Phobia vs ism

REGARDING THE LIMITATION OF USING THE TERM "HOMOPHOBIA"

Wouldn't it be just easier to talk about and use the terms "heterosexism"(1) and "heteronormativity"(2)? Of course this might take some education, but it is inclusive and more accurate terminology.

Most acts of discrimination, vilification and yobbish behaviour are not homophobia, biphobia or transphobia (all being the fear of 'x') but are resultant from attitudes of normalcy or even superiority from a heterosexual perspective.

It is the same attitudes that cause sexism, racism, nazism, anti-semitism etc. It is definitely an ism rather than a phobia. Even though there are a few clinical phobics out there, those people are more likely to shun us or campaign against us rather than attack.

Focussing on 'anti-gay', 'anti-lesbian' or even 'anti-bi' or 'anti-trans' behaviour is not appropriate because the specificity of these focal points always means that a fringe group is left out. Using the term homophobia to try and encompass all the above is also incorrect and reduces the visibility of key segments. What about the heterosexual transvestite or the straight fag hag?

The English language is poor by anyone's definition, but the best terms that I know (when explained correctly) are heterosexism and heteronormativity. They also put the problem fairly and squarely on the perpetrators, being (generally speaking) the hetero side of the fence, rather than focussing on the identity of the victims.

check out: this site

As I state in one of my personal signature file, "End heterosexism - embrace diversity".

(1) HETEROSEXISM

The assumption that everyone is a heterosexual until it is otherwise known and that being heterosexual is the proper sexual orientation.

(2) HETERONORMATIVE

the prevailing culture that falsely views heterosexuality as ‘normal’ behaviour and alternative sexuality or gender identity as deviant. i.e. the nuclear family on the qtr acre block with a white picket fence, a dog, cat and a Holden Commodore is considered heteronormative. Anyone falling outside the "norms" characterised by a generalised view of heterosexual society would be considered non-heteronormative.

Here is a more detailed definition of the concept:

By heteronormativity we mean the institutions, structures of understanding, and practical orientations that make heterosexuality seem not only coherent--that is, organized as a sexuality--but also privileged.


Its coherence is always provisional, and its privilege can take several (sometimes contradictory) forms; unmarked, as the basic idiom of the personal and the social; or marked as a natural state; or projected as an ideal or moral accomplishment.


It consists less of norms that could be summarized as a body of doctrine than of a sense of rightness produced in contradictory manifestations--often unconscious, immanent to practice or to institutions. Contexts that have little visible relation to sex practice, such as life narrative and generational identity, can be heteronormative in this sense, while in other contexts forms of sex between men and women might not be heteronormative.


Heteronormativity is thus a concept distinct from heterosexuality. One of the most conspicuous differences is that it has no parallel, unlike heterosexuality, which organizes homosexuality as its opposite. Because homosexuality can never have the invisible, tacit, society-founding rightness that heterosexuality has, it would not be possible to speak of "homonormativity" in the same sense.


See Michael Warner, "fear of a Queer Planet," Social Text, no. 29 (1991): 3-17."

Source: University of Chicago

[+/-] show/hide this post