should be described because it's not a phobia as such or generally based on irrational fears but based on prejudice and actually 'a disgust' was something frequently mentioned in the sites I looked at...also 'phobia' is really also defined as an irrational fear or aversion of something..a 'thing'...and doesn't include 'someone'/people...so yes, really very complicated..and hence the thread and discussions I guess...

Hi Ammi,

The question set in the OP was:

"Does 'Heterophobia' exist?"

The dictionary definition of 'Hetero' is:

hetero
ˈhɛt(ə)rəʊ/Submit
adjective & nouninformal
short for heterosexual.


The dictionary definition of the word 'Heterosexual' is:

heterosexual
hɛt(ə)rə(ʊ)ˈsɛksjʊəl,-ʃʊəl/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person) sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.
synonyms: informalstraight, hetero, het
noun
1.
a heterosexual person.

The dictionary definition of the word 'Phobia' is:

phobia
ˈfəʊbɪə/Submit
noun
an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
"she suffered from a phobia about birds"
synonyms: abnormal fear, irrational fear, obsessive fear, fear, dread, horror, terror, dislike, hatred, loathing, detestation, distaste, aversion, antipathy, revulsion, repulsion; "


Hence, we have a clear definition of the word 'Heterophobia' - "A person or persons, who have an irrational fear, or aversion to people who are attracted to people of the opposite sex, or 'Straight' people.

The question asks if Heterophobia exists, and the answer is 'YES' it does, because there ARE 'Gay' people on this planet who DO dislike, shun, avoid, fear or hate, STRAIGHT people for no rational reason other than they are NOT gay.

ALL other arguments, comments, pleas and rants concerning the historical and ongoing victimisation, discrimination, and abuse suffered by gays, or their 'minority' status, is totally irrelevant within the strict parameters of the question set in the OP and which constitutes its very title.

Though his statements regarding the statistical discrimination and abuse of Gays ARE correct, Dezzy, I am afraid, is riding his white charger into his own personal Crusade, and his arguments have NOTHING at all to do with the question in the OP or the CORRECT answers to that question.

Dezzy should start ANOTHER thread concerning the discrimination of Gays if he wants to debate what is an issue totally UNRELATED to this one.

Sorry.

[Kizzy]

Yes, that's true if you focus on that one sentence and take it out of context with everything else I've said.

As a whole though, I'm saying that it'd a ridiculous thing to complain about in comparison to the abuse that gay people receive regularly and my post to Kizzy after that clarified my position. I don't justify it at all but comparing what would be an extremely rare occurrence to what gay people actually go through on a daily basis is just dumb.

You should definitely apply for a job at the Daily Mail though, you're excellent at cherry picking quotes and taking them out of context.

The fact remains you did say that, you suggest you've been taken out of context ..It doesn't appear that way, didn't to Annie either who found that statement quite upsetting. You may feel it's inconsequential and meant as a point of reference to the main issue, yet didn't come across that way. Nobody was comparing that 'breeder' comment to anything other than what the troll said to a fm before being banned.
Which is why people are leaving, you basically backed up what the troll said and suggested anyone who disagreed was 'cliquey'. That's not right or fair.

[user104658]

Yes, that's true if you focus on that one sentence and take it out of context with everything else I've said.

As a whole though, I'm saying that it'd a ridiculous thing to complain about in comparison to the abuse that gay people receive regularly and my post to Kizzy after that clarified my position. I don't justify it at all but comparing what would be an extremely rare occurrence to what gay people actually go through on a daily basis is just dumb.

You should definitely apply for a job at the Daily Mail though, you're excellent at cherry picking quotes and taking them out of context.
It's not out of context though, the tent pole of your entire argument is "starving children in africa" logic.

That is,

Person A: "*rumble* ooohhh I'm hungry, it doesn't feel good to be hungry."

Person B: "Hungry? You're HUNGRY?? You, privileged westerner with money in your pocket and a cupboard full of food, are hungry? There are starving children in Africa whose stomachs are swolen and whose bones are brittle because of malnourishment. And you think you know what it's like to be hungry? You're not hungry, lmao, it's ridiculous."


In truth, person A is in fact still hungry, and it still doesn't feel good to be hungry. Is it something that causes them pain every day? Does it have a major impact on their life like it does the starving child? No of course not. But that's irrelevant to the word and to the fact that it doesn't feel good.


