Talk:Homo (disambiguation)

Links

Latin (language) redirects to Latin, so might as well use the Latin link

Homo (genus) links to an article that mentions 7 'homo' species, not only Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis. Just follow the link and read all about them. In this disamb page it is irrelevant to name only the two. Also, the link Neanderthal strangely leads to an article about the Homo neanderthalensis, not to an article about the Neanderthal (valley of the Neander river) in Germany, while the link Homo neanderthalensis redirects to the same Neanderthal article - this is very confusing.

HomO

You think that's confusing, take a look at the spelling HomO, that I just added. This is not a joke (though I think it's kind of funny, and so did the Swedish media). Please follow the external link I provided, if you don't believe me. I've never edited a disambiguation page before, so please excuse me if anything's inappropriate. I'm thinking of doing a short article on HomO for this page to link to, and then the text here can be a lot shorter.Bishonen 18:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think you did just fine. It would be a good idea to create an article for it, though, then reduce the text in the disambig. - UtherSRG 18:20, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, "Homo" means mainly homosexual, in swedish, as well in english. That HomO example is quite funny!

Thanks, UtherSRG. Done. :-) Bishonen 22:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Editprotected

I just want to add that its offensive in Canada, too; likely, its offensive else where but I just live in Canada....so.

Thanks

68.148.165.213 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. —Ruud 19:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As already mentioned above, homo- is derived from the Greek word homos = same, and is used for various words, not just homosexual. So I think homo- should be added as one of possible meanings on this disambiguation page, but obviously I can't do it.

Heimdall 13:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heimdall1973 (talk • contribs)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Homo (genus) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 04:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

abbreviation for homosexual

whether any term for "homosexual" is "offensive" or "pejorative" is to be discussed at Terminology of homosexuality. That article even manages to allege that the objective, technical "homosexual" is "offensive". Apparently, the only way not to cause offense is not to refer to the concept at all.

The point is that homosexuality (the thing, not the term) is itself negatively charged in mainstream opinion. If you think something is bad, any term referring to that thing will become "a pejorative", no matter what term you use. The de-valuing is in the concept, not in the term you pick. If you do not think that homosexuality is in any way negatively charged, then the term "homosexual" or its abbreviation "homo" won't be either.

Fwiiw, the OED neutrally defines homo as a "colloquial abbreviation" of "homosexual". --dab (𒁳) 13:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a references section if necessary:

American Heritage Dictionary: "Slang: Disparaging and Offensive."

Boswell, John (1993). "On the use of the term “homo” as a derogatory epithet"

etc.

AV3000 (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

right. You are welcome to take your reference to Terminology of homosexuality. This is an opinion, not a fact. The opinion should by all means be recorded, but in an article, not on a disambiguation page. If you read my comment above, you will realize that I have already granted that every epithet for homosexuals can be used derogatorily. The point is that it can be so used. This is not the same as claiming that it "is" somehow inherently pejorative. --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay refers to the same thing, can be used as a slur, but is not a pejorative. I am not aware of any non-pejorative use of 'homo'. I can see no justification for treating Homo (disambiguation) any differently from Nigger (disambiguation) or Kike (disambiguation); the approach to such slurs is not consistent throughout the encyclopedia, for example Paki acts as a disambiguation page without being such, while WOP acts as a page for the slur, and links to a disambiguation page in which the slur does not feature. All of them do seem consistent in referring to a slur as a slur, and none seem to support the contention that slurs be referred to as colloquialisms rather than pejoratives. Mish (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OED is your friend.

Regarding non-pejorative use of "homo": OED has a 1933(!) quote, Round about six, fifteen and twenty are the recognized ‘homo’ ages in women. This is just colloquial use, there is no indication of a disparaging attitude.
regarding my point that every term for "homosexual", even plain "homosexual" itself, will be used pejoratively,
- gay, this is about as pejorative as it gets, with its own OED entry under 4.e: "slang (chiefly U.S.) (sometimes considered offensive). Foolish, stupid, socially inappropriate or disapproved of; ‘lame’."
- this boils down to your insisting to note that "homo" is an abbreviation that can be used pejoratively of a term that can itself be used pejoratively. The disparaging attitude is in the term that is being abbreviated, not in the act of abbreviating it.
- absolutely every term for "homosexual", no matter how politically correct in intent, will be used pejoratively, for exactly the same reasons that every term for "fat" or "mentally disabled" will be, for the simple reason that mainstream western culture considers these things defects. I am not saying that this is "correct", it is just a cultural trait subject to change. If you have a quarrel with western culture for attaching a stigma to homosexuality, overweight or mental disability, go and campaign about it, but don't shoot the messenger (descriptive use dictionaries)
as a final point, as "Paki" illustrates, you should keep in mind that English is in effect a macrolanguage. Your judgement may be based on the variety most familiar (perhaps native) to you. This does not permit you to jump to conclusions about "English" in general. "Paki" may be a slur in the UK but a harmless abbreviation in Australia. Very similar things may or may not be true of "homo". The task of figuring this out exactly lies with Terminology of homosexuality, not Talk:Homo (disambiguation).

