So what do we call actual homophobia?

[FalloutJack]

The reason there is no value in entertaining the notion of bigotry as a disease should be apparent in the context of this very thread.

Well, I'm BORED. If I don't give my brain exercise, IT GETS FLOPPY! And we don't want floppy brains...

 

[Something Amyss]

I did, but something tells me that I should take a peek. Transracial, god, what a truly dumb concept. I didn't realize that the bar to be taken seriously had been set at, "Caught lying, makes bullshit excuses, sounds kind of delusional." Thanks for the tip ZA.

Johnny had very little to add but spent a lot of time talking. Basically justifying an undemonstrated (and likely, nonsense) condition. Seemed relevant here for some reason.

It's sort of like if you run around punching people and then remark there's a lot of punching going on.

More on topic, I find this general quibbling over diction to be quite curious. People tend to mostly use this as a technique to grind an argument to a halt, rather than to further it. Homophobia is a problem, and people tend to know what you mean when you say it. So I'm actually at a loss as to why we need to come up with a new term. We're not describing a new phenomena or even meaningfully deviating from another term we seek to disambiguate (especially since the line between hate and fear is an unclear one).

So what's the end game here?

As long as we're all clear they'll be paying that shrink out of pocket, because insurance doesn't cover unrecognized "ailments".

Thanks, Obama.

 

[Something Amyss]

FFS I am tired of this line of argument. In chemistry we learn about chemicals that are hydrophobic which in certain instances are actually repelled by water. Here's the dictionary definition for more clarity-

2. (chem) tending not to dissolve in, mix with, or be wetted by water: a hydrophobic colloid, Compare hydrophilic

Now are you going to argue against scientific convention and say that, "Hur dur dem chemicals can't be afraid of water and I ain't afraid of homosexuals."? As we can clearly see, "phobic" doesn't exclusively mean "fear".

OT: If you really need a modifier to distinguish your somewhat unique condition from others who are more hateful, why not just tack on the word "bigot". I'd work something like this. You are at times homophobic but well meaning and supportive. Reverend "God Hates Fags" Phelps is a homophobic BIGOT.

While I agree with you on principle, you have to keep in mind that a term as used in science may not be the same as it is used in spoken English.

You are familiar with the word "theory," I assume.

 

[Something Amyss]

If people need to grind their axe, I'm more than happy to burn it down to a nub. It's so easy when you're not making things up or pretending to be confused; dishonesty has been proven at a basic biological level to consume far more energy than telling a simple truth.

I'm happy to repeat the truth until they die of exhaustion.

Yeah, just elaborating on my issue with the whole thing, more or less.

I understand the nuance of language, it just annoys me when people straight-up try and game terms or redefine things. At least, try and redefine things outside of a cultural context. I mean, words do change. But they don't just change the minute say so because I say so. Otherwise, I would start redefining hate words really fast.

 

[deleted139124]

DELETED

 

[kitsunefather]

Is 'actual homophobia' as you describe actually a real thing?

Well, I don't know how much there is to read on it, or what studies there can be done into it, but here's my experience.

As to "actual homophobia", my wife's dad genuinely suffers anxiety and distress if he finds out a guy finds him attractive or flirts with him. He's been involved in the battle for gay marriage and LGBT rights for 20 years now, he just experiences a bit of personal anxiety when he is the focus of it, for whatever reason.

To "generalized homophobia", my dad is the kind of person who uses "queer" as a pejorative, and thinks that all homosexual men are pedophiles. He's a rural racist, and generally intolerant prick who, if not for being blood relation, I'd have even less to do with then the almost none I have now.

Personally, I agree that "homophobia" in general is an inelegant term. We really need a general suffix for hatred or disdain, or possibly revulsion. Possible -odium?

Homoodium? Homodium? Transodium? That last one sounds like an unhealthy dietary component.

 

[kitsunefather]

*shrug*

I personally don't see the point of splitting hairs over the usage of the term "homophobic" here. To me, it's just pointless pedantry that ultimately doesn't contribute anything of value to the discussion of anti-gay prejudice/discrimination.

I sometimes hear people say stuff like "I'm not a homophobe, I'm not actually scared of gay people." While that's what it literally means, we all know that's not the colloquial usage.

You aren't wrong, but personally I enjoy pedantic thought exercises. This one will be fruitless (no new terminology will be born from a forum thread that will exist for less than a week), but as a discussion of language and its use, and evolution, it's extremely interesting.

It also wouldn't be a bad idea to create or discuss a useable suffix for hatred, rather than lumping all distaste into fear, especially as people codify offense more and more, for better or worse.

