V. Lysov
E-mail: science4truth@yandex.ru
Most of the following material is published in an academic peer-reviewed journal. Modern studies of social problems, 2018; Volume 9, No.8: 66 – 87: V. Lysov: “The fallacy and subjectivity of the use of the term“ homophobia ”in scientific and public discourse”.
DOI: 10.12731/2218-7405-2018-8-66-87.

Key findings

(1) A critical attitude towards homosexuality does not meet the diagnostic criteria of a phobia as a psychopathological concept. There is no nosological concept of “homophobia”, it is a term of political rhetoric.
(2) The use of the term “homophobia” in scientific activity to denote the entire spectrum of critical attitude to same-sex activity is incorrect. The use of the term “homophobia” blurs the line between a conscious critical attitude to homosexuality based on ideological beliefs and forms of manifestation of aggression, shifting associative perception towards aggression.
(3) Researchers note that the use of the term “homophobia” is a repressive measure directed against those members of society who do not accept the consolidation of a homosexual lifestyle in society, but who do not feel hatred or unreasonable fear of homosexual individuals.
(4) In addition to cultural and civilizational beliefs, the basis for a critical attitude to same-sex activity, apparently, is behavioral immune system — biological reaction disgustdeveloped in the process of human evolution to ensure maximum sanitary and reproductive efficiency.

Keywords: myth, “homophobia”, disgust, risk, behavioral immune system, manipulations

INTRODUCTION

Among a significant part of society, there is a critical attitude towards same-sex activity, the degree of expression of which varies significantly: from supporting legal opposition to attempts to change the institution of marriage in order to include same-sex partnerships to cases of violence against individuals demonstrating belonging to the “LGBTKIAP +” community (Kohut 2013; Gray 2013) Within the framework of the “LGBTKIAP +” movement, such a critical attitude, regardless of the degree of its manifestation and reasons, is designated as the so-called. "Homophobia" (Adams 2007) According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the neologism “homophobia” comes from the words “homosexuality” and “phobia” (English Oxford Living Dictionaries). The term "homophobia" is widely used in the media and popular culture: researcher Nungessor noted that:

"Homophobia" has become an overarching political concept used to denote any non-positive attitude towards homosexual individuals ... "(Nungessor xnumx, p. 162).

«Homophobia ”is even used in the political rhetoric of modern interstate relations (EPR 2006). Thus, the use of the word “homophobia” to describe a critical attitude towards the values ​​of the “LGBTQIAP +” movement is based on two important principles: (1) it creates an associative connection between ANY DISPOSITIVE attitude towards homosexuality with a phobic disorder, with psychopathology; (2) it imparts negative connotations and stigmatizes to individuals who advocate a point of view other than that of the LGBTQIAP + movement.

As the doctor of legal sciences Igor Vladislavovich Ponkin and co-authors write in their work:

“… Almost any discussion with propagandists of homosexuality, when disagreeing with them, today entails the automatic sticking of an offensive label“ homophobe ”, without taking into account the essence and form, the degree of factual and legal validity of such critical assessments of homosexuality. In many countries, individuals who express a critical attitude towards homosexuality are denied freedom of opinion and freedom of speech, not only during public debate, but in general, in any attempt to express their opinion in the media. Moreover, there are public calls to discriminate against such persons: to deny the right to enter other countries, to imprison them, etc. Such a biased discussion and such an interpretation of the principle of equality of all before the law and court and the principle of tolerance are not only completely incompatible with democratic principles and standards, but moreover, they must cause an immediate response from the state, which has no right to retreat from the international legal and the constitutional and legal principle of equality of all before the law and the court. The words “homophobe”, “homophobia” are incorrect, ideologized cliche-labels pasted on any critics of the ideology of homosexuality (regardless of the form and degree of justification of such criticism), as well as anyone who objected to the unlawful mass forcible imposition of the ideology of homosexuality on heterosexuals (including minors). These words represent ideological evaluative labels of negative content and are used as an unscrupulous polemic for manipulative purposes to discredit and insult dissent (...) In fact, people who do not accept homosexual lifestyles, addictions and beliefs protest against public propaganda of homosexuality, there are no “phobias”, that is, painful, excessive fears that make these persons fear homosexuals. People unfamiliar with special medical terminology may associate the meaning of the word "homophobe" with a pathological dislike for man and people in general (from Latin homo - man). Unreasonable attribution of mental deviations (phobias) to persons who do not share homosexual beliefs is not only an unethical technique, but also aimed at humiliating the human dignity of such persons, slandering them ... ”(Ponkin 2011).