--dab (𒁳) 17:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dab, I'm unclear on your point. I can show you dozens of reliable sources that state unambiguously that "homo" is a pejorative or derogatory word:

Anderson, Earl R. (1998), A grammar of iconism, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, p. 79, ISBN 0838637647
Lamy, Marie-Noëlle; Towell, Richard (1998), Towell, Richard (ed.), The Cambridge French-English thesaurus, Cambridge University Press, p. 152, ISBN 0521425816
Castañeda, Laura; Campbell, Shannon B. (2006), News and sexuality: media portraits of diversity, SAGE, p. 281, ISBN 1412909996

(among others)

Is there some reason you object to "homo" being treated differently than "Nigger (disambiguation)" or "Kike (disambiguation)", both of which state the pejorative nature of those terms? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point by point

Gay is not a pejorative - the OED, as you say, says it is sometimes considered offensive - but this does not seem to be when used to describe people who are gay.
Homo is not pejorative because it is an abbreviation of a pejorative. It is a pejorative when used in its own right, when referring to somebody as a 'homo'.
I disagree, I do not find queer offensive. If I call somebody a 'cunt', that does not make 'cunt' a pejorative, as they clearly are not a vagina - but if I call them a 'wanker', it is a slur regardless of whether they masturbate a lot or not.
Homosexuality, in western culture, is not a defect, even though some people still might think so - it is now regarded as a normal human sexual variation, legally, medically, and socially this view is pretty widespread now.
The Paki usage is precisely my point, and the derogatory use is listed - and that is why the disambiguation of Nigger, Kike, etc. also make clear that these are used in a derogatory way. I note you avoid responding to this specific point, presumably because you prefer to ignore points that invalidate your argument. I take your silence on this as affirming my point, and hope we can now move on; let us wait 24 hours and then append the appropriate comment to align the page with other similar pages. If you don't like that, then WP:RfC the page. Mish (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Homo certainly has been used pejoratively and done so in mainstream media and is well documented in this use. How we present that here is debatable but some mention that it's not simple an informal way to refer to gay and lesbian people would seem to make sense. Maybe Homo (slang) needs to be written. -- Banjeboi 01:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homo (slang, usually derogatory), and so on. Mish (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So when I say that I find this entire discussion extremely gay, you will not feel that I am complaining about the quality of this discussion? I appreciate Mish's point that when used as a noun, "homo" is almost universally pejorative. So is "a homosexual" when used as a noun. The point is in nominalizing an adjective, i.e. inflating a mere attribute of a person to something that defines that person entirely (as in e.g. moving from "having a crippled leg" to "a cripple"). This has nothing to do with the term "homo" in particular, the crucial bit is the shift from adjective to noun. Banj does not seem to have bothered to read anything I wrote, or they would be aware that I never disputed that "homo" has been used pejoratively, as has every other term for "homosexual". The "informal way to refer to gay and lesbian people" strikes me as rather funny, because it implies that the terms "gay" or "lesbian" are somehow less informal, slang or open to pejorative use than "homo". I also find it interesting to claim "X is not the case in culture Y, even though even though some people still might think so". This smacks of prescriptivism. Might it be that you mean that you think that this should be the case? I have no opinion on what "should" be the case in western culture. I readily admit that homosexuality is a non-issue (that is, its existence a mere matter of fact) in many cultures, but "western culture" taken as a whole does not happen to be among these. Obviously "western culture" has subcultures, and depending on what nook or cranny of western culture you happen to live in, you may not be exposed to this overarching tendency too much.

