So what do we call actual homophobia?

[Something Amyss]

Aren't 90% of these threads dedicated to arguing over terminology anyway?

I think this has more to do with the observer effect.

 

[JCAll]

Well, Homo doesn't mean the same thing as Homosexual. Homo is either a genus of primates or a bit of butchered greek meaning "same". "Homophobic" is a rather informal way to designate bigoted idiots, I suppose someone with a legitimate phobia of the gays would be "Homosexualphobic". Even if that sounds weird.

Caption: Banana Stand

 

[K12]

I'm pretty sure that if you are literally afraid of gay people then you are being "homophobic" in the way we use the term today anyway. Especially if your fear is along the lines of "what about my children!".

"Homophobic" means this plus a bunch of other aversions to gay people of hateful or disgusted variety. Some phobias actually manifest more as an extreme disgust to a stimulus rather than a feeling of being in danger. All instances that we describe as homophobic are times when homophobia is seen as a threat or danger of some kind (to religion, morality or stomach lining) so "phobia" isn't an inappropriate term.

I think people who have a negative emotional reaction to gay people but recognise that is themselves who are wrong would still count as homophobic though I do have a lot of respect for people who can own up to that. Perhaps "Recovering Homophobe" would be the best term.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Aren't 90% of these threads dedicated to arguing over terminology anyway?

I think this has more to do with the observer effect.

I observe there is much ado about terminology; ideas not so much.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

The problem with the term homophobia is that's a misnomer as term because literally it means "same fear" when translated from Greek. The word in common usage is the shorthand for bigotry against homosexual people. Since the common usage is generally how words are defined, have definitions added, or are totally redefined. Which means in common usage; homophobia, as a term for people who are bigoted against gay people, is technically correct. Which means that homophobia as a term regarding irrational fear of gay people is technically incorrect.

A clinical phobia is described as: An Intense, persistent, abnormal, and/or irrational fear, dislike, and/or aversion.

Since bigotry is, more often than not, described as an irrational intolerance(see: aversion, dislike) of a person, group, idea, opinion, or belief. So by that logic most bigotry can be synonymous with phobias. The thing with phobias is that they can be conquered with desensitization, therapy, hypnotherapy, or medication. Though I think medicating for a phobia is just a bunk excuse to sell more psychotropic drugs. The thing is that a willing individual can get past a phobia, which means there really isn't an excuse to cling to the phobia, it also means there is no excuse for a projection of bigotry towards a group one has a phobia of. Using any legitimate phobia as an excuse to be an asshole to people is unacceptable, plain and simple.

This swings back around to the term; homophobia, and the fact that the term, just by it's wording, is incorrect. More so it's common usage addresses intolerant and discriminatory behavior towards gay people, so as common usage goes, this term being used correctly. In which case a true phobia regarding homosexual people needs it's own clinical term separate from the common term, or better yet set of terms, used to describe the actual condition(s) related to such phobias.

 

[Nimzabaat]

A clinical phobia is described as: An Intense, persistent, abnormal, and/or irrational fear, dislike, and/or aversion.

Since bigotry is, more often than not, described as an irrational intolerance(see: aversion, dislike) of a person, group, idea, opinion, or belief. So by that logic most bigotry can be synonymous with phobias. The thing with phobias is that they can be conquered with desensitization, therapy, hypnotherapy, or medication.

Actually i've never, ever heard bigotry described as "irrational". "Unfair" maybe, but not irrational. Bigotry is often brought about by an institution that does nothing but rationalize their intolerance. Those rationalizations may not make much sense and may be contradictory to the source material, but they're still rational in their own way.

Now since it seems we've moved from basic terminology to "would people with homophobia accept treatment?" I think that is a very strong case for separation from the term "homophobic" and "bigot". A bigot would not see that there's anything wrong with them and wouldn't seek treatment for their bigotry. A person suffering from a phobia knows that the problem is them and may seek treatment for it.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Snippous

Believe you me, I know a few things about recognition of a problem, but people can be afraid of weird things in life.

Yep, but they're not phobias or recognized conditions. The intense dislike and aversion to doing the washing up for instance, isn't diagnostically valid. I don't care what people self-diagnose, especially if they then use that diagnosis to pretend that their intolerance is a disease.