Like person A can experience hunger without lessening the plight of starving child B, heterosexual A can experience the mild hurt of directed heterophobic comments without lessening the plight of homosexual B.

THAT is where false equivalency comes into this; the assumption that because "heterophobia" and "homophobia" are similar terms, there is an implication that they are similar in severity and consequence, and therefore that the very existence of the word heterophobia is offensive and somehow weakens the word homophobia. ... In reality there is no such implication and the imagined equivalency is reactionary.

[Cherie]

I just want to say Dezzy, I think you are about the most inappropriate moderator I've ever come across. Straight people have been victimised on this thread by self entitled idiots and you have supported/condoned/excused that behaviour.

I no longer feel i can contribute to this forum, so I have asked Josy to delete my account.

This is a very sad to see I hope you reconsider Bitontheslide but I understand your sentiment completely

[Ammi]

..there is no need to say sorry, Kirk..I understand your reasoning and your thoughts with this which aren't that dissimilar to what mine were on first instinct with this... everyone in the thread without exception I think, seems to be of a same opinion that heterosexuals can have the same judgements against them as homosexuals, it would be silly to think otherwise, that it wasn't possible or hasn't happened in 'singular' cases...and with those judgements, a heterosexual could receive some pretty awful stuff from someone...

..also without exception we all agree that it's not remotely close to homophobia and the prejudice and 'hate' shown to homosexuals..they've been imprisoned for their sexuality etc...so really we're all on the same page and of the same mind-set here...so a word really and how it's defined is the debate..?..well for me, if 'heterophobia' was a thing then that would put it on the same level and in equality to homophobia, I mean it does that automatically...which we're all agreeing it isn't so that's confusing...Heterophobia was used in single quotations as well because it's not a recognised/acknowledged and defined 'thing' as such ..but I don't dismiss..(and no one else does in this thread..)...any bad stuff that anyone has been subjected to, not only for their sexuality but for anything about them and who they are....


..anyway, to some extent I agree with Glenn and there again only for me in that the thread has run it's course because we all seem to be singing the same song...so I'll go about my day now and retreat quietly...

[kirklancaster]

It's not out of context though, the tent pole of your entire argument is "starving children in africa" logic.

That is,

Person A: "*rumble* ooohhh I'm hungry, it doesn't feel good to be hungry."

Person B: "Hungry? You're HUNGRY?? You, privileged westerner with money in your pocket and a cupboard full of food, are hungry? There are starving children in Africa whose stomachs are swolen and whose bones are brittle because of malnourishment. And you think you know what it's like to be hungry? You're not hungry, lmao, it's ridiculous."


In truth, person A is in fact still hungry, and it still doesn't feel good to be hungry. Is it something that causes them pain every day? Does it have a major impact on their life like it does the starving child? No of course not. But that's irrelevant to the word and to the fact that it doesn't feel good.


Like person A can experience hunger without lessening the plight of starving child B, heterosexual A can experience the mild hurt of directed heterophobic comments without lessening the plight of homosexual B.

THAT is where false equivalency comes into this; the assumption that because "heterophobia" and "homophobia" are similar terms, there is an implication that they are similar in severity and consequence, and therefore that the very existence of the word heterophobia is offensive and somehow weakens the word homophobia. ... In reality there is no such implication and the imagined equivalency is reactionary.

How can ANYONE not understand the point you have made here? :shrug:

[kirklancaster]

..there is no need to say sorry, Kirk..I understand your reasoning and your thoughts with this which aren't that dissimilar to what mine were on first instinct with this... everyone in the thread without exception I think, seems to be of a same opinion that heterosexuals can have the same judgements against them as homosexuals, it would be silly to think otherwise, that it wasn't possible or hasn't happened in 'singular' cases...and with those judgements, a heterosexual could receive some pretty awful stuff from someone...

..also without exception we all agree that it's not remotely close to homophobia and the prejudice and 'hate' shown to homosexuals..they've been imprisoned for their sexuality etc...so really we're all on the same page and of the same mind-set here...so a word really and how it's defined is the debate..?..well for me, if 'heterophobia' was a thing then that would put it on the same level and in equality to homophobia, I mean it does that automatically...which we're all agreeing it isn't so that's confusing...Heterophobia was used in single quotations as well because it's not a recognised/acknowledged and defined 'thing' as such ..but I don't dismiss..(and no one else does in this thread..)...any bad stuff that anyone has been subjected to, not only for their sexuality but for anything about them and who they are....


