Homophobes Might Be Hidden Homosexuals

[GMDino]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals/

Quote:Homophobes should consider a little self-reflection, suggests a new study finding those individuals who are most hostile toward gays and hold strong anti-gay views may themselves have same-sex desires, albeit undercover ones.

The prejudice of homophobia may also stem from authoritarian parents, particularly those with homophobic views as well, the researchers added.


"This study shows that if you are feeling that kind of visceral reaction to an out-group, ask yourself, 'Why?'" co-author Richard Ryan, a professor of psychology at the University of Rochester, said in a statement. "Those intense emotions should serve as a call to self-reflection."


The research, published in the April 2012 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, reveals the nuances of prejudices like homophobia, which can ultimately have dire consequences. 


"Sometimes people are threatened by gays and lesbians because they are fearing their own impulses, in a sense they 'doth protest too much,'" Ryan told LiveScience. "In addition, it appears that sometimes those who would oppress others have been oppressed themselves, and we can have some compassion for them too, they may be unaccepting of others because they cannot be accepting of themselves."


Ryan cautioned, however, that this link is only one source of anti-gay sentiments.


Hidden homosexuality
In four studies, the researchers looked at the discrepancies between what people say about their sexual orientation and their implicit sexual orientation based on a reaction-time test. The studies involved college students from Germany and the United States.


For the implicit measure, students had to categorize words and pictures flashed onto a computer screen into "gay" or "straight" groups. Words included "gay," "straight," "homosexual" and "heterosexual," while the pictures showed straight and gay couples. Before each trial, participants were primed with the word "me" or "others" flashed momentarily onto a computer screen. The researchers said quicker reaction time for "me" and "gay," and a slower association of "me" with "straight" would indicate said an implicit gay orientation. 


In another experiment, the researchers measured implicit sexual orientation by having participants choose to browse same-sex or opposite-sex photos on a computer screen.


Questionnaires also teased out the parenting style the participants were exposed to, with students asked how much they agreed or disagreed with statements such as: "I felt controlled and pressured in certain ways;" and "I felt free to be who I am." 
To gauge homophobia in a household, students responded to items such as, "It would be upsetting for my mom to find out she was alone with a lesbian" or "My dad avoids gay men whenever possible."


Participants indicated their own level of homophobia, both overt and implicit; in word-completion tasks, students wrote down the first three words that came to mind when prompted with some of the words' letters. Students were primed at some point with the word "gay" to see how that impacted the amount of aggressive words used.


Controlling parents
In all of the studies, participants who reported supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, meaning it tended to jibe with their outward sexual orientation. Students who indicated they came from authoritarian homes showed the biggest discrepancy between the two measures of sexual orientation.


"In a predominately heterosexual society, 'know thyself' can be a challenge for many gay individuals," lead author Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom,said in a statement. "But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying."

Those participants who reported their heterosexuality despite having hidden same-sex desires were also the most likely to show hostility toward gay individuals, including self-reported anti-gay attitudes, endorsement of anti-gay policies and discrimination such as supporting harsher punishments for homosexuals.


The research may help to explain the underpinnings of anti-gay bullyingand hate crimes, the researchers note. People in denial about their own sexual orientation, perhaps a denial fostered by authoritarian and homophobic parents, may feel a threat from other gay and lesbian individuals. Lashing out may ultimately be an indicator of the person's own internal conflict with sexual orientation.


This inner conflict can be seen in some high-profile cases in which anti-gay public figures are caught engaging in same-sex acts, the researchers say. For instance, evangelical preacher and anti-gay-marriage advocate Ted Haggard was caught in a gay sex scandal in 2006. And in 2010, prominent anti-gay activist and co-founder of conservative Family Research Council George Rekers was reportedly spotted in 2010 with a male escort rented from Rentboy.com. According to news reports, the escort confirmed Rekers is gay.


"We laugh at or make fun of such blatant hypocrisy, but in a real way, these people may often themselves be victims of repression and experience exaggerated feelings of threat," Ryan said. "Homophobia is not a laughing matter. It can sometimes have tragic consequences," as was the case in the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay man.

