Is there a word that means “a hatred of gay people”, rather than “a fear of or aversion to gay people”? Surely there are people who simply hate homosexuality without necessarily fearing it, and vice versa. Someone who hates homosexuality should probably be condemned for their unreasonable and hateful prejudices, but should someone who actually fears homosexuality but without hating it be condemned in the same way? Why isn’t there a distinction?
And similarly, why do we have words like “arachnophobia” which means a fear of something (not necessarily a hatred of it; though you might hate what you fear, that isn’t necessarily always the case, nor is the opposite always true either (fearing what you hate)), but “homophobia” is used to mean “hatred of homosexuality” rather than a genuine fear of it without necessarily hating it?
It makes me feel a bit sorry (as much as one can) for people who might genuinely be afraid of the idea of homosexuality, maybe even struggling with their own sexuality or possibly in denial of being homosexual themself, but without hating it at all (even possibly being supportive of it), not having a word that conveys a fear of the concept/phenomenon without any kind of disdain for it, since “homophobia” would generally be interpreted to mean something far more negative. Usually when someone has a phobia for something, we support them to deal with it in a non-accusatory way, but in this case, well, I guess there isn’t even a word for that kind of phobia if it’s actually a phobia in the usual sense.
Its your fault for acting like a dick to people who are ignorant. That was my entire point that you completely ignored. That are ignorant people out who’ve been fed some bullshit by society about what the gay community is and isn’t.
They aren’t hateful and would in fact be friends and allies but your approach of “there is no ignorance without hate therefore I’m justified in being a dick!” would result in you being an asshole and guess what, when someone is a dick to other dick people respond with hate even if they didn’t already dislike that person to begin with.
Here’s an analogy for you, if you go into a forest and find a stick and hit some animal with the stick the animal will respond defensively. It started off scared but not it considers you a threat. That’s what you’re doing and trying to justify it after the fact.
Edit: I’m adding on to this. Fucking look at MLK Jr. He encountered both hate and ignorance sometimes together and sometimes just ignorance. You never once saw him preach “go be an asshole”. I don’t agree with always meeting them with love but I do at least agree with him on meeting the ignorance with love and compassion.
Nah if you’re an adult and you’re “scared” of gay people, you’re a bigot. Ignorance is an excuse for fear to a point. If you’re a kid getting indoctrinated into hating others, that’s one thing, but if you’re over 18 and stay “scared” of a whole group of people instead of educating yourself or even (gasp!) interacting with members of the community, that’s bigotry.
Please note that most people in my life are fairly ignorant about queer issues. Their ignorance doesn’t translate into “fear”. It usually translates into curiosity, or simply indifference. It’s not the ignorance that makes one a bigot, it’s the “fear”.
Queer people expecting rights and respect from cishet people is analogous to animal abuse, that is a good take! Love it.
Yes, they are. They may have been taught to be that way, but however they got there, that’s how they ended up. People indoctrinated in to hate still spread hate. And it’s not the duty of the people targeted by that hate to educate the people oppressing them. They may choose to do so, but that’s their choice. There is no scenario in which the hateful is owed education by the people they’re hating on, even if the hateful person simply “doesn’t know any better”
You’re the person with the stick in this analogy. You may have been told that carrying the stick is ok, and you may not have known better, but either way, you were the person walking in to the forest and hitting things, but the difference is, you expect the critters that you were hitting to tell you that it’s a bad thing, and you’re upset at the critters for not educating you, instead of being upset at the people who told you the stick was ok in the first place.
Outreach isn’t a duty, it’s a choice, and unless you’re a dick, it’s not something you expect from every member of the vulnerable folk you’ve been hating on. And on top of that, if the actions of one or more people you personally don’t like impact your acceptance of an entire vulnerable minority group, then, well, you’ve still got work to do, because you’re still carrying that stick.
So are they hateful of gay people because of ‘some bullshit by society’ or are they not hateful?
This is called Victim Blaming (the caps are for the concept, not the literal pairing of words) because it implies it’s the role of every minority to convince people not to oppress them, and not on the individual to not be a bigot. To see why this is the issue it is, replace ‘being gay’ with ‘being raped’ - is it, say, a woman’s ‘job’ to convince men not to rape them, or is it on men to know not to rape people?