The two are pretty closely linked, I think. Just tossing it out there... I would say that heterocentrism is more of a "world view" and heterosexism is acting in accordance with that "view". Since it's downright uncommon for people of any stripe to hold an over-arching view of anything without having that view inform at least some of their actions, the distinction is rather trivial.

As a general rule, heterocentrism is hardly among the greatest of ills in the world. I don't much like it, but then I oppose blue cheese in principle as well (seriously... when you find some hunk of cheese in your cellar or refrigerator that is so mouldy that it's shot through with bilious shades of blue and green, you throw the rotton shit away, you don't eat it and say 'Mmmmmm, good cheese). While I have not yet settled my mind on this point, I'm beginning to see heterocentrism and the inevitable heterosexism that follows from it to be an essential characteristic of straight people. It's frightfully common. In fact, I'm not sure that I can name a single straight person of my acquaintance who is not heterocentric to a large degree. What I don't understand is how deeply rooted it seems to be. This abject inability (or steadfast unwillingness) to acknowledge any perspective other than their own is dumbfounding. Gay people manage to do it with some ease. In fact, gay people do it too much. Heterocentrism in gay people is a mental illness, not a desirable trait. An easy familiarity with heterocentric viewpoints is just as suspect. How is it that every straight person I know is dyed-in-the-wool heterocentric, and not one gay person I know is homocentric to any comparable degree?

Anyway, Mr. Hipkin, who has a gay brother, does not deserve an apology. What he said is heterosexist, and he could have made the same point (in fact, later did) without doing so. Neither does he especially deserve to be pilloried for what he said. Little more is to be expected of him. One might as well ask dogs not to piss on trees or sniff butts. You can complain all you wish, but dogs are dogs.

What is the operative difference between heterosexism and heterocentrism, do we here gathered suppose?

The former renders you civilly liable (in some jurisidcitions), whereas the latter just makes you a jerk?

Mayor demands 'anti-gay' apology



The emphasis is mine -- to highlight the specific quote in question.

Mr. Hipkin, who has a gay brother, is certainly welcome to his view that the quote in any way suggests that the speaker is being heterosexist. Mr. Hipkin, who has a gay brother, is mistaken in his views however, regardless of the fact that he is welcome to them.

The statement, its second sentence and most especially it's third sentence in particular, is heterosexist, and Mr. Hipkin, who has a gay brother, ought to know better. (The final sentence in the highlighted quotation is not heterosexist at all -- it's too grammatically garbled to make heads or tails of. Does 'they' refer, as it ought, to the previous proper noun, in this case 'children,' or does 'they' refer to these unspecified 'people' who are the subject of the sentence? In any event, I see no offence on the heterosexism score in it. The answer to the question, incidentally, is "elsewhere.")

The Brits have this peculiar definition of heterosexism that they just cling like a limpet to:



Mr. Hipkin, who has a gay brother, has his own peculiar definitions for what he's been accused of:



Now, I really fail to see what is unintentional about heterosexism. It may be very off-hand and casual, it may even not be deliberate, but one thing it never is is "unintentional." Mr. Hipkin, who has a gay brother, is, I should hope, quite confused on this point. No one ever said he was homophobic, at least not in any of the news articles I read on the fandango. I wouldn't even go so far as to say Mr. Hipkin, who has a gay brother, is a homophobe (and I'm really mean that way... I call people 'phobes all the time). The thing is, and here I think Mr. Hipkin, who has a gay brother, is being disingenuous, he most certainly did not say that "we must make provision for families, too." He said "People presumably start off single or young marrieds and have children, don't they?"

You know, using that word "people" in a context where it can only refer to heterosexual people is... heterosexist. Presuming that these "people" inevitably have children is... heterosexist. Characterizing one and two bedroom houses as placing a "huge pressure of a contraceptive nature" on the city is not only a touch weird, it's... you guessed it... heterosexist.

I usually like more than three paltry sentences before I go assessing a man's character, but I'm afraid that, despite his gay brother, Mr. Hipkin has said some really quite heterosexist things here. It is unfortunate that he is enraged and distressed, but if he actually meant to suggest that more homes for straight families ought to be built as well, he should have said so, rather than presuming all manner of spawning activities. One and two bedroom houses would suit my entire family quite nicely, thank you very much.