[BmorePat87]

I wonder this every time I see someone with an odd fascination of the LGBT community, where they are always finding ways to bring them up and attack them when they are completely unrelated to even the topic at hand. Are they so afraid of their own feelings that they have to constantly attack it to reassure themselves?

I wish they'd just be true to who they are.

[*michaelsean*]

Did you just call me a f**?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Ted Haggard said, "Might be?"

[mallorian69]

So if homophobes are actually closet homosexuals then wouldn't it stand to reason that trumpphobes are closet trump supporters?

[*bfine32*]

(10-03-2017, 12:19 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: So if homophobes are actually closet homosexuals then wouldn't it stand to reason that trumpphobes are closet trump supporters?

Only if: they are always finding ways to bring him up and attack him when he is completely unrelated to even the topic at hand. Are they so afraid of their own feelings that they have to constantly attack him to reassure themselves?








OK; as to the OP: I am one few that uses homophobe (irrational fear) it its correct context. just because you don't think a baker should be required to bake a wedding cake for a SSM doesn't make one homophobic (IMO).


A homophobe is someone more like a former coworker of mine. He would not let a male barber cut his hair (when he could choose) because he didn't want a dude touching his head/face.  

[BmorePat87]

(10-03-2017, 06:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Only if: they are always finding ways to bring him up and attack him when he is completely unrelated to even the topic at hand. Are they so afraid of their own feelings that they have to constantly attack him to reassure themselves?








OK; as to the OP: I am one few that uses homophobe (irrational fear) it its correct context. just because you don't think a baker should be required to bake a wedding cake for a SSM doesn't make one homophobic (IMO).


A homophobe is someone more like a former coworker of mine. He would not let a male barber cut his hair (when he could choose) because he didn't want a dude touching his head/face.  

The guy who coined the term gave it a pretty broad definition that included the fear of gay people and their impact on family and religion, the fear of being labeled gay, avoidance of gay people, and also prejudice towards gay people. 

"When a phobia incapacitates a person from engaging in activities considered decent by society, the person himself is the sufferer….But here the phobia appears as antagonism directly toward a particular group of people. Inevitably, it leads to disdain toward the people themselves, and to mistreatment of them. The phobia in operation is a prejudice, and this means we can widen our understanding by considering the phobia from the point of view of its being a prejudice and then uncovering its motives (Weinberg, 1971; see also Weinberg, 1972, p. 8). "

[ballsofsteel]

(10-03-2017, 10:14 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Did you just call me a f**?

Hi. When I read that article I thought they were talking about you.

[*bfine32*]

(10-03-2017, 06:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The guy who coined the term gave it a pretty broad definition that included the fear of gay people and their impact on family and religion, the fear of being labeled gay, avoidance of gay people, and also prejudice towards gay people. 

"When a phobia incapacitates a person from engaging in activities considered decent by society, the person himself is the sufferer….But here the phobia appears as antagonism directly toward a particular group of people. Inevitably, it leads to disdain toward the people themselves, and to mistreatment of them. The phobia in operation is a prejudice, and this means we can widen our understanding by considering the phobia from the point of view of its being a prejudice and then uncovering its motives (Weinberg, 1971; see also Weinberg, 1972, p. 8). "

The name itself implies fear and that is how Weinberg originally explained it. What this fear can lead folks to do is another matter. 

[*michaelsean*]

(10-03-2017, 06:41 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Hi. When I read that article I thought they were talking about you.

So it wasn’t just in my head.

[BmorePat87]

(10-03-2017, 06:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The name itself implies fear and that is how Weinberg originally explained it. What this fear can lead folks to do is another matter. 

Regardless, he evolved his term and the inclusion of prejudice is recognized by Oxford and Merriam Webster. Suggesting it is only a fear is false. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-03-2017, 08:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Regardless, he evolved his term and the inclusion of prejudice is recognized by Oxford and Merriam Webster. Suggesting it is only a fear is false. 

Actually Websters calls it: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. 


But fear not, nobody is trying to take your word away from you. IMO there is nothing irrational about a person of faith not wanting to bake a cake for a SSM; however, it would be irrational for them to refuse to sell them a cookie You feel free to use it as you see fit and I'll use it as I see fit; we can each quote a definition. 

