What is homophobia?

Edgehead

This is just a question, I'm not meaning to be hurtful or disrespectful but with me being a 15 year old lad I might come across that way, this is just something that happened to me last year in school.

Our teacher was reading out the register and as it got to one lad who happened to be out sick the teacher asked why and I shouted out "He has herpes", everyone laughed, including my teacher and he responded with "Doubt it, you have to have sex first, which is something I am sure will evade X for a long while!!!", fast forward about 3 weeks, same situation, different person. Someone we all know to be gay was out and I used the same joke, yeah original I know, but this time the same teacher reacted angrily telling me I was homophobic and stuff. He threatened to suspend me and call the police for hate crime or something.

Now I want to know, while I admit that was immature behaviour and not very funny to you, but has it gotten to the stage where we are too PC, we try too hard to be accepting and right that we get things twisted. If I am to get into trouble for that then surely I should have been in the same ammount of trouble 3 weeks previous? I can assure you I am far from homophobic and believe people should be allowed to do what they want sexually speaking, within reason ofcourse, and while I am slightly uncomfortable around gay people I think its more because I don't know many gay people rather then me "hating" them. For me if we are trying to get gay people recognised as , please excuse the phrase as I can't think of what to use instead, normal people surely we shouldn't have harsher punishments for the same bad treatment of straight and gay people. What are your views on this???

Goodshape

I'd say you're right, sound's like you're teachers actions were inconsistent.

In his defence he was probably afraid of allowing a class full of 15 year olds laugh and make jokes at the gay boy (which maybe he thought could escalate into homophobia) and felt he had to make a point.

You're right though, everyone should be treated the same. I'd put this down to your teacher making a point.

Aard

Your post wasn't hurtful or disrespectful in any way, in fact I think you have your head on your shoulders there.

I think your teacher overreacted, but you never know, there could be more things going on behind the scenes. Maybe this lad was being bullied and the teacher knew about it. Maybe the teacher himself is gay and had bad experiences in the past. Or maybe he was just having a bad day and went overboard with something he usually wouldn't.

But you're right about it in a general sense; people put up with a lot of stuff (jokes etc) but when a gay (or any minority) person is involved they think differently. It's just people being overly cautious and not comfortable with themselves (the teacher in this case).

spurious

Edgehead wrote:

.. everyone laughed, including my teacher and he responded with "Doubt it, you have to have sex first, which is something I am sure will evade X for a long while!!!",

I think your teacher was very much in the wrong, effectively joining in in the belittling (bullying) of your classmate. It was a stupid comment you made, but you are 15, stupid comments often go with the territory - your teacher is an adult though and has no such excuse. He made the mistake of laughing at it, but then he went on to add to his unprofessional error, speculating on the lad's sexual experience. Now THAT is unacceptable.

If he were a colleague of mine, I would have reported him, and have done in similar incidents. Teachers should set standards of behaviour and this guy failed to do that. His opposite reaction to the same 'joke' about the gay kid just says to the class he has different 'standards' for different kids and is also offensive.

It's like the teachers who would have you out the door for using the 'n' word, but respond with something like 'ah settle down lads' when the word 'gay' is used as an insult.

Unprofessional. It is double standards like that which perpetuate homophobia and allow it to thrive. If someone cannot watch what they say, then teaching is not the job for them. One throwaway comment or 'joke' can affect a child for life.

Hmm_Messiah

At a guess I would suggest maybe the teacher was being sensitive to the gay bit because of some school discussion on the topic, or indeed previous history or experience. The joking inthe first case was I guess inappropriate but I can easily understand it, there were 2 teachers I had who i often joked with, or exchanged very smart comments etc. At 15/16 it was nice being some how "respected" in that way.

What you wrote is not at all offensive.

I know there is a sensitivity about young gay people and suicide with some professionals; they develop a real fear of anything triggering harm in a susceptible person; good intention but wrong way to go.

If the incident bugs you big time you shold talk to the teacher, outside of the class room situation he might have an explanation, or just an apology for an off day; you yourself know best what this teacher is like normally.

