So what do we call actual homophobia?

[SilverUchiha]

I think X-Men sums it up best. People fear what they don't understand. And there are large portions of the population (ie the religious zealots of America for starters) that simply do not understand homosexual relations. And because they don't understand, they act out of fear, hate, and do irrationally stupid and hurtful things. I'm not defending them because, yes, they are being assholes. But they're being assholes out of fear because they don't understand and choose not to understand. It's the latter part that makes them assholes. You can be afraid of whatever you want. But if you choose to be afraid instead of attempting to understand and overcome that fear, you're a weak coward who will continue to live in fear and continue being an asshole out of fear.

 

[Nimzabaat]

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?

Well free agents is used for hockey players, the same term could easily apply. Now since you're more interested in minutae than the discussion at hand, what should we call electric eels? They aren't eels after all.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well free agents is used for hockey players, the same term could easily apply.

Except both words may not apply in any circumstance, so why would you apply that term?

Now since you're more interested in minutae than the discussion at hand

Wait, what? You ignored my larger post on the subject, the one where I quote your own source to demonstrate you were wrong, and then accuse me of only being interest in minutiae when I bring up a point after you've made an "in summary" argument? How does that work?

 

[Nimzabaat]

I think X-Men sums it up best. People fear what they don't understand. And there are large portions of the population (ie the religious zealots of America for starters) that simply do not understand homosexual relations. And because they don't understand, they act out of fear, hate, and do irrationally stupid and hurtful things. I'm not defending them because, yes, they are being assholes. But they're being assholes out of fear because they don't understand and choose not to understand. It's the latter part that makes them assholes. You can be afraid of whatever you want. But if you choose to be afraid instead of attempting to understand and overcome that fear, you're a weak coward who will continue to live in fear and continue being an asshole out of fear.

Okay once again people seem to be getting confused about simple language. People with phobias aren't necessarily against the object of that phobia. Phobias aren't rational decisions we make. We don't get to "create a character" and go "hmmm i'll pick acrophobia because it lets me buy a perk later on". That's not how it works. So saying someone is weak for not being able to get rid of their phobia is like saying someone is a coward for not just deciding not to be gay. The brain doesn't work that way and you're doing that person a disservice by not taking them seriously. Now if they act in a bigoted manner, that is most likely not connected to an actual phobia.

My point was people who fear homosexuals may have nothing against homosexuality. They may support marriage equality, they may have gay friends that they have to manage their phobia around. Phobia does not equal bigotry, but out of laziness and intense stupidity some people use a word that implies phobia when they mean bigotry. They are separate concepts and all I am saying is that they shouldn't be lumped together because people are stupid. We should try to be a little bit better and use a more correct terminology.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Well free agents is used for hockey players, the same term could easily apply.

Except both words may not apply in any circumstance, so why would you apply that term?

Now since you're more interested in minutae than the discussion at hand

Wait, what? You ignored my larger post on the subject, the one where I quote your own source to demonstrate you were wrong, and then accuse me of only being interest in minutiae when I bring up a point after you've made an "in summary" argument? How does that work?

Yeah, because he's taking the new conservative line to try and undermine the idea of fucked up thinking. Don't be fooled because he's pretending that this shit is all new to him.

Isn't that right Nizzy? Looking over this thread, I can see you were aiming for your conclusion all along, and even when nobody seems to have gone for the ride with you, you still tried to force it. Cute.

Now I don't know about psychologically, but practically speaking homophobes aren't sick, they're fuckwits. They can pretend to be tragically misunderstood fuckwits, but fuckwits they shall remain.

So say we all. Or at least, a voting majority.

Well you do have a point in that most of my posts seem to be probing this site for the best and brightest. Now let me ask you; do you think that people who are irrationally afraid of left handed people are "just fuckwits" as you so eloquently put it? How about people who are acrophobic? Are they just being cowards? Just because you have no phobias yourself and cannot understand what that feels like doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Once again, when I say "homopbobic" you automatically think about those people who show up at rallies against gay marriage. You think about the Westboro Baptist Church, you think about the "pray away the gay" types. That isn't what we're talking about here. Those are bigots. It's a totally different thing. I'm talking about the difference between bigots and people who have an actual phobia. If you've read through even a little bit of this thread you would have noticed there are people who have classic phobic symptoms to homosexuals. By phobic symptoms we mean; anxiety, shortness of breath, nausea etc. Symptoms that seem to be absent from those rallies where people are holding signs and yelling at gay people. People with an actual phobia wouldn't attend a rally because the subject of their fear might show up.

Fighting bigotry with bigotry is wrong. And using a Battlestar Galactica quote to promote anti-bigotry bigotry? That is such a terrible context to use that quote for that it's almost painful.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Well free agents is used for hockey players, the same term could easily apply.

