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.