I propose a compromise solution. Otherwise I am not interested in pursuing this further because Wikipedia has more pressing problems. I made Homo (slang) a section redirect, see this diff. This resolves the issue as far as I am concerned. --dab (𒁳) 10:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it matters little whether it is used as an adjective or noun. "He's gay" - not pejorative. "He's a gay" - is pejorative. "He's a gay man" - is not. "He's homosexual" - is not. "He's a homosexual" - is. "He's a homosexual man" - is not. However, people refer homosexual not be used to refer to gay because historically it was derived from a medical term used which saw homosexuality as a pathology, which it no longer is. "Gays" is, BTW. That car is "gay" - that is pejorative, as it is using the word in a way that implies anything that is crap is "gay". "He's queer" - can be pejorative, depending on how it is used, not of the person identifies as queer, but is if the speaker uses queer as a pejorative, so "you queer", or just "queer", both tend to be pejorative in a way that "I am queer" is not. Homo is an abbreviation for homosexual, but it is only ever pejorative. So "he's a homo", "you homo", or just "homo" are equally pejorative. There is no distinction between use as an adjective or noun. "Homo" is used as a taunt or slur in its own right, in a similar way to "poof", and has been so for over fifty years. Where homosexual applies to men and to women, "homo" is usually reserved for men only. So, I feel that (noun, adjective) needs to be consistent and retain the brackets, while pejorative need not be bracketed, nor implied that only as a noun is this pejorative. Some white people still attribute negativity to being a negro in this culture, but it is not that "negro" itself can be seen as derogatory that makes nigger derogatory - nigger is derogatory in its own right. That is the way it is, and regardless of whether being black is a bad thing or not, that doesn't have anything to do with why nigger is pejorative. The same applies with homo: some people still attribute negativity to being homosexual in this culture, but it is not that "homosexual" itself can be seen as derogatory that makes homo derogatory - homo is derogatory in its own right. What I think should be case is not significant, and describing the way things are is not presciptive. It doesn't matter that large areas in the USA see homosexuality as negative, or that in the dominant culture in the UK this is not an issue, what does matter is how the word is used when it is used. When it is used it is used pejoratively, and whether that is because homosexuality is perceived negatively or not isn't really relevant to that. It helps explain why a pejorative might be used, and why this word might have come to be used in that way, but that doesn't really matter - all we are concerned with is whether it is or not. I appreciate that you consider this too trivial to bother responding to. I look forward to not seeing any response. Mish (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homo Milk

Canadians do in fact use the term homo milk, as anyone who has lived in Canada knows. Googling the term "homo milk" in quotes brings up many sites confirming this, such as http://americansguide.ca/isms.html and http://www.torontomike.com/2009/11/homo_milk.html. The dubious tag should therefore be removed from the homo disambiguation page.Porphyry Jones (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, why did someone mark that as dubious? Did they think it was some kind of joke about Canadians? (If so, it's not a very good joke.) I'm removing that tag. 99.227.60.109 (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text moved here to Talk, from overly long, overly detailed Homo/homolog disambiguation entry

The following text should appear elsewhere; it is too detailed relative to the remaining bullets, and in general (esp. the list of examples):

" i.e., one noncyclic carbon more (and similarly "dihomo-" meaning two noncyclic carbons more) – examples include:

This information can be moved to the linked main articles. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving surname entry here, because no linked article exists

Add this back later when article appears:

"* Homo (surname), a French surname originating from Brittany and Normandy, borrowed from church Latin"

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency across many wikipedia pages even though they have identical roots

The following pages are inconsistent..

Hetero (disambiguation) v.s. this page.

wiktionary:hetero v.s. wiktionary:homo.

On wiktionary:hetero.. "(informal) Heterosexual"

On wiktionary:homo.. "(colloquial, often derogatory) Clipping of homosexual"

On Hetero (disambiguation).. "Heterosexuality, attraction towards the opposite sex"

On this page.. ""Homo (slang), an abbreviation for "homosexual", generally offensive""

It makes no sense that even though both hetero and homo have identical roots, namely they were both coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1868, they are described with such bias. Wikipedia should contain information, not "popular" opinion. Information in this case would be using these words as they were meant in their origin, which would mean the following changes..

.. changing "colloquial" to "informal" on wiktionary:homo

.. removing "often derogatory" on wiktionary:homo

.. changing ""Homo (slang), an Homo (slang), an abbreviation for "homosexual", generally offensive" to "Homosexuality, attraction towards the opposite sex" 31.20.106.40 (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]