And well done on asking the question

damien

Your teacher is gay.

UU

The thing is that GLBT people shouldn't be treated differently. We should be tretaed the same as for any other minority group - Black, Jewish. Well, it seems to me that it was your teacher who was really discriminating against gay people or straight people, certainly not you of course. School can be a terribly tough place full of different types of people but rules apply to everybody where everyone should be fairly and equally treated.

These days, everything is so politically correct that we will all turn into a group of boring saps. Appartantly it was considered offensive in school to say Black people - it had to be coloured people yet black people at school could call others White people.

Hmm_Messiah

We should be treated the same as for any other minority group - Black, Jewish.

I've never really got this need to class people as minorities - its and extra-ordinary power-centered term and suggests the world is dualistic while it is far from. Any group of people sharing a trait become a minority but so what?

Its not that all this "groups" should be treated the same - they are the same! and grouping them is an artificial construct.

Sapien

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

I've never really got this need to class people as minorities ...

The need arises when certain groups of people are treated differently, or require different treatment. A minority is no more or less artificial than the criteria upon which it is defined.

UU

And thus, it is almost impossible to avoid classification of minority groups. For example, it is important for disabled people to classed as a minority group because it allows special services and help for them by others. If they were weren't seen to have special needs, then that would be a problem. As for LGBTs, we are in the minority in relation to sexual orientation of society where heterosexuality is in the dominance in relation to size and unfortunately power. Therefor, if all LGBTs come together, we can fight for the rights we deserve instead of being treating like second-class citizens.

There will always be class division and different groups of people because people are different in many ways. That isn't to say that it's wrong but natural. Communism doesn't work, for that reason.

Edgehead

Thanks for the opinions, also I forgot to say that I told the gay lad the next time he was in and he just laughed and jokingly said something along the lines of "Thats why you don't mess with gays, everyone loves us!!!!!"

Also, I have several black friends and they get more angry when people make a big deal about what to call them then what people call them if you get me. We were listening to rap in a free period and we were singing along and ofcourse the word "niggar" pops up quite a bit, and the teacher supervising told us to turn it off as it is disrespectful to black people and should be outlawed, this was said infront of about 5 black people who were also singing along, one of them stood up to her and said "We should decide what is disrespectful to us, not you" she replied roughly with "But white people were saying the...n word" my mate then said "But miss, we are niggars, maybe 50 years its disrespctful but now, when in context, there's nothing wrong with it"

This is another example of PC madness!!!

damien

UU wrote:

we are in the minority in relation to sexual orientation of society where heterosexuality is in the dominance in relation to size and unfortunately power.

There are plenty P L E N T Y of homosexual politicians and civil servants in positions of power. Is it heterosexual society's fault that these homosexuals do not stand up for their own rights?

Sapien

Edgehead wrote:

This is another example of PC madness!!!

You are *way* too young to be trotting out that trope.

damien.m wrote:

There are plenty P L E N T Y of homosexual politicians and civil servants in positions of power.

Oh really? Like who?

imprezza

It seems to me that the only people who have no rights are those who arent GLBT, disabled, foreign, all the so called minority groups can shout discrimination but no-one else can. I've loads of friends who get attacked for being tall or small, red haired or wear glasses and they can't do a thing. I can because I'm bi. Not a very fair society. And everyone knows about the gay politicians etc but we can't name them or its libel or defamation, whatever,so I don't get your drift. are you homo, sapien?

Sapien

imprezza wrote:

And everyone knows about the gay politicians etc but we can't name them or its libel or defamation

Exactly.

imprezza wrote:

are you homo, sapien?

What difference does that make?

UU

Actually, I used to get terrible bullying for having red hair! Totally unfair! I should set up a group supporting the rights of red-haired people!!!

Hmm_Messiah

Sapien wrote:

The need arises when certain groups of people are treated differently, or require different treatment. A minority is no more or less artificial than the criteria upon which it is defined.

1.. you can take it that no post by me is addressed to you or that i have any interest in or place any value in your deranged tendency to mutilate the english langauage or display your "intelligence" for the sake of it.