..anyway, to some extent I agree with Glenn and there again only for me in that the thread has run it's course because we all seem to be singing the same song...so I'll go about my day now and retreat quietly...

No problem Ammi. I agree - I think it is a 'dead' horse now. Have a great day love.

[Liam-]

It's not out of context though, the tent pole of your entire argument is "starving children in africa" logic.

That is,

Person A: "*rumble* ooohhh I'm hungry, it doesn't feel good to be hungry."

Person B: "Hungry? You're HUNGRY?? You, privileged westerner with money in your pocket and a cupboard full of food, are hungry? There are starving children in Africa whose stomachs are swolen and whose bones are brittle because of malnourishment. And you think you know what it's like to be hungry? You're not hungry, lmao, it's ridiculous."


In truth, person A is in fact still hungry, and it still doesn't feel good to be hungry. Is it something that causes them pain every day? Does it have a major impact on their life like it does the starving child? No of course not. But that's irrelevant to the word and to the fact that it doesn't feel good.


Like person A can experience hunger without lessening the plight of starving child B, heterosexual A can experience the mild hurt of directed heterophobic comments without lessening the plight of homosexual B.

THAT is where false equivalency comes into this; the assumption that because "heterophobia" and "homophobia" are similar terms, there is an implication that they are similar in severity and consequence, and therefore that the very existence of the word heterophobia is offensive and somehow weakens the word homophobia. ... In reality there is no such implication and the imagined equivalency is reactionary.

:clap1:

[Firewire]

Despite the arguments, some of which are good, I've yet to see any strong evidence showing a situation where heterophobia has existed. I'm not undermining the efforts people have put into their posts, but no one has sourced any solid proof of a real life event where heterophobia has existed.

[Cherie]

No problem Ammi. I agree - I think it is a 'dead' horse now. Have a great day love.

The thread might be a dead horse to some, that doesn't mean that further input isn't welcome, and given we appear to have lost two forum members because of it I think there are a few still issues to be resolved.

[Kizzy]

It's not out of context though, the tent pole of your entire argument is "starving children in africa" logic.

That is,

Person A: "*rumble* ooohhh I'm hungry, it doesn't feel good to be hungry."

Person B: "Hungry? You're HUNGRY?? You, privileged westerner with money in your pocket and a cupboard full of food, are hungry? There are starving children in Africa whose stomachs are swolen and whose bones are brittle because of malnourishment. And you think you know what it's like to be hungry? You're not hungry, lmao, it's ridiculous."


In truth, person A is in fact still hungry, and it still doesn't feel good to be hungry. Is it something that causes them pain every day? Does it have a major impact on their life like it does the starving child? No of course not. But that's irrelevant to the word and to the fact that it doesn't feel good.


Like person A can experience hunger without lessening the plight of starving child B, heterosexual A can experience the mild hurt of directed heterophobic comments without lessening the plight of homosexual B.

THAT is where false equivalency comes into this; the assumption that because "heterophobia" and "homophobia" are similar terms, there is an implication that they are similar in severity and consequence, and therefore that the very existence of the word heterophobia is offensive and somehow weakens the word homophobia. ... In reality there is no such implication and the imagined equivalency is reactionary.

I don't think the thread as run it's course... it's only been open a couple of days :/
I think I have a problem with the similarity, it is what worries me that they are being put on a seemingly equal descriptive footing even though that could never be the case.
I don't feel it weakens homophobia but it gives credence to those who are displaying extreme behaviours, yes they exist but to define them in such a way smacks of justification and two wrongs don't make a right.
We can't be seen to be actively stamping out homophobia whilst accepting 'heterophobia'.

[Jessica.]

Nobody can be hurt by heterophobic comments because heterophobia doesn't exist, can people be hurt by insults from ignorant people? Yes, of course. :)

[Livia]

Just read the poll... more people think this exists than don't? I an really shocked.

We love a label and a pigeon hole, don't we.

[Ninastar]

Just read the poll... more people think this exists than don't? I an really shocked.

We love a label and a pigeon hole, don't we.

I thnk you would change your mind if you had seen some of the things that have been deleted in this thread since it started... It does sound pathetic, heterophobia... But some of the things that have been said, all because of an opinion, have been absolutely disgusting.