FWIW here's a link to a fairly good article on the word, its meaning, and origin:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/us/george-weinberg-dead-coined-homophobia.html

[BmorePat87]

(10-03-2017, 09:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually Websters calls it: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. 


But fear not, nobody is trying to take your word away from you. IMO there is nothing irrational about a person of faith not wanting to bake a cake for a SSM; however, it would be irrational for them to refuse to sell them a cookie You feel free to use it as you see fit and I'll use it as I see fit; we can each quote a definition. 

FWIW here's a link to a fairly good article on the word, its meaning, and origin:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/us/george-weinberg-dead-coined-homophobia.html

I'm not sure what you gained by confirming that Websters disagrees with your definition, but I'm sure it made sense to you. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2017, 12:48 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not sure what you gained by confirming that Websters disagrees with your definition, but I'm sure it made sense to you. 

I "gained" nothing; simply sharing.  The definition does state irrational discrimination most likely manifested by fear as explained in the article. So yes the definition combined with the article did make sense to one of us. 

But as I said, you are free to throw it around to describe simple prejudice (usually manifested from ignorance, not fear) or as you see fit.

Linking this phobia to fear (I know outrageous) does lend more credence to the OP. 

[StLucieBengal]

Pointing out that someone makes weird choices somehow makes you a homophobe.

That is the problem.

Weird can be subjective and that's fine..... some guys like a thicker woman who may even look like a man while others prefer a normal or thinner woman who looks more feminine.

Either way it's ok to point out as weird and everyone can decide for themselves. Not sure why there is a desire around here to force this anything goes mentality on everyone.

[Vlad]

(10-03-2017, 09:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually Websters calls it: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. 

The word has been broadened to include discrimination.
If you were an arachnophobe you would discriminate against spiders. Especially the black ones.

Feminazis are really androphobes, and androphobes might be hidden transgenders.

Some elitist do a study on that.

[BmorePat87]

(10-04-2017, 08:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  The definition does state irrational discrimination most likely manifested by fear as explained in the article. So yes the definition combined with the article did make sense to one of us. 

Oh man, I forgot about this. You did this last time you complained about people using the word "homophobe". Yea, no, irrational only modifies fear in that definition. Thinking otherwise would mean you think Webster's is distinguishing between rational and irrational discrimination of gay people and then that poses the question "what the hell is rational discrimination of gay people?" lol

[Belsnickel]

(10-04-2017, 09:22 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Oh man, I forgot about this. You did this last time you complained about people using the word "homophobe". Yea, no, irrational only modifies fear in that definition. Thinking otherwise would mean you think Webster's is distinguishing between rational and irrational discrimination of gay people and then that poses the question "what the hell is rational discrimination of gay people?" lol

Creating a representative sample for research and involving the LGBT community to insure they are represented in a manner that is reflective of the population.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2017, 09:22 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Oh man, I forgot about this. You did this last time you complained about people using the word "homophobe". Yea, no, irrational only modifies fear in that definition. Thinking otherwise would mean you think Webster's is distinguishing between rational and irrational discrimination of gay people and then that poses the question "what the hell is rational discrimination of gay people?" lol

No thoughts on the article or the origin of the word?

As I said go with your definition. Your much more open-minded, intelligent, and understanding.



BTW, much more only modified open-minded. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-04-2017, 10:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: No thoughts on the article or the origin of the word?

As I said go with your definition. Your much more open-minded, intelligent, and understanding.



BTW, much more only modified open-minded. 

I spoke to the origin of the word. I apologize for not supplying the link, but this is where my quote from a few posts back came from:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/Herek_2004_SRSP.pdf


It goes into detail over the trouble with trying to look at homophobia as a clinical term to describe a fear when it describes far more than that. Weinberg certainly seems to disagree with the notion that a new word is needed, most likely because it is his baby, but I do not disagree that a more useful term could exist. That aside, it doesn't really impact the way Weinberg has been using the term since the 70's and the way it is accepted today. This particular paper goes on to discuss the way homophobia influenced the creation of other terms like transphobia and AIDS-phobia and mention the outrage from the antigay community as it marked a shift from looking at being gay as the problem to looking at discrimination against gay people being the problem. 

It makes sense that a group that believed being gay was a mental illness are staunch opponents of a term that has a clinical stigma attached to it.