[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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by 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...

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

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[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.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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^

[Candy Annie Cane]

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]

Originally Posted by Chaos

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]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by 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.

Very well put Annie.

[Kizzy]

Agreed Annie.

[RichardG]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm a little confused at the direction the thread has taken over the past few days when the original OP was so innocent. 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.