[Tom4784]

Sigh, as usual when people can't win an argument against me they have to bring the fact that I'm a mod into it. it's a disappointing and hypocritical tactic that seems to always be used in S&D threads against me. I expect better tbh. Pretty much every time I step into a thread I get the fact that I'm a mod used against me. I don't agree with your opinion? 'YOU'RE A MOD, THAT'S INAPPROPEIATE!' Someone's misconstrued something I said 'Oh? Well you did say that but since it's mysteriously not there now I guess we'll never know...'. It's sad that people can't win an argument with me through debating so they have to go for low blows like that.

Heterophobia is something that exists only in (flawed) theory, there are no real life applications of it, only reaching examples. Gay people can be ignorant and prejudiced, they can be resentful of the way things are but 'Heterophobia' is a term that can never be used without comparing it to Homophobia. It's a 'two sides of the same coin' type of deal which is why Heterophobia as a concept doesn't work because gay people can not and will never be able to persecute straight people in the way that gay people have been. Straight people will always be a majority and gay people the minority. A majority can never be persecuted in the way that a minority is because the majority is considered the norm.

[Northern Monkey]

So what's the answer?Does it exist or no?I honestly don't know.
Edit: Dezzy just beat me with an answer.

Edit:Why has it drawn a big smiley face instead of a D^

[AnnieK]

It is obviously an emotive subject and one that people with never agree on. I find debates harder to be involved in when they become personal and posts become littered with, "you're ****ing deluded if you believe that" or words to that effect. It then becomes an argument as opposed to a debate. This has happened from people from both sides so is no way a dig at any specific poster. It just negates the debate for me and this is obviously a subject people feel very strongly about but it's making more people step away from the debate which is a shame.

[Firewire]

I thnk you would change your mind if you had seen some of the things that have been deleted in this thread since it started... It does sound pathetic, heterophobia... But some of the things that have been said, all because of an opinion, have been absolutely disgusting.

Those weren't views of someone who is "heterophobic". He was trolling the thread for a reaction, and he got one.

[kirklancaster]

The thread might be a dead horse to some, that doesn't mean that further input isn't welcome, and given we appear to have lost two forum members because of it I think there are a few still issues to be resolved.

Let me explain Cherie:

No matter how logical, eloquent and persuasive an argument one might put forth, and no matter how much genuine corroboration is provided - including personal direct experiences - some members will just NEVER accept that their view is wrong or misplaced. In other words, we are 'flogging a dead horse' .

The only thing to be 'gained' once a 'debate' on SD takes the turn it has, is abusive, heated arguments outside of the original premise and NOTHING is ever 'resolved'.

That is what I meant by 'Dead Horse'.

[Kizzy]

Let me explain Cherie:

No matter how logical, eloquent and persuasive an argument one might put forth, and no matter how much genuine corroboration is provided - including personal direct experiences - some members will just NEVER accept that their view is wrong or misplaced. In other words, we are 'flogging a dead horse' .

The only thing to be 'gained' once a 'debate' on SD takes the turn it has, is abusive, heated arguments outside of the original premise and NOTHING is ever 'resolved'.

That is what I meant by 'Dead Horse'.

Yes however other members may want to have their say other than the handful who have over the weekend.

[Cherie]

Let me explain Cherie:

No matter how logical, eloquent and persuasive an argument one might put forth, and no matter how much genuine corroboration is provided - including personal direct experiences - some members will just NEVER accept that their view is wrong or misplaced. In other words, we are 'flogging a dead horse' .

The only thing to be 'gained' once a 'debate' on SD takes the turn it has, is abusive, heated arguments outside of the original premise and NOTHING is ever 'resolved'.

That is what I meant by 'Dead Horse'.
I don't ever expect during a debate that opposing sides will come round to the opposite view as that rarely if ever happens in here :laugh:

[Cherie]

It is obviously an emotive subject and one that people with never agree on. I find debates harder to be involved in when they become personal and posts become littered with, "you're ****ing deluded if you believe that" or words to that effect. It then becomes an argument as opposed to a debate. This has happened from people from both sides so is no way a dig at any specific poster. It just negates the debate for me and this is obviously a subject people feel very strongly about but it's making more people step away from the debate which is a shame.

Very well put Annie.

[Kizzy]

Agreed Annie.

[RichardG]

It is obviously an emotive subject and one that people with never agree on. I find debates harder to be involved in when they become personal and posts become littered with, "you're ****ing deluded if you believe that" or words to that effect. It then becomes an argument as opposed to a debate. This has happened from people from both sides so is no way a dig at any specific poster. It just negates the debate for me and this is obviously a subject people feel very strongly about but it's making more people step away from the debate which is a shame.

:clap1:

I'm a little confused at the direction the thread has taken over the past few days when the original OP was so innocent. :laugh: All that was literally asked is 'is it acceptable to poke fun at straight people', heterophobia just happened to be the word used to describe it. :shrug:

[Ashley.]

It's not out of context though, the tent pole of your entire argument is "starving children in africa" logic.

That is,

Person A: "*rumble* ooohhh I'm hungry, it doesn't feel good to be hungry."

Person B: "Hungry? You're HUNGRY?? You, privileged westerner with money in your pocket and a cupboard full of food, are hungry? There are starving children in Africa whose stomachs are swolen and whose bones are brittle because of malnourishment. And you think you know what it's like to be hungry? You're not hungry, lmao, it's ridiculous."


In truth, person A is in fact still hungry, and it still doesn't feel good to be hungry. Is it something that causes them pain every day? Does it have a major impact on their life like it does the starving child? No of course not. But that's irrelevant to the word and to the fact that it doesn't feel good.


Like person A can experience hunger without lessening the plight of starving child B, heterosexual A can experience the mild hurt of directed heterophobic comments without lessening the plight of homosexual B.

THAT is where false equivalency comes into this; the assumption that because "heterophobia" and "homophobia" are similar terms, there is an implication that they are similar in severity and consequence, and therefore that the very existence of the word heterophobia is offensive and somehow weakens the word homophobia. ... In reality there is no such implication and the imagined equivalency is reactionary.

This.

[Jessica.]

:clap1:

I'm a little confused at the direction the thread has taken over the past few days when the original OP was so innocent. [emoji23] All that was literally asked is 'is it acceptable to poke fun at straight people', heterophobia just happened to be the word used to describe it. :shrug:
It was far from innocent and it was the wrong word to use. Everyone knows that anyone can poke fun at someone else for whatever springs to mind, obviously it's frowned upon but straight people do not have something like homophobia looming over them. That is the point.

[kirklancaster]

Yes however other members may want to have their say other than the handful who have over the weekend.

Ah, but I was not condoning closing the thread. I am opposed to any thread being closed even though I realise sadly, that sometimes the mods have but little choice.

I was merely agreeing with Ammi, that as a very 'Seasoned' contributor to SD, and therefore someone who KNOWS that nothing is ever resolved on here, and that different facets of the same arguments - pro and con - are constantly regurgitated, this 'Horse' is very much 'Dead' and no amount of 'Flogging' will achieve anything -- except argument for argument's sake.

[Tom4784]

It's not out of context though, the tent pole of your entire argument is "starving children in africa" logic.

That is,

Person A: "*rumble* ooohhh I'm hungry, it doesn't feel good to be hungry."

Person B: "Hungry? You're HUNGRY?? You, privileged westerner with money in your pocket and a cupboard full of food, are hungry? There are starving children in Africa whose stomachs are swolen and whose bones are brittle because of malnourishment. And you think you know what it's like to be hungry? You're not hungry, lmao, it's ridiculous."


In truth, person A is in fact still hungry, and it still doesn't feel good to be hungry. Is it something that causes them pain every day? Does it have a major impact on their life like it does the starving child? No of course not. But that's irrelevant to the word and to the fact that it doesn't feel good.


Like person A can experience hunger without lessening the plight of starving child B, heterosexual A can experience the mild hurt of directed heterophobic comments without lessening the plight of homosexual B.

THAT is where false equivalency comes into this; the assumption that because "heterophobia" and "homophobia" are similar terms, there is an implication that they are similar in severity and consequence, and therefore that the very existence of the word heterophobia is offensive and somehow weakens the word homophobia. ... In reality there is no such implication and the imagined equivalency is reactionary.

Since the start of the topic my argument has always had three points.

1. Heterophobia is a myth
2. HOWEVER Gay people, like anyone, can be prejudiced.
3. Insulting straight people isn't justified

Picking out one badly worded post of mine and making assumptions about it (although I clarified what I was saying when people asked about it afterwards, you conveniently ignored that though I see) smacks of desperation.

You are oversimplifying what I've said in that one to such a point that it no longer resembles what I actually said and meant.

EDIT: I see that my post clarifying my position was deleted by another mod in a sweep. I'll repost the part clarifying my position here.

Not justifying it, ***** will be ***** but using that as an example to say the heterophobia exists is dumb. When straight people are being persecuted for their sexuality then you can call it heterophobia, otherwise it's just prejudice.

[Northern Monkey]

Maybe the answer is....Heterophobia does exist because logically it has to.But it just does'nt happen very much at all?

[Tom4784]

Maybe the answer is....Heterophobia does exist because logically it has to.But it just does'nt happen very much at all?

It exists in theory but not in reality. Like reverse racism and the idea of meninism it has no real life applications and mainly only exists as a concept by the few straight/white/male people who see things like gay rights, Feminism and things like Black Lives Matter as an attack of their own freedoms. They're just a way to discredit the actual movements by saying 'BUT WHAT ABOUT MEEEEEEE!'.

A minority cannot oppress a majority so these concepts of the majority being oppressed by the minorities are all bull****. Prejudice can and does exist but to equate that to the idea of heterophobia is a ridiculous notion.

[Northern Monkey]

It exists in theory but not in reality. Like reverse racism and the idea of meninism it has no real life applications and mainly only exists as a concept by the few straight/white/male people who see things like gay rights, Feminism and things like Black Lives Matter as an attack of their own freedoms. They're just a way to discredit the actual movements by saying 'BUT WHAT ABOUT MEEEEEEE!'.

A minority cannot oppress a majority so these concepts of the majority being oppressed by the minorities are all bull****. Prejudice can and does exist but to equate that to the idea of heterophobia is a ridiculous notion.

I also don't believe in a thing called 'reverse racism'.It's just racism,Whoever is doing it and whoever is on the recieving end.
I experienced it as a white person when i was a teenager and it was frightening and offensive and insulting.
Sexism against men very much exists too.
Heterophobia i have actually never heard of a case and it would seem to be almost non existent.However 'almost' means that it has to exist.Something either exists or it does'nt.There's no grey area.

[kirklancaster]

It exists in theory but not in reality. Like reverse racism and the idea of meninism it has no real life applications and mainly only exists as a concept by the few straight/white/male people who see things like gay rights, Feminism and things like Black Lives Matter as an attack of their own freedoms. They're just a way to discredit the actual movements by saying 'BUT WHAT ABOUT MEEEEEEE!'.

A minority cannot oppress a majority so these concepts of the majority being oppressed by the minorities are all bull****. Prejudice can and does exist but to equate that to the idea of heterophobia is a ridiculous notion.


Again; this topic has NOTHING whatsoever to do with majorities, minorities, or suppression - what don't you understand about this?

And again, you are making yet another 'sweeping statement' made with absolutely no evidence to back it up, when you state that 'Heterophobia' "exists in theory but not in reality", but then again, you just CANNOT obtain the neccessary evidence to corroborate and justify what you are saying, because you are not privy to what the entire straight community of the world has experienced regarding 'heterophobia'. No one is.

Conversely, I know personally at least two gay people who dislike, shun, avoid, and discriminate against the straight community for no valid reason other than they do not 'trust' them.

Finally, I claim that 'heterophobia' exists, but having spent most of my life in the company of gay people, frequenting gay clubs and pubs, and actively supporting the Campaign For Homosexual Equality in the 80's and Gay Rights since then, you are being offensive when you claim that I "see things like gay rights, Feminism and things like Black Lives Matter, as an attack" on my "own freedoms".

What is more, I fervently believe that your comments do not apply to anyone else on here who believes that heterophobia exists, either.

[user104658]

All I can really do Dezzy is point out again that the concept of "a phobia" has absolutely nothing to do with numbers, power or persecution. You're taking a stance based on something completely imaginary. I agree in general with the notion that straight people are highly unlikely, to the point of ridiculousness, to experience any sort of persecution for their sexuality. I agree that straight people will never really have any idea - beyond simple empathy - of that it's like to be in that sort of minority.

I completely disagree that any of that has anything to do with the word "heterophobia" or the existence of heterophobia either real or hypothetical. It just doesn't. It's an idea based purely on the perception that "heterophobia and homophobia must basically amount to the same thing" when, in fact, that is subjective and baseless. There is no such objective connotation.

[user104658]

the opinions in this thread are so bad it gives me headaches
No, that's just what happens when you run out of prescribed buzzphrase-based counterarguments and have to try to come up with your own reasoning, in your own words, to justify your stance. Then realise you don't actually have any.

[waterhog]

I think a few people on this forum have poemphopia.

back to main question - we all should be equal but don't be naive to think everyone thinks like this.