Heterophobia

What kind of actions then you consider heterophobic?

 

I'm not aware of any evidence to believe that heterophobia actually exists beyond maybe a minute scale but I'll play devils advocate:

You could say that heterophobia could be a completely rational fear in most of the world as queer people are constantly at risk of being beaten, murdered, imprisoned, or executed by straight people. Therefore they would obviously be afraid of them.

 

If non-black people are afraid of black people because black people are significantly more likely to commit violent crime, does that make it rational, or racist?

 

Black people in most Western nations are disproportionately represented in crime figures. This isn't stated in an attempt to upset anyone - I'm just playing devil's advocate myself. It's like men are more likely to sexually assault a woman than vice versa, so does that mean women should fear men? In fact, men in general are far more likely to commit crime of any kind than women - so men should fear other men.

I can't speak for anyone else but I don't fear people unless they give me reason to. I don't avoid heterosexual people because I think they might bash me to death. Likewise, I don't cross over the street if I see a group of black men walking towards me, even if the statistics say that group of black men are more likely to attack me than anyone else. I judge people on an individual basis.

 

I come from a country with openly homophobic government, and acceptance levels for complete equality (marriage, adoption, trans rights etc.) below 30% depending on study. So, meeting someone straight, I have like 70% of them being to some degrees homophobic, and almost certainly transphobic. My straight friends who think I'm a gay/bi male still express transphpbia to varying degrees, which is the reason for my not coming out as trans among others.

However...

I can't really understand what would constitute "heterophobia". Other fears, sure - like, I need to fight against my own anger towards Catholics - who represent vast majority of people that opress me, or that I need to be careful not to be always suspicious towards anyone remotely Christian. Or being afraid of other people in general, that they might reject me or simply not fully accept (high chance as I mentioned). These are, however, biases based on people's views and my experience with people who subscribe to certain ideas; I'm aware of my bias and I'm trying to suppress it and be open to people.

Heterophobia? In my perspective, it does exist only as a thing invented by right wing idiots who say lgbt community is "intolerant" of their biggotry. And yes, I am intolerant towards biggotry.
So, it is hard for me to imagine what would heterophobia mean. Hatred based on what? Homo- and transphobia at least can be explained with lgbt people appearing weird or deviant, or religious reasons, whatever really... I see little basis to be against straight people. Hate religion, hate the right wing... sure, that happens, even I feel that way when I'm angry or feeling low. But as far as heterophobia goes, where I live I only met the term as a right wing invention aimed against lgbt, for being intolerant of "traditional views".

 

I'm amazed that most people on this thread seem to think that there are "group rights" as "gay rights" and "minority rights". This thinking is dangerous and wrong. There are only individual rights and individuals. Groups are social constructs in a sense that they don't have emotions or thoughts.

Dismissing discrimination and bullying an individual heterosexual faces from a LGBT person as "crying about being reminded of their privilege" is cruel, inhumane and utterly wrong. There are lot of white heterosexual males (WHM) who in the feminist theories are the "elite" and group with "power" but who in reality lacks all of those. Poverty, mental problems, poor relationships and discrimination are all nearly universal problems irrespective of your "group". Sure, some groups have group specific problems and same is true for white heterosexual men. It's just that the specific problems (like pressure to succeed and to conform to certain stereotypes) faced by WHM are completely silenced. And no WHM wants to talk about their problems because the role that has been reserved for WHM is that he should not complain or whine but maintain toughness. Worst thing that he can do is to cry in public. It's OK for gays and women and many other groups but not to men and especially not to white men.

Saying that being a white heterosexual male brings power is nonsense. True, comparatively speaking a lot of white heterosexual males have power but the opposite is not true. Just because you are one does not make you powerful. Just like being a muslim does not make you a suicide terrorist although virtually all suicide terrorists are muslims.

So if you think that LGBT person cannot offend or be hurtful or oppressive to WHM because on aggregate level WHM tend to do it more to LGBT persons think again. Is it OK for Islamic terrorist to bomb US civilians because the US kills many more muslim civilians? Wronging does not make another wrong right.

 

With that logic Apartheid governments in South Africa were not oppressive because the whites in there are a minority.

 

Yes, a statistical minority. Please don't pretend that's the same thing as being a minority in both senses. Women make up roughly half a given country's population, but share many traits with other oppressed groups, whether they be ethnic, religious, or sexual, so can be counted as a sort of minority group.

 

Thank you, not really relevant to the topic but now I understand why when terms such as PoC used in relation to the all-powerful white people rubs me the wrong way.

 

ok but why is your signature the formula for quadratic equations?

 

Perhaps you could then enlighten me what does a minority mean if it does not refer to numbers? Since the PC brigade is using poorly specified terminology that can mean different things at different times and contexts it's pretty difficult to keep up.

Besides, the whole point of that comment was to highlight the idiocy of saying that minorities can never be oppressors. Of course they can and sometimes they are. In fact groups can never be oppressors because groups don't act, only individuals act. A powerful member of a minority can oppress a less powerful individual belonging to the majority. For some reasons some people don't really grasp this.

 

When the Tyra Show was around, there was an episode on racism and homo/heterophobia. The man who was heterophobic didn't hate straight people because some of them hated gay people, he hated them because they where heterosexual. Though as outlandish as it may seem, there could be a possibility that heterophobia could be coming from the fear of homophobic people and not heterosexuals as a whole. With that being said, my statement should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm merely speaking from an assumption, not fact.

 

A lot of bigotry is based on fear, that changes nothing. I knew a girl in my old school district who had become so obsessed with the idea that misogyny is built into near literally every aspect of society that she hated men. Is that justified? Most of the prejudice against Muslims comes from the fear that they are terrorists. Is that justified? I would argue that most prejudice is based on fear, so while I would agree with you there, I don't see how that makes it any different from any other sort of prejudice.

 

Heterophobia exists and it's pointless to pretend it doesn't.

 

Sure, minority groups can act as oppressors: just look as Israel. Jews are a minority group in just about every other country in the world, though, whereas there, they're a majority. Even so, look at Latin America, where many have a "white elite" who make up no more than a quarter of the population, in most cases.

Same thing in Africa, where certain tribes are dominant over others. The issue of blackness doesn't come up, since everyone or most people are black in those countries. Just because someone has the ability to "oppress" someone on an individual level doesn't mean it changes the overall structure of a society that favors certain traits.

Since you asked nicely:

Minority, a culturally, ethnically, or racially distinct group that coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant group. As the term is used in the social sciences, this subordinancy is the chief defining characteristic of a minority group. As such, minority status does not necessarily correlate to population.Jan 9, 2015

minority | sociology | Britannica.com