Aptly describes the method of cliches by accusing of “homophobia” publicist Sergei Khudiev:

“… Anyone who dares to disagree with gay affirmative ideology is immediately confronted with labeling and angry reproaches. If you find same-sex sexual intercourse something that should not be legally encouraged, you will immediately be declared evil, intolerant, fanatical, backward and hostile person, racist, fascist, Ku Klux Klan, Taliban, and so on and so forth. A simple but effective technique for emotional manipulation uses a number of fairly obvious techniques. For example, you are offered the wrong choice - either severely punish homosexuality, or encourage it in every possible way. If you are against fierce executions for same-sex contacts, then you should be for the recognition of same-sex unions by marriage. Another technique - “some obvious villains (for example, the Nazis) were against homosexuality - you are also against it - so you are a Nazi. Do not want to be considered a Nazi - agree with our views. " The third declares any crimes committed against homosexuals - for example, a situation where a young man in prostitution is killed by his client - as manifestations of "homophobia", declares any disagreement to be "homophobia" and thus classifies any dissenting persons as criminals. This emotional pressure could be considered nothing more than a manifestation of unfair polemics, but the problem is that it is increasingly being subjected to government coercion; in a number of European countries, disagreement with gay affirmative views is viewed as “incitement to hatred,” and a crime subject to trial. However, the absurdity of this kind of accusation becomes apparent as soon as we take the trouble to think it over for even five minutes. Taliban punish alcohol consumption severely; Does this mean that anyone who does not approve of alcoholism is a Taliban and intends to introduce Sharia in society? People (of both sexes) who earn money through prostitution often become victims of crime - does this mean that anyone who points out that such a way of earning money is wrong and dangerous is supporting criminals? Can anyone who disapproves of drug use be blamed for their fierce hatred of poor drug addicts? ... "(Khudiev 2010).

HOW HOMOPHOBIA APPEARED

American psychologist and activist "LGBTKIAP +" - movement (Ayyar 2002; Grimes 2017) George Weinberg considered the creator of the term “homophobia” and the author of the hypothesis of a psychopathological substrate of a critical attitude towards homosexuality (Herek 2004; Weinberg xnumx) In an interview with the homosexual publication, Weinberg does not give a clear answer as to why he became an active participant in the LGBTKIAP + movement, he says:

“Although I was not gay, I was as free as possible in my heterosexual activities, as well as in other activities that I prefer not to write about” (Ayyar 2002).

Weinberg calls himself the person who put forward the idea that jealousy and fear are the cause of critical attitude towards homosexuality in the mid-1960's, in preparation for speaking at a conference at the East Coast Homophile Organization (Ayyar 2002; Grimes 2017) He shared his thoughts with “LGBTKIAP +” activists, the movements Jack Nichols and Lige Clark, who first used the word “homophobia” in an article for the pornographic magazine “Screw” (23 on May 1969 of the year), which meant fears of non-gay men that they can be mistaken for homosexuals - this was the first mention of the term in printed matter (Grimes 2017; Herek 2004) A few months later, this word was used in the headline of The Times (Grimes 2017).

In 1971, Weinberg himself first used the term “homophobia” in an article entitled “Words for the New Culture” in the weekly “Gay” (Grimes 2017). After reading this article, Weinberg's colleague Kenneth T. Smith (Weinberg xnumx, pp. 132, 136) at the end of 1971 he first mentioned the word “homophobia” in a scientific publication in which he proposed a special scale for measuring individual negative reactions caused by contacts with homosexual individuals (Smith 1971) Finally, in 1972, Weinberg conceptualized the psychopathological hypothesis of “homophobia” in the book “Society and the Healthy Homosexual” (Weinberg xnumx) The following year, Weinberg became one of the leaders of public campaigns organized by the American LGBTKIAP + movement, which led to the decision of the American Psychiatric Association to exclude the diagnosis of homosexuality from the static list of mental disorders in 1973 (Grimes 2017) Despite the fact that the term “homophobia” was subsequently criticized by both supporters and opponents of the “LGBTKIAP +” movement, Weinberg remained a stubborn supporter of his convictions for the rest of his life and insisted that “homophobia” be included in the category of mental disorders (Weinberg xnumx).

PROBLEM OF APPLIED USE

Over the time from the first mention in scientific works (1971 – 1972), the meaning of the term “homophobia” varied from the individual personality traits (Smith 1971) and causeless pathological fear (Weinberg xnumx) to any critical attitude (including, for example, disagreement with allowing same-sex couples to adopt children) (Costa 2013) George Weinberg in his work used the word “homophobia” in the sense of fear of contact with homosexuals, and if we are talking about homosexuals themselves, then “homophobia” means their disgust for themselves (Weinberg xnumx) A few years later, Morin and Garfinkle defined as “homophobic” such an individual who does not perceive a homosexual lifestyle equivalent to a heterosexual lifestyle (Morin xnumx).

In the 1983 year, Nungessor noted:

"..." homophobia "has become an overarching political concept used to denote any non-positive attitude towards homosexual individuals ..." (Nungessor xnumx, p. 162).

In the same year, Fyfe indicated by “homophobia” a negative attitude and prejudice towards homosexuals (Fyfe xnumx) Hudson and Ricketts noted that "the word" homophobia "began to be used so widely by both specialists and non-specialists to denote any hostility to homosexual individuals that it lost most of its original meaning" (Hudson xnumx, p. 357). In 1991, a number of researchers defined “homophobia” as “any anti-homosexual prejudice and discrimination” (Bell 1989; Haaga xnumx), and Reiter designated it as “a prejudice with a socio-cultural implication” (Reiter 1991) Five years later, Young-Bruehl noted that “homophobia is a prejudice directed not against specific individuals, but against specific actions” (Young-Bruehl 1996, p. 143). Kranz and Cusick later defined “homophobia” as “an unreasonable fear of homosexuals” (Kranz 2000) In the 2005 year, O'Donohue and Caselles noted that over the past decades, the term “homophobia” has extended to any negative attitude, belief or action towards homosexuals (O´Donohue in Wright xnumx, p. 68).

In the framework of the classical academic psychiatric science, phobia (phobic syndrome) refers to a type of anxiety neurosis, the main criterion for determining which is a stable causeless fear (or anxiety), which uncontrollably and irreversibly aggravates in certain situations (Kazakovtsev 2013, p. 230). An individual with a phobia tries in every possible way to avoid contact with an object or situation that causes a phobia and suffers such contact with severe stress and anxiety. In support of the fact that the prevailing critical attitude towards homosexual activity is not a phobia, Haaga (1991) compared prejudices and phobias, the reactions described in the media as “homophobia” meet the criteria for prejudice (see table below) (Haaga xnumx).

Table 1 Comparison of Prejudice and Phobia according to D.A.F. Haaga [30]

A type	Prejudice (supposedly “homophobia”)	Real phobia (neurosis)
Emotional reaction	anger, irritation	anxiety, fear
Argumentation of emotions	the presence of motives	lack of explanation, causelessness
Response action	aggression	avoidance by any means
Public agenda	social opposition	no
The focus of efforts to get rid of an uncomfortable state	prejudice object	on ourselves

Various attempts have been proposed in some way to measure the level of negative attitudes towards homosexuality - using psychological tests (Smith 1971; Hudson xnumx; Lumby xnumx; Milham 1976; Logan xnumx) Surveys of Gray and colleagues and Costa and colleagues revealed dozens of different scales proposed to measure the attitude of heterosexual people towards people exhibiting homosexual behavior (Costa 2013; Gray 2013) All proposed assessment methods have one fundamental drawback - the lack of a group for comparison during their development: validation in all proposed tests was based on a comparison with a group of respondents who revealed high parameter values ​​that were only presumably associated with a negative attitude towards homosexuality (for example, religiosity, voting for center-right political parties). According to O'Donohue and colleagues, this flaw could be eliminated by comparison with a group of respondents convicted of homosexual violence (O´Donohue in Wright xnumx, p. 77). Thus, given the numerous psychometric problems with each of the proposed assessment methods, the observations and conclusions made on the basis of these assessment methods are doubtful (O´Donohue in Wright xnumx, p. 77). In general, it is not clear whether the so-called. “Homophobia”: the consensus on the meaning of the term “homophobia”, which is not observed today, is of fundamental importance in this respect, it is a whole range of very different concepts, from very general (for example, negativism) to more specific (O´Donohue in Wright xnumx, p. 82).

It should be noted that the purely scientific, applied use of the term “homophobia” is problematic according to at least four cardinal reasons. First, empirical evidence suggests that hostility towards homosexuals in unique cases can indeed be a phobia in the clinical sense, like claustrophobia or arachnophobia. However, most individuals with hostile perceptions of same-sex relationships lack the physiological responses characteristic of phobias (Shields xnumx) The current, popularized “LGBTKIAP +” movement, the use of the term “homophobia” does not in any way distinguish between these two states. Secondly, the use of the term “homophobia” from the standpoint of Weinberg’s theory provides that this is a purely individual clinical state, however, studies do not confirm this, but show a clear association with a group cultural worldview and social relations (Kohut 2013) Thirdly, the phobia in the clinical concept is associated with unpleasant reactions and experiences that violate the normal social functions of the individual (Table 1), but hostility to homosexuals does not affect the normal social function of people (Herek 2000, 1990) Fourth, the politicized application of the concept of “homophobia” equates hostility towards homosexuality with such phenomena as, for example, racism or sexism (EPR 2006). However, racism or sexism is a phenomenon directed against carriers of specific biologically determined characteristics that do not depend on the behavior of their carriers (for example, discrimination against Caucasians or males). What is called “homophobia” within the framework of the LGBTKIAP + movement is a hostile attitude not toward carriers of biological traits, but toward actions (behavior), more precisely, toward the demonstration of such behavior in which an inversion of the established gender role occurs in sexual and / or socially. There is not even a consensus of opinion who is considered a homosexual - a person who regularly practices same-sex contacts or extremely rarely; who is forced to engage in same-sex relationships or who does it voluntarily, who identifies himself as "gay" or not, etc., etc. Confirmation of this statement - about the behavioral, not biological orientation of negative attitudes - is that homosexual an individual who does not publicly demonstrate homosexual behavior and belonging to the "LGBTKIAP +" community does not experience any negative impacts from society, which is impossible in the case of such a phenomenon as racism.

CONSUMPTION OF THE TERM FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES

Since the word “phobia” has a clear clinical meaning and denotes a state of causeless uncontrolled fear (medical diagnosis), the designation of a critical attitude to homosexuality as a phobia has no scientific justification. For example, a critical attitude to contemporary art from the point of view of scientific ethics cannot be called “avant-garde phobia”: such an attitude reflects only individual aesthetic views. Cases of vandalism in relation to works of art are an unacceptable phenomenon and, with a high degree of probability, testify to certain mental violations of vandals. However, the empirical significance of such cases of vandalism for evaluating such works and, especially, all those who do not like these works of art, is equal to zero.

A critical position on aspects related to the LGBTKIAP + public initiatives - the movement, is not classified as a violation of either the World Health Organization or the American Psychiatric Association (ICD 1992; DSM 2013) For the reasons indicated above, the use of the word “homophobia” in relation to the negative attitude towards homosexuality has been criticized by many authors (Herek 2004, Herek in Gonsiorek xnumx; Kitzinger xnumx; Shields xnumx), and instead, many terms were proposed: “heterosexism, homoerotophobia, homosexophobia, homosexism, homonegativism, homo-prejudice, anti-homosexuality, effeminophobia, speedophobia, sexual stigma, sexual prejudice” and many others (O´Donohue in Wright xnumx; Sears 1997).

Nevertheless, the word “homophobia” continues to be actively used in the media, popular culture, and even scientific literature to denote a critical attitude towards homosexuality. Connie Ross, editor of one of the magazines of the homosexual community, said that she is not going to abandon the use of the word "homophobia" due to its scientific incorrectness, since she considers the main task to be "the fight for the rights of homosexuals" (Taylor 2002).

Smithmyer (2011) indicated the following:

“… The use of the term 'homophobia' is a repressive measure directed against those members of society who defend the traditional definition of marriage, but do not hate homosexual people (…) The use of this term is offensive (…) and defamatory (…) The term“ homophobic "is a political trick that is used both in legislation and in the courts ..." (Smithmyer 2011, p. 805).

Holland (2006) noted that:

"... Even a simple citation of statistical data on the incidence of AIDS among homosexual men raises accusations of 'homophobia' ..." (Holland 2004, p. 397).

With almost 100% probability, this report will also be immediately indicated by “homophobia” by supporters of the “LGBTKIAP +” movement.

In 2009, Miss California beauty pageant winner Kerry Prechan participated in the Miss America finals. After she answered a question from a jury homosexualist whether homosexual marriages should be legalized in America, she was expelled from the competition and stripped of her Miss California title.

Kerry Preghan’s response caused the fury of all “politically correct” Western media, she was accused of bias, demanded to take her words back and publicly called her a “stupid bitch” (Prejean 2009) For what? Prezhan offered to put homosexuals in jail?

No, here is her verbatim answer:

“… Well, I think it's great that Americans can choose one or the other. We live in a country where you can choose from same-sex marriage or traditional marriage. And you know what, in our culture, in my family, it seems to me that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I don’t want to offend anyone, but this is how I was brought up ... ”(AP 2009).

LGBTKIA + activists, the Kirk and Madsen movements, argued that the use of the word “homophobia” was highly effective in a political strategy to change the social position of homosexuals:

“… In any campaign to win public sympathy, gays should be presented as victims in need of protection, so that heterosexuals succumb to the reflex desire to take on the role of protectors… Gays should be portrayed as victims of society… Should be shown: graphic images of beaten gay men; the drama of lack of work and housing, loss of custody of children and public humiliation: the list goes on ... Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, instead, we should establish the fight against discrimination as the main task ... "(Kirk 1987).

In a book released a few years later, Kirk and Madsen emphasized:

"... Although the term 'homophobia' would be more accurate, 'homophobia' works better rhetorically ... implying in a quasi-clinical form that anti-homosexual feelings are associated with their own unhealthy psychological breakdowns and insecurities ..." (Kirk 1989, p. 221).

BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS

Various causal models of critical attitude towards homosexual activity have been proposed: personal (Smith 1971), moral (O'Donohue in Wright xnumx), behavioral (Gray 1991) sensitive (Bell 1989), a model of conscious or unconscious perception (Herek in Gonsiorek xnumx), phobic (MacDonald 1973), cultural (Reiter 1991) Much less attention in scientific and popular science publications is given to biological reflex models.

