My understanding is that homophobia has never had a “clinical” definition and has never been recognized as a legitimate mental illness. I’m open to correction on that score.
As to the rest, that’s why we have adjectives. We do not, for example, have seperate words for differing degrees of racism, or sexism, or religious bigotry.
I think this is precisely backwards. What we need, first and foremost, is a word to define that category. After that, we can work on sub-definitions. Currently, the only word in play is “homophobe.” As such, it seems natural to me that it be the designation for the whole category. The sub-categories come later. We already have one for one extreme of the scale: gay-bashers. I’m not even sure how to seperate the rest of the spectrum of homophobes, let alone how to specifically name them all.
Right, but which came first? The laugh, or the chuckle? I’d guess that the broadest term was first coined. Homophobe was the first term coined for anti-homosexual beliefs or behavior*, therefore it should be the broadest term.
Correct, it is not only used in psychiatry, but that is the usage that most people are aware of. “-phobia” and “-philia” are suffixes that denote irrational/uncontrollable “aversion to” or “attraction to”. Scientists do use the suffixes in a purely descriptive sense (non-judgemental, obviously), but pointing to a scientific use doesn’t make the case that a word, in common parlance, doesn’t mean what peolpe think it means.
That’s not my point. It obviously can, and has come to, mean something other than its clinical definition. My point is that the word has come to mean too much, making it less useful as a word. It might be applied to a broader group, but it offers less specifics about those it is applied to.
Obviously not. But often in a debate, one thing that the participants will do is define the terms to be used. That’s what the OP was seeking to do. If you recall, it was NOT arguing for any particular definition, it was merely asking if we can define the term so the debate will be cleaner. You’ll also recall the thread I excerpted on Page 1.
I agree. But, as you are wll aware and as others have pointed out, the word gets used to describe people from both ends of the spectrum I’ve described in many earlier posts. We can even say that all the uses are correct, if you’d like. But referring to someone as a biped is correct, yet cries for additional information.
If you reread the OP and my posts in the thread, you’ll see that I’ve acknowledged that problem. Again, I was reacting to confusion that often arises in using the word, and gave a perfect example (that thread on Page 1) of the problems it can create in discussion. I think my analogy is apt, even though I cannot supply all the options.
Also, I’ve said that I’d be fine with you or anyone else defining the word to mean whatever you want, to be used at either end of the spectrum (although I stated a preference and why). I was just asking that we narrow the definition so that when it is used we know what each other means.
To be honest, as I feel that those who are gay have stronger interest (understandably) in the issue than I do, I was willing to leave it to them to define it. But you are right, without an alternative, the discussion is theoretical. But I never claimed it to be anything else. My Op was a question.
Excellent point. I’d say he is “anti-gay marriage”. It is completely accurate and unambiguous. If he/she is ALSO a homophobe (according to whatever narrow definition you choose), then call him that, as well.
I’ve tried desperately to NOT make this about any particular gay issue or issues, for fear that the discussion I tried to start in the OP would be lost and the thread would turn into a debate on that particular isuue or issues. I’ll just say that I’d think you’d be surprised how close we probably are on gay issues and that I feel that someone has as much choice about being gay as I have about being straight. But this is about language and communication in the discussion of gay issues, not about those issues specifically.
And I truly appreciate your effort (and success) in doing so. I, too, will also endeavor to not let my emotions short-circuit the discussion.
I think, with all due respect, that we may have come to an imp-arse. There are people who have a definition that they favor and are reluctant to move towards a different one.
I have found a couple of interesting websites that highlight this problem off-board.
(first two links when the terms [what does homophobia mean] are googled)
Personally, I think a poll of the meaning would only be interesting if correleated with political and religious affiliations (but, of course, kept anonymous). (This isn’t a hidden zing. I really want to know what the break-down is.)
To answer the OP, I see no way that all parties involved will actually agree on the definition. Other than taking a vote and sticking with the approved definition (until someone else comes along, raises the debate, and we have a new vote), the only thing I can offer is that all parties involved in a debate must give a.) give the other parties the benefit of the doubt (that the perjorative is not being used) and live with it and b.) give clarification as to why an action, thought, or individual is being labeled with such a term.