In the end, not every discussion has to contribute to anything, some are simply there as placeholders that help us think more clearly or readily on subjects. Sometimes just participating in a discussion that outwardly seems fruitless is of greater help to things than direct confrontation.

 

[kitsunefather]

If they exact a cost, they should have value beyond your idle amusement.

I'm confused. What is the "cost" of this discussion? Is oppression being furthered, or hatred being fomented? Are people being cruel or unkind, or does there seem to be an ill intent behind all of this?

Is there some heroism this is keeping you or I from? Personally, I was under the impression that a forum was a place for the exchange of ideas, and that threads were meant to keep them relatively organized; thread titles allowing for people to easily find what threads interested them and which they'd find distasteful. Both of my posts took about 5 minutes to write, and that includes finding the -odium reference.

For my part, I don't believe that homophobia is a clinical disorder, but given that the common perception of "-phobia" is fear, I thought it an interesting exercise to continue the discussion of a greater clarity of language in this regard; again, as a thought exercise.

I do apologize if my participation in this discussion is causing you distress; it isn't my intent. As stated several times before, I find linguistic thought exercises interesting. It should also be said I don't consider topics, or words, taboo from that; we can't evolve as a culture or language while we hold on to the superstition of "bad language".

I also apologize if my tone feels churlish, or condescending; this is not intended. This just happens to my written voice, such as it is. I blame a childhood of Victorian literature, really.

So yes. Back to the point.

I am sincerely sorry, and genuinely confused, if my participation in this discussion has offended or insulted you. My intent was entirely academic; a discussion of terminology and word usage for greater clarity is interesting to me.

However, I do not really understand what "cost" is exacted by my contribution to the discussion, or even from the discussion in general.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Now this is interesting;

George Weinberg, the author of ?Society and the Healthy Homosexual? (1972), who coined the word ?homophobia?, weighs in by email:

?I just want to go on record as disagreeing with the AP?s decision not to use ?homophobia,? the word. I am a psychologist and author who coined the word a long time ago. It made all the difference to City Councils and other people I spoke to. It encapsulates a whole point of view and of feeling. It was a hard-won word, as you can imagine. It brought me some death threats. Is homophobia always based on fear? I thought so and still think so. Maybe envy in some cases. But that?s a psychological question. Is every snarling dog afraid? Probably yes. But here it shouldn?t matter. We have no other word for what we?re talking about, and this one is well established. We use ?freelance? for writers who don?t throw lances anymore, and who want to get paid for their work. Fowler even allows us to mix what he called dead metaphors. It seems curious that this word is getting such scrutiny while words like triskaidekaphobia (the fear of the number 13) hangs around.?

So it seems we use "homophobia" because there isn't a better word. Checking around though... I came across the word "homobigotry". It's not coined or official in any way, but it does get the point across better. Obviously not making any changes here, but "homobigotry" would work.

 

[kitsunefather]

Oppression? What are you talking about? I already made my views clear previously in this thread beyond that, and I won't claim that I read your post beyond where I snipped.

Ah. Well, then I can assume you won't read this post either. Fair enough. I would say that undermines the point of even beginning the discussion in the first place, especially in an open forum, but I get the impression you aren't (or weren't) looking for discussion.

If you are reading this, I've gone back and read all of your posts, and I while I now understand your (very generous) use of the word "cost".

Brass tacks.

Yes, the original notion of this thread is dumb. Dodo greeting sailor dumb. Homophobia is not a mental illness. This can be shown because there has never been a case of acute or crippling homophobia; no one has encountered two men kissing and required mental health professionals, or anti-anxiety medication. At its root, it is an anxiety with the alien, the unknown; a nervousness at what goes on behind closed doors that you don't know. This is easily educated out of most, though some (like my wife's dad) still carry lingering ticks buried too deep by too strict (or too religious) upbringing.

I take some exception, though, to the idea that a discussion of a word is causing harm. Or that the word itself has a locked in meaning that can never be changed. This is superstition. There is no cost to a discussion, except time and patience. Are there imbeciles that will look in this thread for validation that being hateful is okay? Maybe. Should we really never discuss anything any imbecile might take the wrong way, or use as a justification for being an asshole?

Of course not.

I understand that the existence of this thread perturbs you. I fear you took my intent in it to be malign, or in some way nefarious. I am concerned that you worry too much about what other people do with their free time. I am uncomfortable with the heat lately.

In places in this thread, you've done an admirable job defending your position, and in others (like mine), you've simply tried to get people to stop talking. One of these is helpful and constructive, and the other isn't.