Empirical observations allow us to make an assumption about the underlying social mechanisms of negative attitudes towards homosexual activity. Ellis and colleagues (2003) studied 226 students of psychological specialties from three British universities, who, using two separate scales, evaluated attitudes toward homosexual people and attitudes towards social processes associated with same-sex activity (the issue of allowing registration of partnerships, adoption of children, etc. .) (Ellis 2003) Although more than half of the respondents indicated that they agreed with general statements describing homosexuality as a natural occurrence for a person, a much smaller number of respondents agreed with specific statements (for example, “gender should not matter in marriage, homosexuals can serve in the army, children should be taught the concept of the naturalness of homosexuality ”, etc.) (Ellis 2003, p. 129). Steffens (2005) conducted a study of 203 German students using special methods to assess open (conscious) and hidden (unconscious) attitudes towards homosexuality (Steffens xnumx) In this work, a conscious attitude was studied using various test questionnaires, and an unconscious attitude was studied using a test for hidden associations.

It was found that while the conscious attitude towards homosexuality was very positive at first glance, the unconscious attitude turned out to be much worse. A positive attitude towards homosexuality also correlated with the homosexual self-identification of respondents. (Steffens xnumx, p. 50, 55). Inbar and colleagues (2009) showed that even those individuals who consider themselves to be a group of people who favor the same-sex activity, unconsciously feel disgust at the sight of kissing people of the same gender (Inbar 2009).  

Moreover, some people with a homosexual drive recognize the natural aversion to homosexuality:

"... Dislike of homosexuality in humans is at the level of reflex rejection ..." (Mironova 2013).

The last statement has a scientific explanation. Many authors believe that in the course of evolution, the so-called. behavioral immune system - a complex of unconscious reflex reactions, which is designed to protect against the effects of new pathogens and parasites (Schaller in Forgas xnumx; Faulkner 2004; Park 2003; Filip-crawford xnumx).

The behavioral immune system is based on an unconditionally reflexive feeling of disgust: individuals belonging to unfamiliar social groups, and especially those who practice biologically unnatural actions in relation to food intake, hygiene and gender, pose a higher risk of transferring new (and, therefore, especially dangerous) infectious agents. Thus, upon contact with such individuals, the behavioral immune system is activated, and instinctive disgust (Filip-crawford xnumx, p. 333, 338; Curtis 2011a, 2011b; Curtis 2001) Since sexual activity between individuals of the same sex or of different biological species, as well as involving corpses or immature individuals, etc., represents unproductive, biologically unnatural sexual behavior, the reaction of most people to the demonstration of such behavior is an aversion to prevent potentially dangerous and biologically ineffective sexual contact with such individuals. The relationship of disgust and negative attitudes toward non-reproductive, including homosexual, sexual activity has been shown in a number of studies (Mooijman 2016; Bishop xnumx; Terrizzi 2010; Olatunji 2008; Cottrell xnumx;  Herek 2000; Haidt 1997, 1994; Haddock xnumx). The opposite effects are also interesting - an artificially induced feeling of disgust worsens at an unconscious level the attitude towards images with homosexual themes (Dasgupta xnumx).

Aversion is an adaptation system that has been formed in order to stimulate behavior aimed at avoiding the risk of disease (Schaller in Forgas xnumx; Curtis 2004, 2011b; Oaten xnumx; Tybur 2009; Fessler xnumx) This adaptive system has been developed in animals to facilitate the recognition of objects and situations associated with the risk of infection, and, thus, to form hygienic behavior, thereby reducing the risk of contact with micro- and macro parasites; at the stage of the transition of human society to the ultrasocial form, the functions of disgust also assumed a social character, providing a motive for punishing antisocial behavior and avoiding violators of social norms (Chapman 2009; Haidt 1997) Miller (1997) believes that vice almost always causes disgust. He notes that the vile, disgusting, vile characters and acts are condemned by the internal instinctive reaction of disgust, without resorting to moralization of a higher level (Curtis 2001) An individual reaction to aversion varies depending on a person’s personality and experience, as well as on local cultural traditions and norms of behavior (Curtis 2011b) Curtis (2011) provides a list of infectious diseases that cause an associative reaction of disgust, including AIDS, syphilis, etc. (Curtis 2011a) Gray and colleagues noted in their review (Gray 2013, p. 347) that a critical attitude towards homosexuality is correlated with a negative attitude towards HIV infection and people with HIV / AIDS.

There are a number of observations about the connection between disgust and unconscious moral judgment (Zhong 2006, 2010; Schall xnumx): actions and individuals that violate social norms often cause disgust (Curtis 2001), similar physiological reactions and activation of brain regions are observed with biological and moral (social) aversion (Chapman 2009; Schaich xnumx) Olatunji notes that a basic sense of disgust is associated with sexual aversion due to general physiological reactions, such as vomiting (Olatunji 2008, p. 1367). Fessler and Navarette point out that “it appears that natural selection has formed a mechanism that protects the body from pathogens and toxins, and that also eliminates sexual behavior that reduces biological success” (Fessler xnumx, p. 414). Haidt and colleagues point out that while basic aversion is a system to eliminate potentially dangerous foods, human society needs to exclude many things, including sexual and social abnormalities (Haidt 1997).

Certain sexual activities or potential sexual partners also disgust (Tybur 2013; Rozin 2009) Tybur and colleagues argue that because sexual contact carries risks of potential infection by pathogens, sexual contact that does not bring reproductive benefits or carries the risk of genetic disorders (i.e. sexual contact with people of the same sex, children, or elderly people, close relatives), leads to the fact that the individual is at risk of infection, at the same time not having any opportunity to improve his reproductive reproduction efficiency (Tybur 2013) That is, same-sex sexual contact by definition excludes the possibility of reproduction, which is why the very idea of ​​homosexual contact causes instinctive disgust (Filip-crawford xnumx, p. 339; Curtis 2001).

The appearance of disgust as a reaction to homosexuality is also associated with the association with the threat of symbolic pollution, in this way behavior is activated subconsciously, the direction is to avoid the risk of physical contact with pathogens and the desire to “cleanse” (Golec de zavala xnumx, p. 2).