Except both words may not apply in any circumstance, so why would you apply that term?

Now since you're more interested in minutae than the discussion at hand

Wait, what? You ignored my larger post on the subject, the one where I quote your own source to demonstrate you were wrong, and then accuse me of only being interest in minutiae when I bring up a point after you've made an "in summary" argument? How does that work?

Your larger post was an attempt to demonstrate I was wrong by just saying that I was "twisting" wording to suite my ends when I put the whole thing up for context so that wouldn't happen. Nothing really to offer a rebuttal on.

As for why use "free agent" when "freelance" works just as well? You're the one who wanted a different word, a more apt word for "freelance" so I provided one. I'm the one who wants a more apt word for "homobigotry" (which isn't a word), maybe you can help me out?

 

[Silvanus]

I'm the one who wants a more apt word for "homobigotry" (which isn't a word), maybe you can help me out?

What makes a word more "apt"? Is it not wide understanding of the meaning and usage? Everybody here actually understands what is meant by "homophobia", which would seem to be the entire purpose of the word.

There's no reason the definition of a word must literally reflect it's etymology. Etymology is not definition.

 

[Nimzabaat]

I'm the one who wants a more apt word for "homobigotry" (which isn't a word), maybe you can help me out?

What makes a word more "apt"? Is it not wide understanding of the meaning and usage? Everybody here actually understands what is meant by "homophobia", which would seem to be the entire purpose of the word.

There's no reason the definition of a word must literally reflect it's etymology. Etymology is not definition.

Yay!!! Someone who gets it! Awesome. Okay this is more progress than has been made in four pages. So if we understand that "homophobia" has nothing to do with an actual phobia (ignoring those enlightened medical professionals who disagree), what do we call people who have an actual phobia that concerns homosexuals? Or should we change the word for bigotry against homosexuals?

 

[Nimzabaat]

Well free agents is used for hockey players, the same term could easily apply.

Except both words may not apply in any circumstance, so why would you apply that term?

Now since you're more interested in minutae than the discussion at hand

Wait, what? You ignored my larger post on the subject, the one where I quote your own source to demonstrate you were wrong, and then accuse me of only being interest in minutiae when I bring up a point after you've made an "in summary" argument? How does that work?

Yeah, because he's taking the new conservative line to try and undermine the idea of fucked up thinking. Don't be fooled because he's pretending that this shit is all new to him.

Isn't that right Nizzy? Looking over this thread, I can see you were aiming for your conclusion all along, and even when nobody seems to have gone for the ride with you, you still tried to force it. Cute.

Now I don't know about psychologically, but practically speaking homophobes aren't sick, they're fuckwits. They can pretend to be tragically misunderstood fuckwits, but fuckwits they shall remain.

So say we all. Or at least, a voting majority.

Well you do have a point in that most of my posts seem to be probing this site for the best and brightest.

No, you're trying to prosyletize a very specific Evangelical Christian talking point, while ignoring the fact that everyone here seems to know exactly what you're up to.

Captcha: "That will not work". Even the captcha gets this.

So you haven't read the thread then... Nice. And captcha was right, but not in the way you thought. Also nice. And you only picked out part of the rebuttal because you didn't understand the rest. And you're claiming the part you picked out has nothing to do with what it said. Baseball has three strikes but you went ahead and got four. Nicely done

I thought the all time winner was the "i have a copy of the book of all things on my desk written in crayon that proves i'm right but nobody else can see it" argument but you've done that one better.

Look, you don't understand what a phobia is, I get that. You probably don't understand any kind of mental illness at all. I get that as well and understand why. But can you try to just open your mind a little and understand that some people do?

 

[Silvanus]

Yay!!! Someone who gets it! Awesome. Okay this is more progress than has been made in four pages. So if we understand that "homophobia" has nothing to do with an actual phobia (ignoring those enlightened medical professionals who disagree), what do we call people who have an actual phobia that concerns homosexuals? Or should we change the word for bigotry against homosexuals?

Well, trying to purposefully bring about a change in definition is rarely a good idea-- language tends to evolve on its own.

As for what to call somebody with a genuine phobia of gay people, I'm not yet convinced there is such a thing. There may be, but I haven't heard or read about it. Discomfort around homosexual acts (or acts of any sexuality that one isn't oneself) is one thing, but that's not the same thing.

If there is such a thing, then I imagine it will be given a name by researchers or scientists.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Yay!!! Someone who gets it! Awesome. Okay this is more progress than has been made in four pages. So if we understand that "homophobia" has nothing to do with an actual phobia (ignoring those enlightened medical professionals who disagree), what do we call people who have an actual phobia that concerns homosexuals? Or should we change the word for bigotry against homosexuals?

Well, trying to purposefully bring about a change in definition is rarely a good idea-- language tends to evolve on its own.

As for what to call somebody with a genuine phobia of gay people, I'm not yet convinced there is such a thing. There may be, but I haven't heard or read about it. Discomfort around homosexual acts (or acts of any sexuality that one isn't oneself) is one thing, but that's not the same thing.

If there is such a thing, then I imagine it will be given a name by researchers or scientists.

If you scroll back a bit there's a bunch of people who tell us there is such a thing. My worry is that we've become so used to the word homophobia that people who might actually be phobic would be afraid to talk about it.

 

[GhostHunter]

I'm the one who wants a more apt word for "homobigotry" (which isn't a word), maybe you can help me out?

k, I'm gonna steal that. i have an actual phobia, and its rather annoying when people misuse terms they don't understand.

 

[kirwan464]

the right word is bigot

 

[Silvanus]

If you scroll back a bit there's a bunch of people who tell us there is such a thing. My worry is that we've become so used to the word homophobia that people who might actually be phobic would be afraid to talk about it.

Well, yes, but we're lacking anything authoritative or solid.

Assuming it exists (I'm not against the suggestion), I guess "fear of homosexuals" is serviceable, or "homosexual phobia".

 

[Nimzabaat]

The right word is bigot

Absolutely. Yet for some reason "bigot' just isn't an exclusive enough word for some people. Sigh.

 

[Something Amyss]

k, I'm gonna steal that. i have an actual phobia, and its rather annoying when people misuse terms they don't understand.

Just so we're clear, you are aware you're talking about a term which was coined by a psychiatrist, right? And that the people who misuse this term they don't understand are using it inline with said coining?

 

[Something Amyss]

I still vote for Fuckwit myself, but I'm just a country boy with simple tastes.

Oh god. You should have started that with "now, I'm no big city lawyer...."

 

[Nimzabaat]

.

Don't get upset because everyone knows what you're trying to pull.

I'm not upset, just trying to help is all. While you may think i'm being sarcastic there, i'm not. Everybody deserves to be a better version of themselves.

.

Because you missed the people talking about actual phobic reactions to homosexuals, the links to the psychiatric definitions of said phobia, your reading comprehension is pretty poor if this is what you came up with. You also seem to think i'm some kind of religious fanatic when nothing i've said would indicate that and it is far from the truth. I'm agnostic if you care.

I didn't miss the handful of people arguing for something that turns up no results in any respected journal I could find; a point I see has been made to you directly many times.

By someone sounding suspiciously like you and who is also immune to the many medical pages that were quoted. Do you have a copy of the "DSM" on your desk as well?

.

I find it pretty funny that you joined the same day Dynast got suspended for his deliberately obtuse behavior. You also seem to have taken this argument personally suspiciously... quickly. Making up two user profiles just so one can agree with oneself? That would be really awkward if it were true. Obviously it couldn't be so "new user"... welcome to the Escapist! You will need a much more open mind and broader perspective to feel welcome here but there's many, many people here who will be happy to help.

I'm another guy? Because two people can't think you're trying to make some shit up? Desperation is an ugly thing.

Oh I absolutely believe that two people can be wrong about the same thing. By definition, half the world is below average intelligence. I completely understand that. It just seems weird that someone gets suspended for being less than cordial and deliberately baiting people with misinformation and then someone else who is incredibly similar pops up on almost the same day. It could very easily be a coincidence though.

 

[Nimzabaat]

k, I'm gonna steal that. i have an actual phobia, and its rather annoying when people misuse terms they don't understand.

Just so we're clear, you are aware you're talking about a term which was coined by a psychiatrist, right? And that the people who misuse this term they don't understand are using it inline with said coining?

You forgot to add something though.

"the people who misuse this term they don't understand are using it inline with said coining out of ignorance?"

There, fixed. This whole thread is about fighting the ignorance behind using that term when you mean something else. Now I know we can't fix the world as easily but shouldn't we try? I mean that's the problem nowadays, isn't it, we're not trying anymore? For now I would suggest that people who have an actual phobia about homosexuals, if they don't want to be crucified by the ignorant that is, to use the terms "androphobic or gynophobia" whichever is more applicable to ones situation. Those are considered to be legitimate phobias by all and most people don't know what they mean.

 

[GhostHunter]

k, I'm gonna steal that. i have an actual phobia, and its rather annoying when people misuse terms they don't understand.

Just so we're clear, you are aware you're talking about a term which was coined by a psychiatrist, right? And that the people who misuse this term they don't understand are using it inline with said coining?

Didn't realize the Romans and the Greeks had psychiatrists. Or do you mean when some one in modern day "coined" it without understanding its etymology? also i stick with denotations not connotations, terrific is an example of why that's a bad idea.