Why is homophobia tolerated here?

[Haven]

If a person were to join this forum making racist comments, using and implying racial slurs, and saying that racial minorities were disgusting, evil, and inherently inferior, they would certainly be swiftly banned (and rightly so!). This person could say the same things about women, people from certain countries, people with disabilities, and the reaction would be the same -- a swift ban.

However, on this forum -- which prides itself on civility -- people can make bigoted and untrue comments about lesbians, gays, and bisexuals with absolutely no consequences. Not so much as a warning. Certain members have been making blatantly homophobic statements for years without even a moderator comment.

Why the double standard? Why is racism banned, but homophobia and heterosexual supremacy tolerated? Are LGB people somehow a less-deserving minority?

[Haven]

See the example where my past tense reference to Bruce Jenner as a man - because at that time in his life he was a man - was deemed offensive. Note that I didn't refer to Kaitlyn Jenner as a man/he/him.

"Bruce" was simply Caitlyn's "male" front that was foisted on her at birth and which she maintained to keep from being discovered as a trans woman. "Bruce" never really existed and Caitlyn has always been female, so it's always appropriate to refer to her with her current name and she/her/hers pronouns.

Also, it's Caitlyn with a C.

[Lion IRC]

See the example where my past tense reference to Bruce Jenner as a man - because at that time in his life he was a man - was deemed offensive. Note that I didn't refer to Kaitlyn Jenner as a man/he/him.

"Bruce" was simply Caitlyn's "male" front that was foisted on her at birth and which she maintained to keep from being discovered as a trans woman. "Bruce" never really existed and Caitlyn has always been female, so it's always appropriate to refer to her with her current name and she/her/hers pronouns.

Also, it's Caitlyn with a C.

This is a good example of the difficulty in dealing with retrospective revision of language.

Bruce Jenner is asking that the pages of history be rewritten.

In the dystopian novel 1984 the citizens of Oceania are expected to do this - affirm and embrace the opposite of that which had been previously, historically true.

The history books say... Bruce/man/him/he.
But you say there has never been Bruce. Only "Caitlin". Never Mr Jenner. Never a medical/biological gender 'male' on his birth certificate. Only ever female Caitlin.

That amounts to Orwellian double-think.

...the ministry of truth says we have always been at war with Eastasia There has never been a time when Oceania has not been at war with Eastasia.

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 129 by Lion IRC]

Odd that this is posted as a reply to Haven's post 128, when its clear that you either didn't read or didn't understand what Haven said in that post. Probably should (re)read the post and take another whack at it.

[Lion IRC]

Perhaps if there was a clearer definition of what constitutes homophobia it might be easier to draw a line for Moderators.

Not likely, the definition is perfectly clear as is.

How can if it be perfectly clear if;

...the meaning of words change over time, this is a simple fact of linguistics that happens to be inconvenient for you in this particular case. You'll get over it.

I'm calling you out on your repeated false claim that a genetic fallacy is occurring here.
You have failed to answer my request to demonstrate what illogical or false conclusion or inference I have actually stated.

I know what the genetic fallacy is. You know what the genetic fallacy is. That is not the problem.
I have plainly stated that the meaning of the word homophobic changed.
You agree. So that is not in dispute.

I am NOT claiming that thing "X" is better/worse, true/false, superior/inferior on account of that thing's prior origin.

Now, you first accused me of committing the genetic fallacy at post #95.

[Replying to post 92 by enviousintheeverafter]

Phobia -
An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
synonyms: abnormal fear, irrational fear, obsessive fear, fear, dread, horror, terror, hatred, loathing, detestation, distaste, aversion, antipathy, revulsion, repulsion;

None of the above apply to me. Nothing extreme or irrational about opposing SSM or believing in gender-balanced nuclear families.

That's not what "homophobia" means. Homophobia is not the phobia of homosexuality. This is a genetic fallacy.

"Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT)." .....

But you can clearly see that I have made no assertion whatsoever that there can only be one narrow definition of homophobia. I have not asserted that the earlier definition is better BECAUSE it came first. Or that the latter is worse BECAUSE it is more recent.

I invited you to present here in the thread, what you believe to be the formal logical fallacy and to demonstrate it by way of a syllogism - paraphrasing anything I have stated.
EG. Premiss, premiss...therefore (attempted conclusion)

Lion IRC claims "X"
Lion IRC claims "Y"
And Lion IRC claims it follows by necessary inference that therefore "Z"

Please fill in the X, Y, Z gaps.

In order to commit the genetic fallacy I would have to be arguing that something was good/bad because its antecedent was good/bad.

[Hamsaka]

See the example where my past tense reference to Bruce Jenner as a man - because at that time in his life he was a man - was deemed offensive. Note that I didn't refer to Kaitlyn Jenner as a man/he/him.

"Bruce" was simply Caitlyn's "male" front that was foisted on her at birth and which she maintained to keep from being discovered as a trans woman. "Bruce" never really existed and Caitlyn has always been female, so it's always appropriate to refer to her with her current name and she/her/hers pronouns.

Also, it's Caitlyn with a C.

This is a good example of the difficulty in dealing with retrospective revision of language.

Bruce Jenner is asking that the pages of history be rewritten.

In the dystopian novel 1984 the citizens of Oceania are expected to do this - affirm and embrace the opposite of that which had been previously, historically true.

The history books say... Bruce/man/him/he.
But you say there has never been Bruce. Only "Caitlin". Never Mr Jenner. Never a medical/biological gender 'male' on his birth certificate. Only ever female Caitlin.

That amounts to Orwellian double-think.

...the ministry of truth says we have always been at war with Eastasia There has never been a time when Oceania has not been at war with Eastasia.

