442
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

If that's how reality works, you can provide me with statistics that show that the majority of homophobes are themselves queer.

[-] Donut@leminal.space 3 points 2 years ago

Statistics might be hard. But there's studies https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/overview.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609516003192

Next to these studies there's also examples of staunch anti-queer people who later got caught being queer themselves, especially politicians.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

That first one is paywalled, but I found it here: https://archive.ph/DwLa8#selection-707.0-735.328

I also find their evidence quite spurious:

In four studies, the researchers looked at the discrepancies between what people say about their sexual orientation and their implicit sexual orientation based on a reaction-time test. The studies involved college students from Germany and the United States. For the implicit measure, students had to categorize words and pictures flashed onto a computer screen into "gay" or "straight" groups. Words included "gay," "straight," "homosexual" and "heterosexual," while the pictures showed straight and gay couples. Before each trial, participants were primed with the word "me" or "others" flashed momentarily onto a computer screen. The researchers said quicker reaction time for "me" and "gay," and a slower association of "me" with "straight" would indicate said an implicit gay orientation. [Why Gay Parents May Be the Best Parents]

In another experiment, the researchers measured implicit sexual orientation by having participants choose to browse same-sex or opposite-sex photos on a computer screen.

Questionnaires also teased out the parenting style the participants were exposed to, with students asked how much they agreed or disagreed with statements such as: "I felt controlled and pressured in certain ways;" and "I felt free to be who I am." To gauge homophobia in a household, students responded to items such as, "It would be upsetting for my mom to find out she was alone with a lesbian" or "My dad avoids gay men whenever possible."

Participants indicated their own level of homophobia, both overt and implicit; in word-completion tasks, students wrote down the first three words that came to mind when prompted with some of the words' letters. Students were primed at some point with the word "gay" to see how that impacted the amount of aggressive words used.

For example, that last part measured impulsive reactions to things. Someone can have an impulsive negative reaction to the word 'gay' for many reasons and not be homophobic. If I'm raised by parents to hate queer people, even if I don't, I may have an instant visceral reaction to those words (the article even talks about parenting).

I can say this in my own life- I was raised by a father who was fanatically pro-Israel. I often have an immediate reaction to a criticism of Israel despite my total lack of support for that nation because I spent 18 years being told Israel was the only thing standing between me and Auschwitz. It doesn't matter that I know that isn't true. In the spur of the moment, before I realize what my reaction is, I can't control it. So yeah, if someone used that word on me and told me to instantly write down three words that come to mind, they might be very, very different than if they told me to wait even ten seconds before I wrote down my first word.

this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
442 points (100.0% liked)

News

37565 readers
1614 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS