So what do we call actual homophobia?

[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.

 

[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.