It seems you don't care about a lot, like what the OED, DSM (6 pages of articles on homophobia if you'd care for some light reading i can start you off http://www.psychiatry.org/lgbt-sexual-orientation), Wikipedia, or any source says. So is there any source, other than yourself, that you might possibly be less closed minded to? All the experts are out, all your fellow forum members are out, so who does that leave? You'll believe in fear of clowns, left handed people, Jews and Christians but homosexuals is where you, and only you, draw the line?

 

[Something Amyss]

I observe there is much ado about terminology; ideas not so much.

You seem to generate a lot of those issues. Now, I don't particularly care that you do that, but it strikes me as curious that you would complain about such things and the lack of a solution when rather than contribute to the latter, you contribute the former.

And your solution to this is to point it out, without any attempt to add to the discussion, enrich it, or change its course to ideas? Interesting choice.

You must have missed the "transracial" threads.

 

[lacktheknack]

If we're going THIS route, then we may as well (be the eightieth person to) unleash my annoyance and point out that homophobia is the fear of things staying the same.

As for homoerophobics... like someone who's afraid of cow dung, they probably shouldn't make a big deal out of it, and if it's crippling, they should probably see a shrink. I don't think it's a big enough deal to make a big deal out of.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I observe there is much ado about terminology; ideas not so much.

You seem to generate a lot of those issues. Now, I don't particularly care that you do that, but it strikes me as curious that you would complain about such things and the lack of a solution when rather than contribute to the latter, you contribute the former.

The problem is people confusing words with problems, and my solution is to discriminate between what matters and what doesn't.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

It is not.

Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself

Irrationality is no requirement, you don't HAVE to be intolerant, you can simply CHOOSE to be.

Potentially, but I've never seen a case of someone being rationally intolerant, especially when they're being a bigot about something. Especially if you challenge someone's bigoted opinion, because generally the argument for holding onto such intolerance is never rational.

Besides dictionary definitions almost always lag behind common usage, this is why definitions change over time, because, simply put, common usages change over time.

Actually i've never, ever heard bigotry described as "irrational". "Unfair" maybe, but not irrational. Bigotry is often brought about by an institution that does nothing but rationalize their intolerance. Those rationalizations may not make much sense and may be contradictory to the source material, but they're still rational in their own way.

Except what people tend to say is rationalization, is actually irrational justification. In this case bigots use irrational arguments to justify a bigoted, as well as, a usually discriminatory and hateful attitude. A good example of this is the same-sex marriage counter argument, where someone uses the slippery slope logical fallacy to justify their own dissenting position on the subject. This is why bigotry can, more often than not, especially in the American usage, be classified as irrational.

Now since it seems we've moved from basic terminology to "would people with homophobia accept treatment?" I think that is a very strong case for separation from the term "homophobic" and "bigot". A bigot would not see that there's anything wrong with them and wouldn't seek treatment for their bigotry. A person suffering from a phobia knows that the problem is them and may seek treatment for it.

Most people don't seek treatment for arachnophobia, they usually just panic and smash spiders when confronted with them, or run away from the spider. Most people don't seek treatment for phobias. Someone with a true phobia of homosexuals could simply justify their phobia by telling them selves that it's natural to hate homosexuals, because homosexuality is unnatural. Because phobias tend to be irrational, it's easier to justify one, than treat it. I've never seen a rational example of bigotry for that matter. In the case of anti-homosexual bias, how is it rational to be so preoccupied with what sex someone else is attracted to?

Either way you're basically demanding that the general populace change how it uses a term in common parlance, which in this case would take away the one term homosexuals have for identifying anti-homosexual bigotry. This is a bit silly for two reasons: First is that; you're not going to change the vernacular by arguing on a forum. The second is; it's usually more likely for a definition to be changed to fit usage, than for the opposite to happen, anyways.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

You didn't originally talk about what Bigotry means to YOU, but what the "definition" is. If you want to demonstrate common usage in line with how you view the term, by all means please do. I would argue that there are many rational reasons to hate people, or be intolerant of them. That it's unfair, wrong, unproductive, and destructive are all factors which moderate the thinking and behavior of decent people. To simply dismiss those who don't think like you as "Irrational" though isn't going to work.

Lets be clear, you said, "Since bigotry is, more often than not, described as..."

I think that by reasonable standards citing the OED counts to dismiss that, and if you'd like to insist that in spite of the accepted definition, your own thinking on the matter is actually most common, then please prove it.

Prove semantics and vernacular? There's a discussion that can go in circles until the sun runs out of hydrogen and helium to fuse.