It looks like you didn't recognize Haven's post as an attempt to help you understand, put yourself in another's shoes, or witness the humanity, but that is what their post was. The slightest effort toward compassion -- for the person, if not the 'sin' -- would prevented you from continuing to mock Jenner's experience.

[Lion IRC]

[Replying to post 132 by Hamsaka]

I beg your pardon!
I am not mocking anyone.
Please withdraw that accusation.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Perhaps if there was a clearer definition of what constitutes homophobia it might be easier to draw a line for Moderators.

Not likely, the definition is perfectly clear as is.

How can if it be perfectly clear if;

...the meaning of words change over time, this is a simple fact of linguistics that happens to be inconvenient for you in this particular case. You'll get over it.

That words change doesn't imply that the present meaning is unknown. Why on Earth would you think it does? Indeed, we couldn't even say that the meaning changed in the first place if we didn't know both the past and present meaning.

You have failed to answer my request to demonstrate what illogical or false conclusion or inference I have actually stated.

I've actually stated it now two or three times.

I am NOT claiming that thing "X" is better/worse, true/false, superior/inferior on account of that thing's prior origin.

Yes, you did; you had claimed (it is true) that "homophobia" means fear of gays because its etymology/original meaning was homo(gay)-phobia(fear). In particular, you claimed that "homophobia" doesn't apply to you because you do not fear gays- i.e. that the etymology of "homophobia" doesn't apply to you. But that "homophobia" doesn't apply to you because the etmyological meaning of "homophobia" doesn't apply to you only follows if you're (committing the genetic fallacy of) inferring that etymological meaning of "homophobia"->actual meaning of "homophobia"

So, either admit the genetic fallacy, or admit that your claim that "homophobia" doesn't apply to you because you don't fear gays was mistaken. Either way, the result is the same.

[Danmark]

See the example where my past tense reference to Bruce Jenner as a man - because at that time in his life he was a man - was deemed offensive. Note that I didn't refer to Kaitlyn Jenner as a man/he/him.

"Bruce" was simply Caitlyn's "male" front that was foisted on her at birth and which she maintained to keep from being discovered as a trans woman. "Bruce" never really existed and Caitlyn has always been female, so it's always appropriate to refer to her with her current name and she/her/hers pronouns.

Also, it's Caitlyn with a C.

This is a good example of the difficulty in dealing with retrospective revision of language.

Bruce Jenner is asking that the pages of history be rewritten.

Not at all. What is clear is that those who preach about this 'sin' demonstrate a disinterest in understanding others and have no respect for those they see as different. This is a common 'Christian' perspective despite Jesus of Nazareth teaching the opposite.

Even if one is completely ignorant of the biology/psychology involved in LGBT issues, a compassionate, understanding person who loves others as Jesus demands would want to be sensitive to others who are different and part of a minority community that has traditionally suffered ridicule from the majority. Instead we see over and over a visceral hostility aimed the very people who most deserve our understanding. And this hostility is backed up by the 'Word of God.' It is nothing less than the new racism. And both racism and homophobia are supported by Christians claiming "The Bible Tells Me So." Any one unfamiliar with Christianity's racist history should carefully review:
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gab_racism.htm

"Thank God I am black. White people will have a lot to answer for at the last judgement."
__ Desmond Tutu, Archbishop of Cape Town, South Africa

[Haven]

This is a good example of the difficulty in dealing with retrospective revision of language.

Bruce Jenner is asking that the pages of history be rewritten.

Your post is simply bigoted, transphobic nonsense. "Bruce" Jenner does not exist. Her name is Caitlyn. Caitlyn. And she is a woman, a "she," not a he. Your transphobic insistence on misnaming and misgendering her is beyond uncivil.

In the dystopian novel 1984 the citizens of Oceania are expected to do this - affirm and embrace the opposite of that which had been previously, historically true.

The history books say... Bruce/man/him/he.
But you say there has never been Bruce. Only "Caitlin". Never Mr Jenner. Never a medical/biological gender 'male' on his birth certificate. Only ever female Caitlin.

It's Caitlyn, and yes, that's my position. She has always had a female gender identity. Read this: http://srlp.org/resources/trans-101/

There is no such thing as "biological gender." You're confusing gender with sex. Ms. Jenner was assigned to the male sex at birth, but her gender identity has always been female.

[otseng]

I didn't ask if "race" could be discussed. I asked if 'racism' should be tolerated.

Example:
"Europeans are intellectually inferior to Asians."

We might start with a common question in America these days: Do Asians have higher I.Q.s than whites? The answer is probably yes....

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1208 ... ve-excerpt

Couldn't your example, "Do Asians have higher IQs than whites?" qualify as a racist statement? Couldn't whites be offended by such a statement?

As for racism, by itself, it is not against the rules either. If it's defined as "the belief that all members of a race possess characteristics specific to that race" (as in your example above), then it's not against the rules. If it's defined as "hatred directed against someone of a different race", then it would be against the rules.

"My religion says being of African descent makes one an animal; therefore it is a sin for them to procreate or call themselves human."

What religion says that?

I'd like to go back to my earlier post:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 341#722341

Homosexuality will remain a debatable subject here. It's not because the forum is based on "fundamentalist Christian principles". If that were so, then attacking Fundamentalism would also be banned.

Actually, if people want to debate race, gender, or national origin, posters are free to also. Those subjects are not banned here.

Where it would cross the line is when a poster personally judges another because of race, gender, sexuality, etc. That would be off limits.

I'm still not clear what exactly are you and Haven asking for on this forum. That participants cannot attack homosexuality whatsoever? If that's the case, then I've already stated that's not possible. Pretty much any topic is fair game on this forum.

Now, I would agree that all people, regardless of gender identification should be treated civilly and respectfully. But, there is no need to agree with that person in order to be respectful.