There are a few threads open right now, both here and in The Pit, where a good part of the debate revolves around whether something is or is not “homophobic”? But it appears that posters use the term to mean different things, even those on the same side of the debate. So, can we try to get a working definition of the word. I’m particularly interested in how those whose are gay use the word, or would like the word to be used. Personally, I don’t really care what the definition is, just that we all know what the other is saying.
So, is homophobia:
hatred of gays?
disapproval of gays?
fear of gays?
other?
Bonus: Other words in these discussion that seem to be used differently by different people are:
discrimination—is it merely discernment or does it necessarily carry the negative connotation?
tolerance—does it mean that something has to be accepted as benign, or just that no action be taken against it?
I would say that “homophobic” means “prejudiced against gays” - I agree that it’s not a very good word, but it’s the one we have. “Homosexualist” might have been better, by analogy with “racist” and “sexist”, but language development is rarely logical. I assume I don’t need to define “prejudice”. Of the OP’s options, it’s probably closest to (b), “disapproval of”; “hatred” is too strong, “fear”, although it may be the basis for prejudice and the meaning the word itself might suggest, doesn’t really reflect how the word is used.
In this context, “discrimination” usually carries with it the notion of some sort of treatment of the individual or group in question; to “discriminate against” someone is to treat them less favourably. Of course, it’s also possible to discriminate in favour of someone, so I wouldn’t say that the word “discrimination” on its own had negative connotations, it just implies actions rather than opinions.
“Tolerance”? I don’t think there’s much difference between the OP’s options here. How would non-acceptance be expressed, except by taking action? I would include the expression of a negative opinion on homosexuality as “taking action against it”, of course.
An important element of a ‘phobia’ is that it is an irrational distinction. We must explore whether some distinction in law or in social treatment with respect to homosexuals is being drawn on a rational basis. I must admit that I have never heard convincing reasoning behind such distinctions: they seem to be made more on a basis of faith, erroneous science or projected strawmen.
To me it is a very insidious and insulting term. Homophobia was (IMHO) chosen as a term to make people’s feelings about homosexuals a mental disorder, and defined in such a way that it could be applies to almost any hetrosexual for very minor PC infrations.
By definition, an irrational fear, or hatred, is a minor mental problem, if you ask me. It can be overcome, for sure, but the patient has to want to get well. Therein lies the rub.
I see it as what Tevildo said, “prejudiced against gays”
so I think it’s mostly your (2) with an active component to it, including negative verbal commentary. There are often shades of (1) in it, and I think your (3) is often a causitive factor, but not the end result.
It’s pretty pointless to try for a singular definition for a widely-used and vague term like that; other people are not going to concede to whatever you consider the “right” definition to be.
All you can do in any given conversation is figure out the other person is using a term and go with it. If they are using a term in a wildly different way from you (e.g. “terrorism is any time someone hurts someone else”), that’s your clue that further conversation will likely be pointless.
I think it’s a very useful term that has become blunted by misuse. There really are people out there who have an irrational fear and/or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality, and “homophpbia” is an entirely appropriate word by which to refer to this.
Anti-Semitism is probably not the best term for anti-Jewish prejudice. Only a minority of Semites are Jews, and not every Jew is a Semite (There are converts). But nonetheless it is the common term, and everyone knows what it means. If I say “Jane is an anti-semite,” you know I mean Jane dislikes Jews. Your next question might be “How do you know?” or “How much does she dislike Jews?” Only those whose motives are at best stubborn pedantry and at worst deliberate obfuscation will be confused by the statement “Jane is an anti-semite.”
Similarly homophobia may not be the best term for anti-gay prejudice. It is too clinical and subsumes all anti-gay prejudice under the label “phobia.” Nonetheless it is the common term and everyone knows what it means. If I say “John is a homophobe” You know what I mean. You know I mean “John is prejudiced against gay people.” Again, any pretense of pretending you don’t know what I mean is at best hair-splitting pedantry and at worst an attempt to derail the discussion by deliberate smoke-blowing obfuscation.
I don’t like the term “homophobia” to describe people who are consciously and maliciously prejudiced against gay people. For one, it’s inaccurate since homophobes don’t just run away or have a panic reaction to a gay person, they plot against them and their hatred/fear of them is systematic. Not the way a phobia works. Also, it demonizes the haters less, when we should be demonizing them more. After all, if someone is “phobic,” that just means they’re (slightly) sick, so we should have pity on them. It makes the gay person out to be the cause of that panic reaction, so it makes gay people the “bad thing.” Whereas saying someone is “full of hate for gay people” places the burden strictly on the hater’s shoulders, where it belongs.