Now, all we have to do is get every past, present, and future SDMB poster/ reader/ member/ admin to agree to these terms.
IOTW, I don’t see that this semantic debate will be settled. (At least not for a long time.)
You may be correct, but you miss my point. My point is that most peolpe are not linguists, or psychiatrists, or scientists. And in common parlance, when we say someone is ______phobic, we understand that to mean that he has an irrational fear of whatever precedes it. If I say someone is bralchtophobic, you may not know what “bralcht” is but you do know that the person has an irrational and/or extreme fear of it.
First, I’d say that neither racism or nor sexism is exclusively negative. If you want separate restrooms for men and women you are sexist, that is, you are making a decision based on gender. If you want Blacks or Asians to have drugs that address specific health concerns they have, you are racist.
True, when someone is called a racist, we understand that to mean that he feels one race (usually his) is better than another and/or that another race is inferior. Also true is the fact that the word can be misused just as “homophobia” is sometiimes misused, to mean what Evil Captor said on Page 1. To paraphrase: a hompohobe is someone who is not on board with a particular, or all, gay issue.
And it, too, is used to demonize and, I’d say, cut off discussion, such as when someone who may be opposed to affirmative action is thrown into the same trash heap as those who killed James Byrd (sp?).
But I do not see the point in accepting a problem just because a similar one exists elsewhere. And I can’t recall being confused in a discussion involving racism. But a discussion of any length discussing gay issues is almost guaranteed to cause some.
I agree that first came “laugh”, then the more nuanced descriptions. And while “homophobia” may be the first word to describe a broad category of feelings, I don’t think that automatically means that it is the best word to describe it. I say that because it is inextricably linked to the clinical “-phobia” definition. Sorry I don’t have the answers, hence the question part of the OP. I would agree with you completely if the “phobia” part wasn’t so inextricably lnked to a specific definition, which we also need.
But even using gay-basher when describing one end of the spectrum, and not homophobe, would be a good start. My only point it that we should look for language to be as informative an unambiguous as possible.
Well, except, if you support a status quo that is harmful to homosexuals, then you can’t really say that. At some point you have to decide where your sympathies lie, and judging solely from this thread, TnD, the impression received on this end is that you expend more energy defending the “oppressors” than the “oppressed.”
And another thing: it seems to me that, if you’re speaking as a mod, then accusations of trolling have real consequences. If you’re NOT speaking as a mod, well then if I’M not allowed to accuse someone of trolling, then I don’t think it’s right that you can. (Is this a hijack? This is a hijack. Still, I mean, you know?)
I’ve said before that your language reveals your prejudice. You continue to use language that indicates to me that your issues are pardigmatic; fundamental. As long as you see these as “gay issues,” you will be unable to understand what I’m saying. These are* human rights *issues; these are not *gay *issues. Your willingness to “leave it to them” shows that, at the most basic level, you still feel that there is a legitimate separation of YOU and GAYS. This is fundamentally prejudicial, and goes to the heart of my objections. This is why there is so much objection to such terms as “gay community” and “gay agenda,” etc., because this is the very LANGUAGE of prejudice; the tools of ghettoization. Until you see that living in a society that descriminates againts arbitrary groups like “gays” is BAD FOR THAT SOCIETY, and not JUST for the labelled members of that group, then you and I will be talking at cross purposes. You live in a prejudiced society. For purely selfish reasons, you should want to eliminate such prejudices. Merely being complacently on the “right” side of the prejudice is a pyrrhic victory, at best, and is more SELF destructive, as a member of that society, than it is destructive to others. Others can choose to dismiss you, to turn away; the creators and supporters of the prejudice cannot, and must live within its walls.
It also strikes me, all due respect, as a copout. Being “anti-gay marriage” is irrational and, ultimately, self-destructive; it is not morally neutral. Do you honestly want to try to convince me that advocating limited human rights for arbitrary segments of society is morally neutral? To refuse to acknowledge the moral context of being “anti-gay marriage” with such propagandistic doubletalk–to refuse to own up to the REASONS that you’re “anti-gay marriage”–is faux-PC irresponsibility. It’s hypocrisy. It’s advocating something that is damaging to the lives of others while pretending that this is not so.
If you are “anti-gay marriage” then you have convinced yourself that people whose hearts throb to a different drummer should lead a lesser life than you. “Rationalize” it as you will, there is no rational reason to do so. (I await a posited rational reason for denying such rights to me.) It is based on a fear that my calling my boyfriend “husband” instead of “boyfriend” will affect your marriage, while Britney Spears’s marital misadventures will not. This is hilariously irrational! And it is a fear. And it is a prejudice based on this irrational fear. Therefore, if you are “anti-gay marriage” then, for whatever cultural reasons you want to claim, you are THEREFORE, also, inescapably, by the narrowest definition of the word, a homophobe. You cannot divorce “anti-gay marriage” from “prejudice.” You cannot do it. Being “anti-gay marriage” is exactly the same thing as being anti-miscegenation, and many of the same arguments are being floated. There’s no question in your mind that anti-miscenegation laws are racist; there should be no question in your mind that anti-gay marriage laws are homophobic.
You project; your first impressions are not universal. When I see the suffix “-phobic,” my first image is of two like-poled magnets resisting contact with each other.
You are being disingenuous here. There is FAR more likelihood of “racist” being considered universally pejoritive than “homophobic.” I’m trying to be respectful here, magellan, but this is such a blatantly ludicrous argument that I must call you on it.
This says more about EC than about anything else, and is so egregiously inflammatory that to raise it again is damaging to your own credibility. A homophobes beliefs are dismissive of my humanity; I disagree
We should look for language to be as accurate as possible, and when the concept being accurately described is offensive to some people, we should not sacrifice accuracy to coddle the complacent. I, speaking for myself, am not willing to tie myself in linguistic knots to maintain the delusions of a complacent homophobe.
Some racists drag people behind trucks; some pat the heads of pickaninnies for good luck. They’re both racists.
Some homophobes picket the funerals of AIDS victims; some tell their nephew they just haven’t met the right girl yet. Homophobes all, if of varying degrees.
Effed up coding. Could a mod delete the above post please? I’ll repeat it with modifications.
You are being disingenuous here. There is FAR more likelihood of “racist” being considered universally pejoritive than “homophobic.” I’m trying to be respectful here, magellan, but this is such a blatantly ludicrous argument that I must call you on it.
This says more about EC than about anything else, and is so egregiously inflammatory that to raise it again is damaging to your own credibility. A homophobes beliefs are dismissive of my humanity; I disagree with those beliefs. Cart, horse. To claim that one comes before the other is blatantly diversionary and dishonest, and betrays a fear of debating the real issues honestly. It is both ad hominem and straw man, and if I owned the joint would be susceptible to mod warning. In any case, no matter how many times I have asked for a cite supporting such an accusation, the lobbers of this strawman have always come up empty handed. So add “urban legend” to straw man and ad hominem.
I won’t go so far as to call this a strawman, because I think you really believe it, but this is not universally true.
We should look for language to be as accurate as possible, and when the concept being accurately described is offensive to some people, we should not sacrifice accuracy to coddle the complacent. I, speaking for myself, am not willing to tie myself in linguistic knots to maintain the delusions of a complacent homophobe.
Some racists drag people behind trucks; some pat the heads of pickaninnies for good luck. They’re both racists.
Some homophobes picket the funerals of AIDS victims; some tell their nephew they just haven’t met the right girl yet. Homophobes all, if of varying degrees.
While I have no problem with the way the word homophobia is used (by** lissener*** et al*), I am wondering if the word “heterosexism” conveys the same idea, by analogy with “(plain old)sexism” and “racism”?
That’s an interesting discussion, but I’m gonna hafta call hijack on that one. In that there’s no parallel in this discussion: Affirmative Action is basically reparations: it is *action *that is *affirmative *(!!!); an attempt to actively address and redress historical imbalances to minorities. So it’s not a valid parallel by any stretch.
So whenever two poles don’t want to touch, that’s homophobia? I think you’re expanding the definition too far.
[sub]I kid, I kid![/sub]
Given that she says that homosexual couples ought not be allowed to adopt children, I’d say she falls squarely under my third definition (making homosexuals legally inferior to heterosexuals). Given that she seems to think such adoption presents a risk of pedophilia and that she doesn’t offer any evidence on which she made this judgment, I’d say she falls squarely under my first definition (prejudice against homosexuals). The article offers insufficient information to make an absolute determination, but my first impression is certainly that she’s homophobic.
As for Ratzinger? That’s a harder case for me. Does he believe that gay marriage should not be legalized? If so, then yes: he falls under the third definition. If he believes that it should not be sanctified by his church, but expresses no opinion on how secular authorities should handle it, I’d reluctantly say that I can’t find a part of the definition that applies to him. THat would really be a borderline case.
Rejoining this, just to spell out what I think the main issue is; I’m naturally prepared to be corrected.
“Is opposition to affirmative action racist?” and “Is opposition to gay adoption homophobic?” are both legitimate, debatable questions, although it’s true that some people will consider the answers to both to be so obvious that it shouldn’t be a matter for discussion; this is true of any controversial issue, though, and shouldn’t prevent the more reasonable members of the community talking about them.
However, these debates don’t depend on the meanings of the words “racism” and “homophobia”, which I think is where magellan01 et al are going wrong.
A debate on affirmative action will, or, at least, should, be along the lines of “Does affirmative action advance or hinder the cause of race relations?”, not on what “racism” means. It would be legitimate to argue “Affirmative action is racist”, on the grounds that it creates resentment and inequality between racial groups, without challenging the popular definition of “racism”. Similarly, the other debate should be along the lines of “Does allowing homosexual adoption improve or make worse the situation of gays in society?”, if the popular meaning of “homophobic”, as challenged in this thread, is used.
The impression, perhaps an inaccurate one, that I get from the opposition in this particular discussion, is that their position is something like “I oppose homosexual adoption (or another gay issue) but I don’t want to be labelled ‘homophobic’.” My answer to that would be: “If you oppose it on the grounds that it would, in fact, make the position of gays in society worse, then, yes, you are not homophobic. However, if you believe that it would make the position of gays in society better, and still oppose it, you are homophobic; you may not hate or fear gays, but you’re still discriminating against them. You may have a rational reason for your homophobia; many people have rational reasons for racism, but it doesn’t change the fact that their views are still racist.”
Actually, this reply is what I have come to expect of you.
I am not deriving my opinion of you from whole cloth, but instead from a hidden bias I find reflected in your posts, in phrases such as:
That statement is not in the same league as “The guys who killed Mathew Shepard weren’t homophobic, after all, they didn’t fear them”.
However, I believe it can lead to that opinion, especially when raising kids.
So yes, I believe it is alright to cast out people uncomfortable with homosexuality from civil rights groups for not using the right language, (as per your statements on page two) since they can transmit such revulsion to their kids, unless they are made to understand that such revulsion is not acceptable in modern society.
You know something, Scott? In one respect you differ not a bit from the “lock up the queers” types.
You are convinced that you have the right answers, and that anyone who disagrees with you must therefore be Evil Incarnate.
That makes for good Pit rants, but it doesn’t work in Great Debates. People can actually disagree with you for good motives. I’ve recommended a couple of lines of research you might take to educate yourself about what Tom~ actually has had to say. You’ve chosen, instead, to go tilting at windmills.
To furt, yes, I think Benedict XVI is in fact homophobic, by most if not all of the definitions advanced here. But as noted by somebody (and forgive me not having the patience to leaf back and identify who), there are degrees to homophobia. His stance, though IMO wrong, is far more defensible than the “the homosexual lifestyle is a choice, and queers are led into it by Satan” one (which I have actually seen advanced by otherwise apparently sane people on a Christian board).
To magellan, may I observe that often words come to have quite distinct meanings than their etymological construction would suggest? And in fact, while I do see “homophobia” used for demonization from time to time, I think there is a definite mindset of failure to react empathically to another’s situation which it describes quite accurately. I suspect that no one definition is going to nail down the multifariate modes in which it expresses itself, people being as different from each other as they are. But I think that it is a valid term, which much progress has been made here towards defining, and not merely a “tarring” term.
As a thoroughly disinterested observer who was convinced that the answer to the thread title was “No” as soon as he saw it, and has not seen anything in a six-page thread to convince him differently… I’m just wondering if Scott Plaid has decided he’s overdue for getting his ass royally kicked, or what. :dubious: