What ever catagory of crime you want to put it in does not matter
An unprovoked attack on two women should come with at least a five year prison sentence.

...there is still a homophobic element to the attack..(..imo..)...if it’s something they wouldn’t have requested of a heterosexual couple...fir them to show public displays of affection for the attackers’ personal amusement in some way...the request was made purely because of their sexuality, I feel...that is homophobia..

I don't disagree that it's partly driven by them being gay and these individuals noticing that and them being targeted because of that, so they were targeted because they were gay, but not because the attackers were homophobic. Its a complicated one there and like I said it doesn't lessen the seriousness of the crime AT ALL, but I do think it's worth preserving words like homophobia and not letting them fall into the realms of dubious meaning. Homophobes are people who dislike or hate homosexuals and think that homosexuality is morally wrong or distasteful. That's what it should always mean... It should be clear what someone means when they say something is homophobic. IMO it's quite important.

Tbh I also think that specifically calling this a homophobic attack kind of downplays the fact that it was primarily an attack by a group of men on two women who were minding their own business. It shifts the focus away from that horrifying fact.

yeah, that was the point i was trying to make. First and foremost, these attackers are thugs

...I think you and I are going to disagree on this one TS...I do feel that it’s important to preserve words as you say...so that they keep their weight and the gravity ...but I cannot look at the blood on those faces and running down their clothes...realise the fear and confusion they must have felt then and look at how that will effect them in the future...?...and not have the word and the mindset of homophobia scream at me in the loudest of voices...

just a question Ammi, I don't know if you recall the disabled woman covered in flour while minding her own business in a park maybe a year or so back and you pointed to a lack of things to do as being a possible factor in their behaviour, would you say the same for these 4 given it appears the age range starts at 15?

for clarification I personally don't think a lack of things to do is any excuse for thuggery anywhere...

A boy aged 16 has been arrested over a homophobic attack which left two women covered in blood after refusing to kiss on a bus.

Melania Geymonat, 28, said the attack on her and partner Chris happened on the top deck of a London night bus.

A group of young men began harassing them when they discovered the women were a couple, asking them to kiss while making sexual gestures.

Four other males aged between 15 and 18 remain in custody, the Met said.

They are being questioned on suspicion of robbery and aggravated grievous bodily harm.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48566800

That's where it gets difficult for me thoygh too Ammi and I find this hard to express in a way that doesn't sound like I'm trying to excuse or downplay attacks on LGBT people; like some people might see a gay person being attacked specifically for being gay and say "Forget homophobia assault is never acceptable" but that's not what I'm aiming for here at all.

I look at those pictures and they scream at me the entitlement and aggression of a group of males who wanted to use two women for their own pleasure, and became angry and violent when they weren't able to control them and they didn't comply. I think people might (wrongly) use the fact that they are gay to dismiss that part of this attack entirely. I don't know to what expent homophobic thought motivated these individuals but I am fairly certain that their over-riding mindset in doing any of it is that women are the belongings and playthings of men, and FAR, FAR too many young men are growing up with that idea.

...I can’t recall the thread or the context in which I said that..if I did and if you say I did then I must have, Cherie...unless I can recap then I can’t possible reply to your question ...as I’m sure you’ll realise...


...I guess all I can say..?... as a general on the forum I don’t go with these type of ‘analogies’ because I prefer to look at things individually with all of the factors involved ..and less a one size fits all, type thing...if that makes sense...

...I agree that there is a good possibility the same wouldn’t have been requested of two males...to ‘perform’, you know...so that obviously is factored in ...that they were exerting a control ...but that still for me doesn’t take away the homophobia...it only adds another level...their action was still homophobic and I use that word with its full weight, TS...but obviously those are just my feelings...

Okay no worries, thanks for the response

I just can't see that the element motivated by their sexuality is hatred or fear or disgust which to me are essential components of homophobia. I'm not saying those sort of attacks don't happen, especially sexual assaults on gay women ("Women and women together is wrong, women are for men" sort of mindset) and maybe an element of that was going on here? But I honestly get the impression that they found the idea of two girls together appealing and wanted a front row seat, with the anger coming from being denied that and confronted.

...but if the same requests for those displays would not have been made to a heterosexual couple ...then that is showing prejudice in the first instance and the very definition of homophobia...first there was homophobia and then something else equally unpleasant followed ...

yeah, i would have thought a homophobic attack would not have been encouraging the activity, but it's only my opinion

Not sure about that
They wanted to humiliate them

..yeah humiliation, a good word Sugars...the homophobia was in the attempt to humiliate which was because of their sexuality...and the violence followed when the ladies refused to comply...

I get where you are coming from but..I know dislike/hatred it technically the definition of homophobia, but I would also probably say the likes of fetishisation are on very dodgy ground. I don't really mean like, men who like lesbian porn as that would mean half the male population was homophobic, but when they transfer that to real life..I don't know how to explain what I mean here to be honest. Mind, I also guess that part could be pure old male entitlement also, thinking that basically, people just exist to get them off.

I still think this is a mix of homophobia, miosgyny and male entitlement, all in one lovely ****ing mix. I do think theres a chance these lads would have done it to any female couple sat there, be they partners or friends, but, even that has an element of homophobia to it in my eyes because they are..well basically assuming that women who might/do have attaraction to other women are there for their enjoyment, nothing else, and are willing to physically attack them when the women say no. If gay men had been attacked for being presumed to be gay, even if they were straight, the intent was to beat a couple of gay people so while the attack would not be homophobc due to, well the victims not being gay, the thought behind the attack was homophobic. If that make sense. I wonder if in that case..the prosecution would actually have the hate crime element, as the intent was there, just they were mistaken in their victim choice? Not something I have thought about before.

I guess I might be being pedantic in saying that not all prejudice is phobia and I personally think it confuses a very delicate issue to, I guess, lump things in as "all the same". The issue I guess is that I can't think of an - ism for LGBT issues like this to illustrate. It's definitely "Homosexualityism" but that word doesn't exist?

I guess to use race as a comparison... ALL xenophobia is racism. Not every incidence of racism is rooted in xenophobia. And the meanings of the two words are not identical. This is definitely the equivalent of racism, but not necessarily the equivalent of xenophobia. :think:

...institutionalised homophobia, internalised homophobia and etc...’homophobia’ is all encompassing of many prejudices, intolerances and ‘hates’ which are obviously related in sexualities...but to use the word in this case I think is accurate in the weight it carries and is in no way a misuse...


....anyways it’s not something I want to get involved in ‘pedantic’ about just because I personally think that does devalue in its distraction...

...it’s really hard to think how such young people in 2019...can have so much intolerance of sexuality instilled in their mindsets ..?...as is the same when we hear of racism in the same way...terrifying....

5 young punks arrested

no.

I think it's splitting hairs debating if this was homophobia or not, these women were attacked because of their sexuality, that's all that matters. If you chose to attack someone because of their sexuality then that makes you a homophobe in my eyes.

I don't think it's splitting hairs when there are a hell of a lot of men out there who will happily put this down to being "a terrible LGBT issue" and happily brush aside the threatening atmosphere that women face when confronted by groups of men every single day, just because they're female.