Talk:internalized homophobia

RFD discussion: December 2021–January 2022
This sense of internalized is now covered at that entry; therefore this is SOP. See also internalized misogyny, internalized racism, etc. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

internalized misogyny
SOP, same as above internalized homophobia. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete both. Fytcha (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect if we must, since they are very zeitgeisty phrases. Equinox ◑ 22:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete both. I would not be opposed to redirects, though the combinations are readily countable. &mdash;The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep both. Imho the definition at internalized is not well written and is not as detailed as the definition at internalized homophobia. I mean just compare them to begin with. They have consistent and widespread usage, have their own lemmatized meanings, are used as singular concepts and phenomenons, as seen here, here, here, here, and here. And so, I agree with the IP below that it's not as simple as "internalized" + "x word" for these examples. AG202 (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep both. Neither of these two particular entries are SOP; and in fact, neither one of the two elements of each of these two entries mean quite the same thing as their parts alone do. To help show this, I will contrast them with a similar combination that is the sum of its parts: internalized transphobia, which meaning thereof is not at all similar to the two nominations her (which might also explain why it does not also have its own entry; it seems unlikely that at the present that if three senses of 'homoohobia' 'misogyny' and 'transphobia' all had comparatively the same meaning, that there would be entries for the former two but not the latter.
 * Internalized transphobia in its usage is a sum of the parts. It is mostly used as a pejorative attack against various transgender or transsexual individuals, typically arising from said individual's publicly stated opinions on various matters that the person using  the phrase disagrees with. Therefore it is used to discredit said transpersons opinion by accusing them of being bigoted towads trans people while also being trans, thus "internalized".
 * However, in the cases of internalized homophonia and misogyny, the terms as they are currently used are done so with a very different meaning and purpose. Internalized homophobia and misogyny is used to describe a phenomenon that is said to affect very young people that are either homosexual, or female, or both, arising as a result of new waves of both homophobia and misogyny amongst the young (school-aged and college) generation. The 'homophobia' and 'misogyny' in these cases are NOT bigotry, but a senseb of disgust and unhappiness with oneself, arising from external bigotry. In the worst of cases various forms of self harm may result, up to, but not limited to suicide.
 * I understand and acknowledge these are zeitgeizy phrases to an extent ; but they are not a direct product of the current zeitgeist in and of themselves; they are a phenomenon observed by older generations of gays, lesbians, and women, amongst our younger brethren and sisters, much to our dismay, and at the risk of serious harm to them.
 * The dictionary entries need only DESCRIBE the usage and meaning of these terms, which I think could be be properly done in 3-4 sentences or sentence equivalents. It DOES NOT have to and it SHOULD not be reflective of any stance nor take any position on the question of whether ur not the phenomena exists. Not listing them at all, though, suppresses the concepts of the phenomena from being known too exist at all. In this case, simply knowing about its exisfence may prevent future harm on the individual level; we can include it without taking up a POV or being unneutral in its coverage.

