Abstract
Opponents of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgenders (LGBTs) have always been creative in expressing harassment, in which they emphasize their resentment of LGBTs’ “illegal” rights. In this modern era of technology, harassment is transmitted over digital applications. In light of new paradigms of defining cyberbullying, this research aims to describe the significant body of violent language, through which Arab LGBTs are attacked over Twitter. This is specifically important in building a corpus source for computational linguists working on a premature tracing of excluding language. Responses to 100 tweets posted by individuals affiliated with LGBT were analyzed to describe the precise act of discrimination. Results showed that Arab LGBTs experience prejudice against their sexual traits, mentality, poly-religious views, racial roots, and appearance via both verbal and visual means.
Highlights
The endeavors of marginal and minor groups to be released from the power of major ones have been a vital cause of bullying against them (Zych, Farrington, Llorent, & Ttofi, 2017)
In light of new paradigms of defining cyberbullying, this research aims to describe the significant body of violent language, through which Arab LGBTs are attacked over Twitter
Responses to 100 tweets posted by individuals affiliated with LGBT were analyzed to describe the precise act of discrimination
Summary
The endeavors of marginal and minor groups to be released from the power of major ones have been a vital cause of bullying against them (Zych, Farrington, Llorent, & Ttofi, 2017). LGBTs is an umbrella term used to cover all instances of attraction and sexual desire for the same gender or both (Hall & Rodgers, 2019). This unusual impetuousness is believed to be the pretext behind LGBTs’ derogation. It was not surprising to declare the sustainability of social exclusion and undermine their experience (Fish, 2007) This queerness and underappreciation have led LGBTs to create their own community with whom they share rituals, beliefs (Sujana, setyawati, & Ujanit, 2018), and even language of restricted discursive topics, exotic words, and frequent opaque slangs (Coates, 1996). Building their narrow network was not enough to prevent LGBTs from being traced and offended by the public
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
