Homohysteria: Useful Construct? Or an Unnecessary Splitting of Hairs?

• Published in: Sex roles 2014-08, Vol.71 (3-4), p.137-140
• Main Author: Negy, Charles
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Attitudes; Behavioral Science and Psychology; Biological and medical sciences; Community Relations; Construct Validity; Ethnic Groups; Fear; Feminist Forum Commentary; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Gays & lesbians; Gender Bias; Gender Discrimination; Gender Studies; Heterosexism; Heterosexuality; Homophobia; Homosexuality; Males; Masculinity; Medicine/Public Health; Negative Attitudes; Prejudice; Psychology; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; Race; Racial Bias; Racism; Resistance (Psychology); Sex roles; Sexism; Sexual orientation; Social psychology; Social role. Sex role; Sociology; Validity
• ISSN: 0360-0025; 1573-2762
• DOI: 10.1007/s11199-014-0386-4

In this commentary to McCormack and Anderson ( 2014 , this issue), I offer my reaction to a relatively new construct—homohysteria—that characterizes heterosexual men’s negative attitudes and affective reactions toward gay men in the context of gendered (traditional) behaviors. I propose that similar to other forms of “isms” used in both academia and the general community (e.g., racism, sexism), little is to be gained by continuing to splinter established terms such as heterosexism or homophobia. More specifically, I argue that by creating new terms for prejudice against gays and lesbians—terms that simply reflect either different degrees or motives of heterosexism—we risk muddling research findings and ultimately trivializing the pernicious phenomenon of prejudice and discrimination against the LGBT community. I also argue that in the absence of empirical support for the validity of homohysteria (as a distinct construct from heterosexism or homophobia), those embracing this new term are investigatively putting the cart before the horse.