Sure, there might be people who really do have an irrational fear of gays the way people have irrational fears of spiders or bridges, and so the term homophobic is accurate to describe them. But most anti-gay people aren’t ignorant of the reality of homosexuality, they just hate gay people.
I’ve usually heard “heterosexist” used to describe language which is coded to exclude same-sex relationships, either intentionally or accidentally. As in, “the prevalence of romantic comedies which feature a male/female relationship is symptomatic of a heterosexist culture.” I know nobody on here agreed with my definition of racism, but I think it’s much the same thing–everyone is heterosexist since we have all grown up in a heterosexist society. But that’s different from being anti-gay or gay-hating, just like the fact that we’re all racist due to growing up in a racist society doesn’t mean we are all anti-non-white people or non-white-people hating.
I disagree; I think it’s important to discover the hidden meanings and biases in the terms we use and come up with the most accurate terms we can so that these biases don’t carry over into the “meat” of the conversation itself. “Homophobia” carries a much different flavor than “gay-hater” and the fact that one person might refer to an anti-gay person as mentally ill (which would make them an object of pity) and another person might refer to them as an evil and/or misguided person (which would make them an object of scorn) is something that will influence the discourse. It might be slight but the influence is still there and I’d rather confront these language problems than dilute my message just to accomodate another person.
I wish this was the Pit so I could respond to the last part of this statement with the approbation it deserves. Not everyone is so clear on what the word means. Sometime it is used to mean prejudice, other times it is used to mena raging hate. Read some of the current threads and see for yourself.
Excuse me for wantiing to clarify how a term is being used before I respond to someone. You may feel comfortable spouting righteous nonsense like you did above for your own benefit. But I, and I would guess others, are trying to communicate with other posters, so we find a common language (definitions) helpful.
If you feel the need to respond with more of the same, may I request you simply talk to the mirror.
While we’re at it, where’s the outrage over the term “genocide?” It combines one Greek and one Indo-European word to make a horrible mish-mash of a term! Plus, it’s just a word that was made up just a few decades ago to mean what a person wanted it to mean! Where is the outrage!?!
Now that I have that out of my system, dictionaries do a perfectly fine job of providing definitions for words, even words that have multiple meanings, including the words homophobe, gay, discrimination, tolerance, blue, the, vision, map, and straight, among many, many others.
I don’t think that people are “pretending not to know what it means;” I think they’re saying that it is inaccurate. For instance, during the Katrina disaster there were photos of white people who “found” food and black people who “looted” it. Sure, we know that those captions mean both these groups of people discovered food that wasn’t theirs and took it, but those words have different, subtle meanings. And that subtlety influences how people react to those captions. Similarly, “homophobia” is a lighter term than “anti-homosexual” or “gay hater” and elicits a different set of reactions. We all know what “fag” and “dyke” mean but most people don’t use those words in discourse (except as reclaimed words) because their negative slant would influence the discussion.
It’s the difference between connotation and denotation.
Yes, Homophobia can have a wide range of meanings. So can the words “Racism” or “Anti-Semitism.” But we can determine the meanings of the words through the context in which they’re being used. Everyone who’s lived in the U.S. for even a brief period of time knows that homophobia mean prejudice against gays. It’s got a wide range of meanings from mild dislike to full bore Phelpsian hate. This is something it has in common with just about every other qualitative description in the English language, and every other language to, I’d wager.
BTW, Magellan01 if the cause of your tirade was my use of the word “you,” I didn’t mean you specificaly. I meant you in the general sense, i.e. anyone.
Since I am the OP, the one who started a whole thread on the word, I took it that you meant me. I don’t see how you don’t mean me. But I do not like it when people are overly sensitive on the boards, so I appreciate your efforts to clarify and smooth things over. Onward.
But maybe I’ll have to start another thread seeking consensus on the definition of the word “you”.
All this debate about what it should mean, and bizarrely esoteric etymological deconstruction, ultimately smells like a lot of defensive justification for your own prejudices. Why is that the people who object most strongly to the word “homophobia” tend to be the same people who want us assure them that it’s OK to “disapprove” of homosexuality? If the word makes you uncomfortable, because you find it being applied to YOU, then maybe examining your own understanding would be more rewarding than campaigning to have the definition of a perfectly valid word.
The answer to the OP is a pretty simple one: look it up.