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SOURCES

1. Kazakovtsev B.A., Holland V. B., ed. Mental and behavioral disorders. M .: Prometheus; 2013.
2. Mironova A. I am bisexual and I am against the LGBT movement. “Echo Moskvy.” 31.05.2013. Accessed January 27, 2018: http://echo.msk.ru/blog/cincinna_c/1085510-echo/
3. Ponkin I.V., Kuznetsov M.N., Mikhaleva N.A. On the right to a critical assessment of homosexuality and on the legal restrictions on the imposition of homosexuality. 21.06.2011. http://you-books.com/book/I-V-Ponkin/O-prave-na-kriticheskuyu-oczenku-gomoseksualizma-i
4. Khudiev S. Can marriage be same-sex? Radonezh. 03.02.2010. http://radonezh.ru/analytics/mozhet-li-brak-byt-odnopolym-46998.html
5. Adams M, Bell LA, Griffin P, eds. Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 2007. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203940822
6. AP 2009 (Associated Press) .Carrie Prejean says she was asked to apologize for gay marriage comments, but refused. New York Daily News. April 27, 2009.
7. Ayyar R. George Weinberg: Love is Conspiratorial, Deviant & Magical. 01.11.2002. GayToday. Accessed January 27, 2018. http://gaytoday.com/interview/110102in.asp    
8. Bell NK. AIDS and women: Remaining ethical issues. AIDS Education and Prevention. 1989; 1 (1): 22-30.
9. Bishop CJ. Emotional Reactions of Heterosexual Men to Gay Imagery. Journal of Homosexuality. 2015; 62: 51-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.957125
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Xnumx) Syphilis MSM (Men Who Have Sex With Men). Accessed January 2014, 27: http://www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/stdfact-msm-syphilis.htm  
11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Xnumx) HIV among gay and bisexual men. Accessed January 2015, 27:http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html#refb
12. Chapman H, Kim D, Susskind J, Anderson A. In bad taste: evidence for the oral origins of moral disgust. Science. 2009; 323: 1222-1226. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165565
13. Costa AB, Bandeira DR, Nardi HC. Systematic review of instruments measuring homophobia and related constructs. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2013; 43: 1324 – 1332. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12140
14. Cottrell CA, Neuberg SL. Different emotional reactions to different groups: A sociofunctional threat-based approach to prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005; 88: 770-789. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.770
15. Curtis V, Aunger R, Rabie T. Evidence that disgust evolved to protect from risk of disease. Proceedings of the royal society B. Biological sciences. 2004; 271 (4): 131-133. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2003.0144
16. Curtis V, Biran A. Dirt, disgust, and disease: is hygiene in our genes? Perspect Biol Med. 2001; 44: 17 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2001.0001
17. Curtis V, de Barra M, Aunger R. Disgust as an adaptive system for disease avoidance behavior. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2011a; 366: 389-401. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0117
18. Curtis V. Why disgust matters. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2011b; 366: 3478-3490. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0165
19. Dasgupta N, DeSteno D, Williams LA, Hunsinger M. Fanning the flames of prejudice: The influence of specific incidental emotions on implicit prejudice. Emotion 2009; 9: 585-591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015961
20. Ellis SJ, Kitzinger C, Wilkinson S. Attitudes Towards Lesbians and Gay Men and Support for Lesbian and Gay Human Rights Among Psychology Students. Journal of Homosexuality. 2003; 44 (1): 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v44n01_07
21. English Oxford Living Dictionaries. Definition of homophobia in English. Origin. Accessed January 27, 2018. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/homophobia
22. European Parliament resolution on homophobia in Europe. P6_TA (2006) 0018. January 18, 2006. Strasbourg. Accessed January 27, 2018. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2006-0018+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
23. Faulkner J, Schaller M, Park JH, Duncan LA. Evolved disease-avoidance mechanisms and contemporary xenophobic attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Behavior. 2004; 7: 333-353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430204046142
24. Fessler DMT, Eng SJ, Navarrete CD. Elevated disgust sensitivity in the first trimester of pregnancy: evidence supporting the compensatory prophylaxis hypothesis. Evol Hum Behav. 2005; 26: 344-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.12.001
25. Fessler DMT, Navarrete CD. Domain-specific variation in disgust sensitivity across the menstrual cycle. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2003; 24: 406-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1090-5138(03)00054-0
26. Filip-Crawford G, Neuberg SL. Homosexuality and Pro-Gay Ideology as Pathogens? Implications of a Disease-Spread Lay Model for Understanding Anti-Gay Behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2016; 20 (4): 332-364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315601613
27. Fyfe B. “Homophobia” or homosexual bias reconsidered. Arch Sex Behav. 1983; 12: 549. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01542216
28. Golec de Zavala A, Waldzus S, Cypryanska M. Prejudice towards gay men and a need for physical cleansing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2014; 54: 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.001
29. Gray C, Russell P, Blockley S. The effects upon helping behavior of wearing pro-gay identification. British Journal of Social Psychology. 1991; 30 (2): 171-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1991.tb00934.x
30. Gray JA, Robinson BBE, Coleman E, Bockting WO. A Systematic Review of Instruments That Measure Attitudes Toward Homosexual Men. Journal of Sex Research. 2013; 50: 3-4: 329-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.746279
31. Grimes W. George Weinberg Dies at 87; Coined 'Homophobia' After Seeing Fear of Gays. The New York Times. 22.03.2017. Accessed January 27, 2018.https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/us/george-weinberg-dead-coined-homophobia.html
32. Haaga DA. “Homophobia”? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 1991; 6 (1): 171-174.
33. Haddock G, Zanna MP, Esses VM. Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993; 65: 1105-1118. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.65.6.1105
34. Haidt J, McCauley C, Rozin P. Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Differences. 1994; 16: 701-713. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90212-7
35. Haidt J, Rozin P, McCauley C, Imada S. Body, psyche, and culture: the relationship of disgust to morality. Psychology and Developing Societies. 1997; 9 (1): 107 – 131. https://doi.org/10.1177/097133369700900105
36. Herek GM. Beyond “Homophobia”: Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century. Sex Res Soc Policy. 2004; 1 (2): 6 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1525/srsp.2004.1.2.6
37. Herek GM. Stigma, prejudice, and violence against lesbians and gay men. In: Gonsiorek J, Weinrich J, eds. Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991: 60-80
38. Herek GM. The context of anti-gay violence: Notes on cultural and psychological heterosexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 1990; 5: 316-333. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626090005003006
