Abstract
This article forms a response to the previous four articles which address homophobia and Leap’s notion of a homophobic formation. The article finds that although there are no formal properties which identify a homophobic text, there are several key properties which they share. They conform to many of the characteristics of hate speech in their appropriation of the naming process and imputation of metaphors of deviancy, there is an intention to defame and shame, and there is a clear tension with the discourse of civil rights. We argue that the purpose of the homophobic speech act can be derailed by discursive intervention, and (following Habermas), exposure of the non-validity of its claims.
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.