Anyways citing a dictionary can be an issue all of it's own as you stated the OED definition:

OED:
Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

But Merriam-Webster dictionaries have this for the definition:source [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot]

Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition
bigot
noun | big-ot | ˈbi-gət

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group).

Full definition: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

or concerning bigotry by it self: [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotry]
noun | big-ot-ry | ˈbi-gə-trē
:bigoted acts or beliefs.

Full definition: 1: the state of mind of a bigot.
2: acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot.

Since the two dictionaries disagree it's hard to pin down a word with total accuracy on a dictionary definition alone. Wikipedia combines several major dictionaries for the full context(Oxford and Cambridge for the British English, then Merriam-Webster and Collin's dictionary for the American English): source [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry]

Wikipedia:
The concept of Bigotry can have slightly different meanings in American and British English.

In British English it refers to a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them.[1][2]

In American English, the term can be used similarly; however, it can also be used to refer to intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.[3][4]

So we have quite a bit of dissent, just based on chosen dictionary sources.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Another place where your case falls apart. What would the treatment be? Well, phobias in the way you're trying to frame this, are ANXIETY DISORDERS. The single most effective treatment in the case of phobias? Exposure.

Now the problem is that there is never an issue with exposure in the bigot's/phobic's life. The issue is their tolerance, not an actual loss of function. That's the other problem you know, where is the clinical significance of this? It doesn't exist, just like homophobia as a disorder.

If you had taken the time to read that article from the DSM, treatments for homophobia can include medication and hypnotherapy. Also phobics encounter (again from your source not mine and thanks for the ammo) symptoms including: "Feeling of panic, Feeling of terror, Feeling of dread, Rapid heartbeat, Shortness of breath, Trembling, Anxiety, Extreme avoidance measures taken". One might notice during the anti-homosexual protests that none of the people involved seem to have any of those symptoms, even when openly gay people show up to counter protest (which is awesome). So there's a pretty strong difference between someone who is homophobic and someone who is a bigot.

I did learn something from your sources though. Previously I thought that people were just written off as homophobes and that was it. I didn't realize that there were actual treatments available. Thanks for that.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Oh, I understand. I was merely entertaining the notion that it's not impossible, even though there's nothing in the manual. Just trying to find some discussion value. It would still be a dumb fear even if it existed. How many homosexuals do you know that could actually strike fear into the hearts of men OR women? Maybe Richard Simmons, but only for being Richard Simmons!

 

[DerangedHobo]

Assuming there is genuinely a mental condition which would meet the criteria of "homophobia" then get it recognized and treated. Until there is actual recognition, "homophobes" just look like crazy assholes. It should also be noted that being crazy is perfectly fine, being a crazy asshole who goes out making other people's lives miserable is not fine and should not be excused due to mental illness.

 

[Notshauna]

I mean both the gay panic bullshit of old and the word hydrophobia. Hydrophobia doesn't mean fear of water it refers to the process of some chemicals (famously fats) to push water as far away as possible from them, forming layering effect. But, the modern phobias homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia are just different versions of the isms like how it's not jewist or semitist it's anti-semite. Because people tend to support words that sound better to them.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

this is a christian forum.

Oh, is it? I must have missed the memo, when did that happen? Am I still welcome here?

I did once denounce God and Jesus in a public park, because I thought the girl (very into metal, had convinced me she was a satanic priestess) I was with would let me touch her boobies. Didn't work. I was not a very smart youngster.

 

[Tilly]

I'd honestly never considered this but it really is true that disliking gay people shouldn't really be considered the same category as being scared of heights (for example).

No idea what word you'd use instead though!

 

[Chris Moses]

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.

 

[AgedGrunt]

-phobic has become a derogatory brush to paint anyone you want to disrespect or even hate for their feelings and beliefs while projecting your own intolerance. It's for when you disagree with someone so greatly and feel so offended, even for other groups of people, you want a way to marginalize and insult them for no other reason than they and their way of thinking exist.

Homophobia or transphobia should genuinely describe people who become uncomfortable, anxious and aversive toward those respective people. There can be many reasons why; in and of itself that doesn't make someone an asshole. Being averse to people who have religion, tattoos, piercings, kids, certain fashion, body types, are unattractive and/or awkward doesn't make you an asshole, either; it's called personality.

You're not a bad person if you have a phobia; you're a bad person if you hurt or oppress someone because you don't see them as equals.