39. Herek GM. The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2000; 9: 19-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00051
40. Holland E. The Nature of Homosexuality: Vindication for Homosexual Activists and the Religious Right. New York: iUniverse; Xnumx
41. Hudson WW, Ricketts WA. A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality. 1988; 5: 356-371. https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v05n04_02
42. Inbar Y, Pizarro DA, Knobe J, Bloom P. Disgust sensitivity predicts intuitive disapproval of gays. Emot Wash DC. 2009; 9 (3): 435-439. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015960
43. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. 10th revision. World Health Organization. 1992. http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2016/en
44. Kirk M, Erastes P (Hunter Madsen used “Erastes Pill” as alias). The Overhauling of Straight America. Guide November 1987. Accessed January 27, 2018: http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/EN_Overhauling_Straight.htm      
45. Kirk M, Madsen H. After the ball: how America will conquer its fear and hatred of gays in the '90s. Doubleday; 1989
46. Kitzinger C. The social construction of lesbianism. London: Sage; 1987.
47. Kohut A, et al. The Global Divide on Homosexuality. Pew Global Attitudes Project. 04.06.2013, updated 27.05.2014. Accessed March 1, 2018. http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2014/05/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Homosexuality-Report-REVISED-MAY-27-2014.pdf
48. Kranz R, Cusick T. Gay Rights. New York: Facts on File, Inc; 2000.
49. Logan CR. Homophobia? No, Homopredjudice. Journal of Homosexuality. 1996. Vol. 31 (3), 31-53. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v31n03_03
50. Lumby ME. Homophobia: The quest for a valid scale. Journal of Homosexuality. 1976; 2 (1): 39-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v02n01_04
51. MacDonald AP, Huggins J, Young S, Swanson RA. Attitudes toward homosexuality: Preservation of sex morality or the double standard? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1973; 40 (1): 161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0033943
52. Milham J, San Miguel CL, Kellog R. A Factor - Analytic Conceptualization of Attitudes Toward Male and Female Homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality. 1976; 2 (1): 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v02n01_01
53. Mooijman M, Stern C. When Perspective Taking Creates a Motivational Threat: The Case of Conservatism, Same-Sex Sexual Behavior, and Anti-Gay Attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2016; 42 (6): 738-754. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216636633
54. Morin SF, Garfinkle EM. Male homophobia. Journal of Social Issues. 1978; 34 (1): 29-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1978.tb02539.x
55. Nungessor LG. Homosexual Acts, Actors, and Identities. New York: Praeger; 1983
56. O'Donohue WT, Caselles CE. Homophobia: Conceptual, Definitional, and Value Issues. In: Wright RH, Cummings NA, eds. Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm. New York and Hove: Routledge; 2005: 65-83.
57. Oaten M, Stevenson RJ, Case TI. Disgust as a disease-avoidance mechanism. Psychol Bull. 2009; 135: 303-321. https://doi.org10.1037/a0014823
58. Olatunji bo. Disgust, scrupulosity, and conservative attitudes about sex: Evidence for a mediational model of homophobia. Journal of Research in Personality. 2008; 42: 1364-1369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.04.001
59. Park JH, Faulkner J, Schaller M. Evolved disease-avoidance processes and contemporary anti-social behavior: Prejudicial attitudes and avoidance of people with physical disabilities. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 2003; 27: 65- 87. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023910408854
60. Prejean C (2009). Still Standing: The Untold Story of My Fight Against Gossip, Hate, and Political Attacks. USA: Regnery Publishing.
61. Reiter L. Developmental origins of anti-homosexual prejudice in heterosexual men and women. Clinical Social Work Journal. 1991; 19: 163-175.
62. Rozin P, Haidt J, Fincher K. From oral to moral. Science. 2009; 323: 1179-1180. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1170492
63. Schaich Borg J, Lieberman D, Kiehl KA. Infection, incest, and iniquity: investigating the neural correlates of disgust and morality. J Cogn Neurosci. 2008; 20: 1529-1546. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20109
64. Schaller M, Duncan LA. The behavioral immune system: Its evolution and social psychological implications. In: Forgas JP, Haselton MG, von Hippel W, eds. Evolution and the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and social cognition. New York: Psychology Press; 2007: 293 – 307
65. Schnall S, Benton J, Harvey S. With a clean conscience. Psychol Sci. 2008; 19: 1219-1222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x
66. Sears J, Williams W. Overcoming heterosexism and homophobia: Strategies that work. New York: Columbia University Press; Xnumx
67. Shields SA, Harriman RE. Fear of male homosexuality: Cardiac responses of low and high homonegative males. Journal of Homosexuality. 1984; 10: 53 – 67. https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v10n01_04
68. Smith KT. Homophobia: A tentative personality profile. Psychological Reports. 1971; 29: 1091 – 1094. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1971.29.3f.1091
69. Smithmyer CW. Looking at the term homophobic and its derivatives as a weapon to oppress those who value traditional marriage. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences. 2011; 3: 804-808.
70. Steffens MC. Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Towards Lesbians and Gay Men. Journal of Homosexuality. 2005; 49: 2: 39-66. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v49n02_03
71. Taylor K. No fear factor in 'homophobia,' study claims. The Washington Blade. 30.04.2002.
72. Terrizzi JAJr, Shook NJ, Ventis WL. Disgust: A predictor of social conservatism and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals. Personality and Individual Differences. 2010; 49: 587-592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.024
73. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association. Xnumx
74. Tybur JM, Lieberman D, Griskevicius V. Microbes, mating, and morality: individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009; 97: 103. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015474
75. Tybur JM, Lieberman D, Kurzban R, Descioli P. Disgust: Evolved function and structure. Psychological Review. 2013; 120: 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030778
76. Weinberg G. Homophobia: Don't Ban the Word - Put It in the Index of Mental Disorders. Editorial letter. Huffington Post.06.12.2012. Accessed January 27, 2018. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-weinberg/homophobia-dont-ban-the-w_b_2253328.html
77. Weinberg G. Society and the healthy homosexual. Garden City, New York: Anchor Press Doubleday & Co; 1972.
78. Young-Bruehl E. The Anatomy of Prejudices. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts; 1996.
79. Zhong CB, Liljenquist K. Washing away your sins: threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science. 2006; 313: 1451 – 1452. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1130726
80. Zhong CB, Strejcek B, Sivanathan N. A clean self can render harsh moral judgment. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2010; 46: 859 – 862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.04.003