Right..

I don't know how many times I have to repeat a phrase.. but FALSE EQUIVALENCY. Everyone claiming heterophobia and equating it with homophobia should do some serious research on the concept of that and then come back to the thread and see if you still think what you do.

Brilliantly well said.

There's a pyramid of who can have a valid opinion about what can and can't be said and it's so wrong. It's the complete opposite of equality :shrug:

In response to what is bolded:

True. But homophobia is a concept based on discrimination and not prejudice, the same with racism and sexism. They are all derived from prejudice but the actual thing itself is discrimination that is the biggest issue and that is the major determinator on whether or not something exists. It comes down to whether or not straight people are discriminated against - to which the answer is clearly they are not.

I apologise if this is poorly written but hopefully this is somewhat readable :laugh:

I haven't seen anyone say that it's on the same level as homophobia, I have seen loads of people say the opposite though, there's not any need to be quite so patronising either, my belief that anyone can be prejudice against anyone and that anyone can be discriminated against will not be changed by 10 minutes on google, history does not give right to people to rule over everyone else unless you're the Queen (pardon the irony).

The world we live in today, there will never be equality, there will always be sections of the population striving for better treatment than everyone else, sadly it seems to be the gays turn right now.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound patronising.

I don't think straight people will ever be discriminated against because of biological 'superiority' or 'privilege' for lack of better words.. if heterosexuality was criminalised then I think you'll find that the whole world would die out :laugh:

Also don't forget that most gay people have straight parents too.. so it would be very difficult for prejudice to exist, if ever. Of course prejudice can exist against any group but that does not necessarily make it widespread and henceforth discrimination (heterophobia) does not exist.

..I think it's because of what has always been conditioned to be 'norm' which is heterosexuality.. so homophobia is much more easily detectable and much more apparent..heterophobia would be harder to see and recognise and because heterosexuality is seen as the 'norm' by many, it can also be more easily dismissed as something else as well.../and not being something linked at all to discriminating against sexuality ..but for me it would be almost impossible for it not to exist to a far, far lesser extent than homophobia...

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

to be honest i prefer homophobia

its more established and being nostalgic I prefer to stick to what I know

without homophobia it would be like the 70s never happened

:laugh:

As a gay guy, I don't know if I should be offended or laugh.. I'll just laugh.

Is this a ****ing joke? :joker::joker:

Once again, incredibly well said.

Because heterosexuality is the norm and homophobia exists it does not naturally follow that because homosexuality exists heterophobia must exist also.
There is no reason for the fear and confusion due to the unconventionality that is manifested in homophobia, if it did exist what would be the logic behind it?

This reminds me of school, when there's a kid with Asthma and you'll get some other kids that are all like 'I want an inhaler! If he can have one then why can't I have one too?'. They obviously didn't need an inhaler, they just want one because someone else had one. They don't understand that they are lucky enough not to be asthmatic and thought that the asthmatic kid was getting special privileges when he obviously wasn't.

It's not too different from the those idiotic people that are all like 'why don't we get a white history month? Why isn't there a Straight Pride? Where are the Straight Clubs? FEMINISM?! WHY NOT MENINISM? 10,000000 men suffer every day under the tyrannical rule of vagina people!' Et cetera.

They see the small bright sides but do not understand the discrimination that comes along with it. So no, Heterophobia does not exist.

Can gay people be prejudiced? Absolutely, anyone can be prejudiced but to equate that to homophobia is just phenomenally idiotic.

:shrug: Je ne comprends pas ce que vous dites.

Slay a bit :clap1:

I agree with this, although I have to say I never saw any kids that didn't have asthma looking for inhalers :fan:

agree with everything, especially the BIB :clap1:

To equate the idiots who think they want to be oppressed and "special" to those arguing that heterophobia can exist in this thread is no less phenomenally idiotic.

Correct.

I know a gay couple who run a Guest House in Blackpool, and I have stayed there for years when I visit Blackpool. They advertise in GT and Pink and other mags but also in non-gay newspapers in high season. Now I don't think that either of them actually hate or fear 'straight people (whatever that means) but they are prejudiced against them when it comes to taking bookings - preferring gays only.

Or targeting a specific niche market that could be turned away by straight homophobic business owners?

I'm actually laughing because literally every hotel is accepting of straight people then you had a hotel which accepts straight people but targets it's self to gay people and you're ****ing complaining. Why does everything have to be about straight people?

Amazingly put.

If that's the conclusion you've drawn from my post then it's fairly obvious that you've completely missed the point.

Heterophobia doesn't exist and it's an imaginary construct made up by the types of people that think Meninism and Reverse Racism is a thing.

Gay people can be prejudiced against straight people, just like they can be prejudiced against themselves, transgendered people, bisexuals etc but that's not comparable to Homophobia. You are arguing that gay people can be prejudiced and that's true but heterophobia is not a thing.

Could be Smithy.

There was little in your post other than dismissive and patronising generalisations that don't actually relate to anyone in this thread.

Homophobia starts at an individual level. It's widespread nature is what makes it a major social issue. Quite clearly it isn't a major social issue for straight people, but there absolutely can be heterophobia at an individual level.

At some point this becomes a debate over a definition, in which case the actual word to describe the prejudice doesn't actually matter. It can and no doubt does exist, and whatever you call it isn't important.

I don't know, some people are so caught up in semantics and "buzz" terminology that they can't think logically when it comes to these topics, it seems.

If a phobia is an irrational fear of something (true) and there is such a thing in the world - anywhere in the world - as an irrational fear of heterosexuals (also true) then it MUST be true, by simple rules of logic, that Hetero phobia exists.

Where people seem to be getting all caught up is in the idea that "heterophobia" and "homophobia" must then be equivalent, in terms of severity and consequence.

That is not implied anywhere at all in the above logic, it arises purely from preconception so it's not really relevant. Heterophobia and Homophobia can exist without lessening the severity of homophobia and the damage it does to people's lives. Both can exist whilst acknowledging that one is far worse than the other.

This is also what applies with racism. Has a white individual ever found them self discriminated against, even killed, for the colour of their skin alone? Of course they have, it's indisputable, and it's indisputable that such a crime is a racist hate crime. Is that the same as denying that white people, in general, have a much easier ride than other ethnicities? Nope! You can, through the powers of elaboration, accept both as true.

Part of me wonders if this is all the fault of the twitter generation, having to communicate everything in a couple of words with catchy "hashtags" and therefore having to have individual words and terms that carry such a solid and inflexible definition (which is usually not even the dictionary definition, but rather, a hijacked social definition).

If people would just commit to using a few more words to explain themselves then maybe it wouldn't be as much of an issue.