2. This being a forum where "submitting reply" is facilitated with its own little button 'll reply only by suggesting you gain some understanding of the meaning of "need" , it may prevent you wasting time validating non existent ones.

it is important for disabled people to classed as a minority group because it allows special services and help for them by others. If they were weren't seen to have special needs, then that would be a problem.

What I meant was I reject this notion of duality: black/white, good/evil, straight/bent etc - "disabled " means that they are less than, it is more true to say they are differently abled, otherwise intrinsically you are saying they are somehow less. they have the same needs, just these require different resoursces and approaches.

As for LGBTs, we are in the minority in relation to sexual orientation of society where heterosexuality is in the dominance in relation to size and unfortunately power. Therefor, if all LGBTs come together, we can fight for the rights we deserve instead of being treating like second-class citizens

.

I never understand this LGBT grouping, what has transgender to do with orientation?. that aside again I find this concept of gay v. straight as being a misunderstanding of sexuality - a common one indeed but that doesn't make it so. Even your use of the word "fight" - Is it really a fight? I'm not criticising you at all, its just how language seems to become less important, but to me, as a Wiccan, and in other ways it seems essential, Language seems to be both the cause of barriers and the sourse of progress in remving them.

Sapien

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

Sapien wrote:

The need arises when certain groups of people are treated differently, or require different treatment. A minority is no more or less artificial than the criteria upon which it is defined.

1.. you can take it that no post by me is addressed to you or that i have any interest in or place any value in your deranged tendency to mutilate the english langauage or display your "intelligence" for the sake of it.

2. This being a forum where "submitting reply" is facilitated with its own little button 'll reply only by suggesting you gain some understanding of the meaning of "need" , it may prevent you wasting time validating non existent ones.

What an aback-takingly hostile response. I was not aware that one may only respond to posts that have been addressed personally. Forgive me, but was UU's post to which you replied with:"I've never really got this need to class people as minorities - its and extra-ordinary power-centered term and suggests the world is dualistic while it is far from. Any group of people sharing a trait become a minority but so what?", addressed to you?

I responded to your post with a salient clarification of terms. I did it in a concise and straightforward way. My use of language was correct and unadventurous. If you have no interest in having your opinions engaged with - fine, I suggest you say as much and save us all a little time. If you have a problem with my style of communication, please elaborate. Precisely what in those two sentences offends you?

As to your second point, your reference to the meaning of the word "need" does in no way explain your objection to the recognition of minorities. Awareness of minorities and their circumstances is necessary, beneficial and advantageous to the equitable functioning of society at large. I find myself using more words than are really necessary because of your cryptic objections, moments after having been told that I am, I can only assume, verbose.

Now I realise that the following was not addressed to me, but I feel that it is directly relevant to our exchange, so I hope you'll forgive my butting in...

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

I never understand this LGBT grouping, what has transgender to do with orientation?. that aside again I find this concept of gay v. straight as being a misunderstanding of sexuality - a common one indeed but that doesn't make it so. Even your use of the word "fight" - Is it really a fight? I'm not criticising you at all, its just how language seems to become less important, but to me, as a Wiccan, and in other ways it seems essential, Language seems to be both the cause of barriers and the sourse of progress in remving them.

Firstly, the grouping of transgender people with homosexual people is quite cognate. Both face challenges in a society based on traditional values because both seek to transgress traditional gender roles in their lifestyles. The groups are of course distinct, but the dialectics between the status quo and the respective aspirations of the two groups are all but identical.

As to whether the LGBT people face a "fight", a battle, a struggle, or challenge is a useless semantic question. You refer to language repeatedly in your posts, but at no point do you actually explain what you believe. Few would object to a statement that LGBT people face inequalities because of their sexual orientations or gender identities. Whether we choose to describe the process by which we aim to better our lot in emotive or neutral terminology is of trivial significance.

I find it painfully ironic that you accuse me of violence against the language in response to my straightforward and economically phrased post, and then drag us all through some cryptic mire of linguistic obsession, quarrelling over simple definitions and innocuous turns of phrase.

