Timeline for Can we prohibit the use of the words "homophobic" and "transphobic"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
41 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 21, 2018 at 11:38 | comment | added | Catija Mod | It's inaccurate to claim you're looking to prohibit the "misuse" of these words when your definition would prohibit the actual usage of them. Your question isn't getting better with editing, so I've locked it. | |
| S May 21, 2018 at 11:36 | history | notice added | CatijaMod | Content dispute | |
| S May 21, 2018 at 11:36 | history | locked | CatijaMod | ||
| May 21, 2018 at 11:36 | history | edited | CatijaMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| May 21, 2018 at 1:49 | history | edited | user2921 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 344 characters in body
|
| May 19, 2018 at 16:55 | comment | added | Slapped Penguin | I would like to know if OP has any example of the usage of the words "homophobia" and "transphobia" in any sort of medical document as a means to diagnose a mental disorder. I'm not the first to ask for this clarification but OP has yet to answer that. | |
| May 19, 2018 at 13:06 | history | edited | user2921 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 20 characters in body
|
| May 18, 2018 at 22:43 | comment | added | Cascabel | Honestly, I'd recommend leaving the entire thing alone, as Catija already said. You said what you wanted, and it's been refuted, with strong voting. Meta has answered you. There's nothing more to do here, and nothing to be gained from trying to tweak your case. | |
| May 18, 2018 at 17:01 | history | edited | user2921 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Ordered more logically supporting paragraphs.
|
| May 18, 2018 at 16:28 | history | edited | user2921 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added paragraph mistakenly removed by an not careful edit.
|
| May 18, 2018 at 15:59 | comment | added | Jess K. | OP I'd recommend leaving the title alone as it was edited. Using words by their definition has nothing to do being nice, so this title more accurately reflects what you're actually asking. | |
| May 18, 2018 at 15:58 | history | rollback | Jess K. |
Rollback to Revision 8
|
|
| May 18, 2018 at 14:31 | history | edited | user2921 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Made title clearer for question.
|
| May 18, 2018 at 13:31 | history | edited | CatijaMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| May 18, 2018 at 7:13 | comment | added | Patta | Is there a better title for this? I don't think it reflects the question Body, and Honestly, going to Meta and seeing "Let's be nice with X" heavily downvoted is quite unsettling (until you Click on the question and see its contents that might show the Real reason for the downvotes) | |
| May 17, 2018 at 13:40 | comment | added | Jess K. | Honestly at this point I'm convinced this question is off topic and I'm going to leave my VTC. Debating language and definitions isn't on topic for this site. English is so asinine that we could be here for eternity talking about all the words that don't quite make sense when you break them into their separate roots and compare the original definitions. It's not an IPS issue. | |
| May 17, 2018 at 4:58 | comment | added | apaul | As much as I don't really care for this question, it isn't too broad. Keep in mind that closevotes are not super-downvotes. | |
| May 16, 2018 at 22:11 | answer | added | sphennings | timeline score: 10 | |
| May 16, 2018 at 21:29 | history | edited | user2921 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 372 characters in body
|
| May 16, 2018 at 21:20 | history | edited | TinkeringbellMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Removed the example to apauls answer. We deleted it as it wasn't an answer to the question, so it's no longer visible and will only confuse people if referenced.
|
| May 16, 2018 at 21:04 | comment | added | Catija Mod | COMMENTS REMOVED: Since this question seems to hinge on the OP's definition of transphobia and homophobia, discussion and refutation of that should occur in the answers (as many do already), not in the comments. The answers do a great job of explaining the semantic problem that the OP is experiencing. Choosing to accept the answers or not is their call and it seems that further debate will not move the discussion forward, as it has devolved to a point where stepping back entirely or for a period is necessary. | |
| May 16, 2018 at 15:14 | comment | added | sphennings | Homophobia was never a mental condition. Please stop trying to redefine terms. | |
| May 16, 2018 at 15:13 | comment | added | user2921 | @sphennings see the examples. Any use of the term where it is not referring to the medical condition is a pejorative use. | |
| May 16, 2018 at 15:11 | history | edited | user2921 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Removed 3rd example - it was being misconstrued - people not reading what was written.
|
| May 16, 2018 at 15:10 | comment | added | sphennings | @Physics-Compute Can you show me where people are saying that homophobes are mentally ill on this site? It's important to provide evidence to back up the arguments that you make, otherwise you're not contributing to a productive discussion and just making a lot of noise. | |
| May 16, 2018 at 14:58 | comment | added | Cascabel | I'd like to clarify my previous comment. It's okay to not have realized what homophobia or transphobia means, and to ask a question. However, it is emphatically not okay to attempt to make a case for treating the legitimacy of LGBT as an opinion on this site. LGBT people are covered by Be Nice, as noted in my answer. We cannot force you to change your beliefs, but certain beliefs have no place on this site. | |
| May 16, 2018 at 14:57 | comment | added | Jess K. | @Cascabel If it stays open, I won't be too offended... I just think it's creating more noise than it's worth at this point, since it holds no water. | |
| May 16, 2018 at 14:40 | comment | added | Cascabel | @JessK It might be okay to leave open; it's based on faulty premises, as the answers have covered, but the voting makes it quite clear what the community thinks, and that's a useful precedent to have. (That does not justify continued comments making false claims after it's been answered, though.) | |
| May 16, 2018 at 14:34 | history | edited | user2921 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added third example
|
| May 16, 2018 at 14:20 | history | edited | user2921 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| May 16, 2018 at 14:13 | history | edited | user2921 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added another example.
|
| May 16, 2018 at 13:35 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 21, 2018 at 11:38 | |||||
| May 16, 2018 at 13:18 | comment | added | Jess K. | I'm going to VTC as too broad... You've provided no tangible examples and your comments on answers are just repeating the same factless claims/assumptions without any new evidence to back up what you're saying. As it stands this question is just a rant that holds no water. If you want to add some examples of where this has been an issue, I'd consider retracting my vote. | |
| May 15, 2018 at 19:13 | answer | added | Clay07g | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 15, 2018 at 19:01 | comment | added | Clay07g | Keep in mind that if the asker of a question says "homophobic", we are to take their word for it and assume that the situation they are in is serious enough to warrant a strong word like that. You are making the assumption that the people the asker is talking about are simply "in disagreement with a worldview". By using the word homophobic, the asker has already shown that's not the case, and we respect that without proof. | |
| May 15, 2018 at 18:27 | answer | added | apaul | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 15, 2018 at 17:34 | comment | added | Tinkeringbell Mod | What looks like a related meta: interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1384/1599. | |
| May 15, 2018 at 17:07 | answer | added | Jess K. | timeline score: 14 | |
| May 15, 2018 at 17:06 | answer | added | user75 | timeline score: 11 | |
| May 15, 2018 at 17:05 | answer | added | Cascabel | timeline score: 21 | |
| May 15, 2018 at 16:51 | history | asked | user2921 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |