To the original question...I often hear people say "I'm not homophobic but....as long as they don't do it in front of me I'm ok with it." Or follow it up with some sort of crude joke with some uncomfortable chuckles. I'm floored that they think this type of discussion is OK. All forms of discrimination are on a continuum and are not dichotomous. So, at what point on the continuum does behavior meet the definition of "homophobia"? I'd say those who run around making statements like the one I just mentioned do, even though they don't consider themselves as being so. I liken it to a Caucasian saying "I'm not racist but...as long as those Mexicans don't speak Spanish in front of me I'm ok with them."
My $.02
it's a tough question (for me, anyway) -- who gets to define what is a homophobic act (or racist or sexist or whatever)?
is "i'm not sexist" I'm not racist" "I'm not homophobic" enough? does the speaker or actor get to define the meaning their words (or actions) on the listener, regardless of how the listener perceives things or is impacted socially, emotionally, and politically? or should the listener or receiver of the act have their experience define what is happening. when two (or more) people involved in an interaction disagree as to it's meaning, who gets last say in defining it? i mean, it seems weird for a straight person to tell a gay one what is and what is not homophobic. but then again, sometimes people are overly sensititized to insult, and how can someone else say what or who i am, when no one knows my own heart and mind, better than me? and does the motivation behind the act matter in how it is defined? gah, makes my head spin (i need to get my morning coffee)!
at my bar, i have often had guys making gross crude comments to me, or nasty jokes about women or gays, and when i say something like "hey that was really sexist, that thing you said about my boobs", they totally dismiss me, like i as a woman (and the owner of the boobs) have no authority in deciding if they, so far always men, are being sexist. who gets to decide something is oppressive or prejudiced? i understand that these guys don't want to be called sexist, because it is a negative term in a lot of circles, but then do men get a say over women as to what is sexist? there's accuracy and fairness for you. but then again, when are people on the receiving end of these "ist" transactions, when are they "wrong" and when are they "right"? this can be complicated by how so often we conflate the act with a person, as though these acts are clear cut and that they have absolute meaning and define the person, which of course terns the mere mention of racism or homophobia or what have you into an attack as opposed to a conversation. as though a person can only be racist or not racist, homophobic or not homophobic, as opposed to being on a continuum. and that where you're at changes depending on the angle you're looking at
homophobia does seem to be a much tricker term to define. the prior discussion shows how homosexuality itself can be tough just to define in a meaningful way, and then how homosexuality may not be visible, individuals may not be out and it just seems so tough to measure.
i guess ultimately theres defining homophobia (or prejudice) in a broad sense (which i think we've been trying to do), which is very very tough if not impossible, and then defining it in a study. in studies, you'll have multiple definitions, based on what you're looking at. if you're looking at how the experience of homophobia influences academic success, than you want perceived homophobia, but prevalence of homophobia is another story. in that way it's like social support. do we look at the number of people providing it, supportive acts, what types of support, perception of support, or a combination of factors which can leave us with a jumble of awkward data? it's such a complex construct, comprised of real acts but also meaningful perceptions as to motivations.
There may not be a third.