You will never change some people's opinions; all you can do is give them the correct information and let them find their own way.

 

[kitsunefather]

No I read it, but it says nothing that hasn't been completely conclusively addressed earlier in this thread. Adding in more assumptions and condescension also doesn't improve your delivery as much as you seem to think it does. At the end of the day it's not a tenable position for you to try and conflate my insistence that people not conveniently "forget" the argument they had two seconds before with another person, with suppression of speech.

My apologies, then. I made the assumption based on your statement regarding my prior post, which explained most of what I was talking about, and which you stated clearly that you had ignored in near-entirety.

I've not had an argument here (in this thread, to be pedantic) with anyone but you. That argument has not happened in "real time", but rather over the course of an entire day in small bursts. My entire issue with you and "suppression of speech" is simple:

You aren't wrong, but personally I enjoy pedantic thought exercises.

And you don't mind at what expense?

If they exact a cost, they should have value beyond your idle amusement.

This rather lengthy response was clearly an attempt to either ask me to justify myself, or to mollify me into not posting (or, to apologize for posting in the first place). When I attempted to justify myself, you admittedly chose to ignore the entire post. Therefore, you didn't seem to be interested in hearing me out, which leaves the other option. Perhaps there's a third I can't see readily.

So moving from this, and the antagonistic tone throughout, my assumption was that you were trying to get people to stop posting in this thread or talking about this topic, as it's "cost" was too high, in that you seem to feel the thread is an attempt to justify or excuse bigotry.

I still stand by the idea that any discussion of language, even offensive language, can be approached respectfully and academically. That's what my intent in this thread was. I will again apologize if that offended you in any way. I will apologize if my tone is insulting or seems demeaning.

I wonder, though, at how much you seem to be demanding that I acquiesce to you without reason, rather than simply accepting my statements and moving on. You seem to feel this discussion has a high cost that must be taken into account before the conversation can happen (or while it is), and I believe that all discussion can be constructive if you are patient and reasoning. I don't think our opinions are that different, except in the idea that words or ideas have a cost on their own.

I respect that you have strong feelings about this point, but I do not share them. As such, I did not take the cost into account when I decided to add my two cents.

Can we agree on that point at least? That we have differing opinions on the what the "cost" of a conversation is, outside of time and patience? From there, may we part ways with civility?

Personally, I bear you no resentment, and have actually enjoyed the challenge to my ideals; a chance to examine them from an outside perspective, to an extent. They remain unchanged, but you have added to the considerations I will be more attentive of in the future, in regards to forums.

 

[Something Amyss]

I like using the word "homophobia" to describe homophobia. It works and has worked for a while, and it would be nice if people stopped pretending to not know what words means. It seems like you're more likely to draw a smartass objection for using the word "homophobia" or a similar word around here than you would for an actual slur.

Screw prayer. Semantics is the last refuge of a scandal.

 

[Something Amyss]

Now this is interesting;

George Weinberg, the author of ?Society and the Healthy Homosexual? (1972), who coined the word ?homophobia?, weighs in by email:

?I just want to go on record as disagreeing with the AP?s decision not to use ?homophobia,? the word. I am a psychologist and author who coined the word a long time ago. It made all the difference to City Councils and other people I spoke to. It encapsulates a whole point of view and of feeling. It was a hard-won word, as you can imagine. It brought me some death threats. Is homophobia always based on fear? I thought so and still think so. Maybe envy in some cases. But that?s a psychological question. Is every snarling dog afraid? Probably yes. But here it shouldn?t matter. We have no other word for what we?re talking about, and this one is well established. We use ?freelance? for writers who don?t throw lances anymore, and who want to get paid for their work. Fowler even allows us to mix what he called dead metaphors. It seems curious that this word is getting such scrutiny while words like triskaidekaphobia (the fear of the number 13) hangs around.?

So it seems we use "homophobia" because there isn't a better word.

And because it's well-established. And because it's accurate. It's a bad idea to quote mine a work when providing the full context.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Now this is interesting;

George Weinberg, the author of ?Society and the Healthy Homosexual? (1972), who coined the word ?homophobia?, weighs in by email:

?I just want to go on record as disagreeing with the AP?s decision not to use ?homophobia,? the word. I am a psychologist and author who coined the word a long time ago. It made all the difference to City Councils and other people I spoke to. It encapsulates a whole point of view and of feeling. It was a hard-won word, as you can imagine. It brought me some death threats. Is homophobia always based on fear? I thought so and still think so. Maybe envy in some cases. But that?s a psychological question. Is every snarling dog afraid? Probably yes. But here it shouldn?t matter. We have no other word for what we?re talking about, and this one is well established. We use ?freelance? for writers who don?t throw lances anymore, and who want to get paid for their work. Fowler even allows us to mix what he called dead metaphors. It seems curious that this word is getting such scrutiny while words like triskaidekaphobia (the fear of the number 13) hangs around.?

So it seems we use "homophobia" because there isn't a better word.

And because it's well-established. And because it's accurate. It's a bad idea to quote mine a work when providing the full context.

Well you added accurate, the actual quote reads "We have no other word for what we?re talking about, and this one is well established". No other word. Now, obviously you didn't read the whole thing, but "no other word" doesn't mean "homophobia" is the right word just that there's no other currently. It certainly doesn't mean it's accurate. It also goes back to my whole point of "we should be using a different word than homophobia to talk about people who are bigoted against homosexuals but aren't afraid".

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Its people who dont agree with gay peoples life style. Now i accept people hate stuff, gays, blacks, whatever, but all i would say is dont verbally or physically abuse those people. I dont like Marmite but i dont intentionally seek out Marmite lovers and insult and beat them. Let people do what they want (unless they commit a crime) as long as they dont effect you.

 

[AgedGrunt]

This may be your private definition of "Phobia", and that's fine, as long as you understand it isn't the real one.

I got mine out of a dictionary that I didn't write. I don't even own the Internet where I found it. If you want you can double-check with someone who speaks Greek, where the word originates. For the record, that's not my private language, either.

Hatred and discriminatory social principles aren't really the same thing as being phobic of something. Phobia is about avoiding something. kind of like someone who is homophobic would get off a bus if two gay passengers were being affectionate with each other. That's about it.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well you added accurate,

I paraphrased. You quoted a guy indicating that the label was correct. Of course, you left that part out the second go around.

the actual quote reads "We have no other word for what we?re talking about, and this one is well established". No other word.

It encapsulates a whole point of view and of feeling. It was a hard-won word, as you can imagine. It brought me some death threats. Is homophobia always based on fear? I thought so and still think so. Maybe envy in some cases.

*ahem*

Now, obviously you didn't read the whole thing, but "no other word" doesn't mean "homophobia" is the right word just that there's no other currently.

You're half right. I read the whole thing, as far as you posted it. I even went so far as to google it to check for context. But you're right about the "no other word" not meaning "homophobia." Fortunately, nobody was saying that.

It also goes back to my whole point of "we should be using a different word than homophobia to talk about people who are bigoted against homosexuals but aren't afraid".

Again, only if you ignore the rest of the segment you posted. First, you have to ignore the bit where he says, citing his own professional stance on the matter, that homophobia is an apt word, because the phenomenon is always based on fear. You're trying to twist that.

You also need to ignore that he's disagreeing with a decision that is inline with your argument in the context. This means that he can't be saying what you want him to say.

You also need to ignore his point about freelancers, or feel that we need to redefine that as well. Can you clarify which you are doing?

 

[Zacharious-khan]

We call it homophobia and don't quibble over silly etymology and semantics. Lions do not concern themselves with the opinions of sheep, only whether or not they have mint jelly because mint jelly and lamb is freaking delicious.

 

[Nimzabaat]

So this was an slightly educational thread. I started off believing "homophobia" wasn't considered to be an actual psychological condition and that people just used the word against bigots out of pure laziness and spite. During the course, someone tried arguing that same point so badly that I did a bit more research and found out that I was wrong and there are psychiatric professionals that treat homophobia as an actual phobia with medication and therapy. However it seems to be a slightly more divisive word than I had originally thought. This means that there are doctors out there who think it is personally reasonable to fear 15% of the population (sinistrophobia or fear of left handed people), but absolutely ridiculous to fear 15% of the population (based on an approximate that the number of homosexuals and the number of people born left hand dominant are equivalent). So yeah, people who graduate at the bottom of their class still get to be called doctor...

My suggestion would be for 'homophobia' to be used for people who are actually scared and "homobigotry" for people who aren't scared but dislike homosexuals. (obviously not going to happen)

Off-Topic: Someone mentioned that discussing ideas like this was a "waste of time". While that person was promptly shouted down by other users, this came to mind:

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Eleanor Roosevelt

 

[Something Amyss]

My suggestion would be for 'homophobia' to be used for people who are actually scared and "homobigotry" for people who aren't scared but dislike homosexuals. (obviously not going to happen)

Yes, but what should we call freelancers now that you've opened that box?