If any additional informationn is requested I am happy to provide whatever is sought, upon request. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:F1ED:C01C:3051:CF8B 21:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify what I meant regarding zeitgeist: the terms themselves are NOT ab product of the current zeitgeist. Rather, the current manifestations of the phenomena that they describe are products of the current zeitgeist. A kind of use/mention distinction of sorts, I suppose. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:F1ED:C01C:3051:CF8B 21:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete both. If the definition at internalized isn't good enough, it should be improved, but that has no bearing on this RFD. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How does it have no bearing if it's reason that the RFD was opened in the first place? And a lot of RFDs in general (from what I've seen) are based on current definitions and whether or not they encompass the idiomaticity of the phrase/word in question. So until the definition is updated to actually encompass the meaning, imho the entries shouldn't be deleted. Also regardless I do feel that this could fall under the prior knowledge test due to their primary usages in the social sciences. AG202 (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete both, as SOP as can be. AG202’s argument is wass. It’s a wiki and he is an editor of it and should have a concrete idea to do so if he already claims room for improvement, but his idea stays dim as he claims the definition at internalized homophobia weller written and more detailed, which it isn’t. Fay Freak (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention it directly here, but in the discord, I mentioned how the definition at internalized homophobia needed to be updated too. I'd update the definitions, but 1. I'm not here 24/7 and 2. I wanted to make sure to have good-faith conversations and read up before updating them. I'd also suggest addressing me directly next time and actually moving towards good-faith conversations. AG202 (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok cuz, but obviously I am not on Discord if only to be not 24/7 with Wiktionary, so I have to make sense of what you publicly write. Now you updated it I see no reason why it would not apply to in general, otherwise than that your explanation is encyclopedic (for describing the causes, which may go too far). Are you sure “unconscious beliefs” exist? Ever since psychology and sociology is fashionable tings are unconscious this unconscious that, nothing with contours. Fay Freak (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Fay Freak Yes or at least that's what has been described in the articles that I have gone through thus far, ex:
 * So it can definitely be unconscious, and then in terms of listing the causes, I think that it's integral to the definition, as that's almost exclusively how the term is used and how it's described. Some examples where causes are listed and are integral as well: sunstroke, bedsore, pilomotor reflex. Re: the comment below, this was the prior knowledge test that I was referencing: Idioms_that_survived_RFD. AG202 (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I haven’t known the names of all those tests there listed by heart. The definition of that test is a bit all over the place, but so you think that experts in the field think that it is a particular clinical picture; even though us would rather see it as an invalid conspiracy theory, reasoning that homophobia is natural rather than internalized from somewhere, and that man does not need to have a particular stance towards particular sexualities and them man apply the label internalized homophobia even if it is just this natural distance; so it is like or  in the minds of particular people even though it be as real as.
 * As for the unconsciousness thing, I mean the understanding that it is difficult to suppose that a belief is unconscious, in so far as the latter is conscious by definition. Behaviour or attitude and the like may be unconscious (which would make things problematic, as how is an attitude a clinical picture? You see how we find the term fishy: perhaps it is only un-SOP in the eyes of some people). Fay Freak (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete both as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've updated the definition of internalized homophobia and added usage notes & references, per a few requests, so I hope that it's more clear. And so, with that, I'm less sure how to even start reconciling that within the definition at internalized as the same concepts might not apply universally, and I'd still call for the prior knowledge test. I'd also argue that it's a term that's useful to readers and could fall under the usefulness clause, unless we really want to link to articles about and explain internalized homophobia on the internalized page. AG202 (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It kind of does not pass my tests, I don’t dig what you have in mind here. Fay Freak (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Productive and SOP, if needed the constituent terms need improved entries. I can 'coin' "internalised Sinophobia", "internalised anti-Semitism", "internalised transphobia" or "internalised ace-phobia" and anybody would grasp what is meant if they know the meanings of the constituents. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  18:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Those would have to be cited as well though, and that can be applied to tons of individual concepts that have passed RFD. I would also take the time to look at the usage note that was added AG202 (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That some of these are trivially citeable can be readily seen on Google Books. I care little for those other terms that have passed RFD, because I generally see subtitutionability and productivity as reasons for deletion; it is not inconsistency on my part. The usage note does little to address anything I have said and clearly homophobia and heteronormativity/heterosexism overlap and coexist on the same constructed spectrum so I don't find the note very informative; the last sentence needs editing for clarity by the way. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  20:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've updated the usage note, but I would suggest not using "fictive" to describe concepts related to heteronormativity or homophobia as they are real and are defined and differentiated clearly within the social sciences and in their overall usage Clarified over Discord, my apologies. AG202 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * On a balance, redirect or delete: a woman can in the present tense (thus ), people can, and have  (if they ), , etc. Other examples from Google Books: "She had transferred her own internalized hatred of her black self to me. She had grown up in a world that taught her to hate things black", " lesbian women who grow up in a misogynist culture have to overcome an internalized hatred of themselves and women in general in order", "many African Americans have internalized a hatred for themselves". I.e., while our definitions or internalize and/or internalized could stand to be made more detailed, it does seem like that's where the semantics (unconscious absorption and devaluation, etc) reside. - -sche (discuss) 21:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Fytcha Is it possible to at least be able to pull the information from that page? There were references and usage notes that I would like to add to the page at internalized to make the entry clearer. (I had also originally thought that there'd be a chance for the pages to be redirected rather than outright deleted). AG202 (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can put the contents in a userspace entry of yours if you like. User:AG202/internalized homophobia? I honestly think the consensus for redirecting is not there: 7 deletes, 2 keeps, 1 redirect/delete. Even 3 redirects vs 7 deletes doesn't suffice. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fytcha I thought I saw more redirects from Equinox & The Editor's Apprentice, but regardless that makes sense. And yes, that userspace entry will work, thanks! AG202 (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Done! &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And yes, you're right, my bad. The votes were 5 deletes, 2 keeps, 3 deletes or redirects. I personally still interpret this as a deletion but feel free to ping other sysops for different opinions! &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, and thanks again! AG202 (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)