I realise that musing over the importance of language and its effects on the parameters of discussion, commensurability, interparadigm mapping and hermeneutic conflict et cetera is all the vogue these days, and a quick-fix way to seem intelligent in a debate in which one has very little of real value to contribute, but I think the people here deserve some concrete answers. Explain why society may cease to recognise the needs of minorities. Define the word "need" as you would have us use it. And, for the love of God, explain what the fact that your are Wiccan has to do with anything, and why it is reasonable for you to declare yourself as Wiccan, here of all places, when it is apparently unnecessary to employ such labels as gay or straight.

Stark

Sapien wrote:

I realise that musing over the importance of language and its effects on the parameters of discussion, commensurability, interparadigm mapping and hermeneutic conflict et cetera is all the vogue these days, and a quick-fix way to seem intelligent in a debate in which one has very little of real value to contribute, but I think the people here deserve some concrete answers.

I think I need a promptory, em I mean a dictionary.

damien

When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.

Untense

damien.m wrote:

When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.

Burned...*



*Not a herpes joke.

Sapien

*sigh*

WexfordMusings

Whilst some are discussing language in such a "verbose" manner,

I would like to ask them why the GLBT population is classed as a minority. Common publications and reports, both by GLBT organisations and different arms of the Government accept that about 10% of the population, give or take is GLBT.

This means that, give or take, there is about 400,000 Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered. I dont think this is a small number. This figure can be then extended by saying that if all the GLBT people in Ireland voted in the next election, considering that around 50% of the population votes, the GLBT population would consist 20% of the electorate. This figure, again, should not be ignored, and I ask the question, is the GLBT population really in the minority.

All GLBT peoples need to stand up and be counted. Let's make a difference, in whatever form you see fit, whether struggle, fight, argue or even shock horror - VOTE

Hmm_Messiah

I would like to ask them why the GLBT population is classed as a minority.

erm ? are you serious?

majority = the bigger part, mnority = the smaller part

A definition: Minority: Being or relating to the smaller in number of two parts

and I ask the question, is the GLBT population really in the minority

yes

Stark

What Hmm_Messiah said.

damien

WexfordMusings wrote:

Common publications and reports, both by GLBT organisations and different arms of the Government accept that about 10% of the population, give or take is GLBT.

Not so. It is less than 10% in this country and waaaay less than 10% identify as being LGBT. Can you produce CSO figures and reports please?

This figure can be then extended

You mean fudged, because the rest of what you say is make-believe wishing upon a star type logic.

if all the GLBT people in Ireland voted in the next election, considering that around 50% of the population votes, the GLBT population would consist 20% of the electorate.

My god, we should have a revolution! We could overthrow the Government if we all just united under one colourful flag and forgot about every other aspect of our lives and personal philosophies. If all who identified as LGBT voted, every single one I think it'd be closer to 8% of the electorate.

However, LGBT people are just as idealistically and politically diverse as the rest of the population and therefore are hardly going to unite, are hardly going to buck the trend of political disillusionment by having 100% turnout and are hardly all going to vote the same way.

This figure, again, should not be ignored, and I ask the question, is the GLBT population really in the minority.

But the figure is neither fact or reality based.

All GLBT peoples need to stand up and be counted. Let's make a difference, in whatever form you see fit, whether struggle, fight, argue or even shock horror - VOTE

I agree there but you still need to be realistic when being idealistic. The best way to bring about change is to either have the Government change the laws as part of their political manifestos or get a few million quid together and sue them in the local and then European Courts. Democracy is like cooking in a way, you choose various ingredients from different sources to suit your taste. I'd vote for a conservative non-gay with a fisically sound political philosophy over a liberal who think they can improve the world by taxing me into oblivion.

Syth

imprezza wrote:

we can't name them or its libel or defamation

Now that's an interesting legal question.

Is it defamation to be called gay? What if someone called you black? Or said you were a Prodestant? Defemation and libel implies that your reputation has been damaged. Is it damaging to be thought of as a Prodestant? The law clearly says that it's illegal to discriminate against people because they are gay, so how can the law then say that it's damaging to your reputation if people think you're gay?