Dr. Peterson and the Use of the Word 'Homophobia'

[Ahab]

A homophobe is now defined as a person with a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people, and that term doesn't apply to me... and many other people who think like I do... because our hatred is not against "homosexual" people, if any actually do exist, but is instead against the immoral acts involving same sex sexual relations. 

I love all sinners... heck I'll just come out and be open enough to admit that I love everybody whether man or woman or child... but I hate all forms of sin.

Some people seem to have a difficult time separating the various acts a person does or can do and the person, individually, but still that is what is at the heart of the matter for anyone who cares to understand more about this.

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand the question.  Are you asking me to give you an example of "irrational rejection of homosexuality"?  Of a specific person exhibiting what could objectively be characterized as "homophobia"?

Thanks,

-smac

What is a word for "rejecting homosexuality without a rational basis"?

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ll repeat the gist of a comment I made in response to Dr. Peterson’s blog post:

When I took high school debate, one of the things I learned is that an essential part of a case is defining of terms. From this I drew an axiom that I would express in this manner: He who controls the vernacular dominates the discourse. 

I see that played out with manipulative terms like homophobe and it’s variants. 

More like they are trying to control the vernacular, rather than actually controlling it.  People disagree with each other pretty much on a regular basis and there is no need to cave in if someone attempts to define a word in some way other than how it is commonly defined.

The trick about words, though, is that most usually have multiple definitions, and all are considered valid, so sometimes it's just a matter of trying to communicate which definition is being used when someone uses a word to say something.

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Excuse me? No one actually opposes Mormons? I don’t know how you arrived at that. 
 

And “anti-Mormon” can be taken to denote opposition to a religion or faith tradition as logically as it can opposition to a person or persons. 

I honestly don't think I care as much as he or you.  I mean words come flying out of everyone's mouth in pretty liberally applied ways.   I don't know there's reason to get hung up on it.  But....He's the one who pointed out that although there are probably some people who hate homosexuals there's probably not enough to warrant the label.  I'm saying if so, there are far less people who actually oppose a Mormon person, and thus there's little reason to use the label.  Additionally the concept of homophobia is not comparable to the concept of things like fear of spiders.  It's traditionally used to describe the notion that acceptance, and tolerance of homosexual people will hurt the larger group of us.  Or it's traditionally used to describe those who assume God doesn't like homosexuality and will eternally punish those who so participate.  

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

Quote

That's not specific to homosexuality.

In context it could be. 

Having a word that is more clear is, surprisingly, more clear.

I think Scott's point is that "homophobia" is a term that is frequently used in ways that contravene its clinical/empirical/dictionary meaning.  

Put more directly, it's used in what has been called a "Kafka Trap."  See here:

Quote

Kafka trap

The Kafka trap might also be called the SJW trap.

Author Eric Raymond coined the term Kafkatrapping in his 2010 article in which he presented a style of argument that is common today with SJW’s, but has it’s origins in The Trial a book written in 1915 by Franz Kafka.

In The Trial the protagonist is arrested and accused of serious crimes which are never specified. He receives no explanation or description of the charges, and his refusal to acknowledge that he must be guilty is what makes him guilty.  The only way to stop his abuse is to admit that he is guilty.

What is the kafka trap?

In the kafka trap you are accused of being:

• Bigot
• Facist
• Homophobic
• Transphobic
• Islamophobic
• Sexist
• Misogynist
• Racist
• Nazi
• Hitler
• Etc.

…and any attempt to argue, deny or defend yourself is seen as proof of guilt.

Yep.

Denial is proof of guilt.

You’re guilty until proven innocent.

Any accusation of guilt is all that is needed to condemn you.

It's similar to gaslighting.

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Trying to remove clarity is what seems manipulative.

I disagree.  Detaching a word from its actual meaning, so as to unreasonably and dishonestly weaponize it against people with whom you disagree, for the purpose of silencing their perspective rather than address it using evidence and reasoning, is "manipulative."

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

I remember when people would not even talk about gays or acknowledge their existence. Do you?

No.  Never.  Same-sex attraction has been around a very long time.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

I don't understand the question.  Are you asking me to give you an example of "irrational rejection of homosexuality"?  Of a specific person exhibiting what could objectively be characterized as "homophobia"?

What is a word for "rejecting homosexuality without a rational basis"?

Um, homophobia?

What are you playing at?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What is a word for "rejecting homosexuality without a rational basis"?

I don't think there is one.  Would you like to invent a word for that now?

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Um, homophobia?

What are you playing at?

Thanks,

-Smac

No, I do not accept that.

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

HIs reasoning laid out in his two parts is actually congruently a good case against the term anti-Mormon, which he has employed often.  No one actually opposes Mormons--the adherents of the religion--well at least no more than there are people who hate people who are gay (and really far less). 

Wow.  That's some genuine equivocation you've got going on.

Wikipedia seems to get it more or less right:

Quote

Anti-Mormonism is discrimination, persecution, hostility or prejudice directed against the Latter Day Saint movement, particularly The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The term is often used to describe people or literature that are critical of their adherents, institutions, or beliefs, or physical attacks against specific Saints or the Latter Day Saint movement as a whole.

Also, you are flagrantly wrong that "no one actually opposes Mormons--the adherents of the religion."  That happens all the time.

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So if he were wanting to be accurate and consistent I think that term should be not only considered a nonsense term but one he no longer employs. 

Piffle.  "Anti-Mormon" is a perfectly legitimate descriptor.  Like "anti-abortion" or "anti-Catholic" or "anti-Semite."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, I do not accept that.

Could you explain?

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Um, homophobia?

Exactly, but the OP is about rejecting that, as if there is a better term. I was asking for a better term.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Sunslight said:

Do a research on the the word and find out. In the past it meant a far more encompassing thing than it does now.

No, it had a more limited meaning in the past. In the Bible the word it subs for makes it mean fornicator or adulterer. It, in essence, condemns unlawful sex whether it is fornication or adultery. You can throw homosexuality in if you squint but it is doubtful that was what the original writer meant when using that word.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Wow.  That's some genuine equivocation you've got going on.

Wikipedia seems to get it more or less right:

Also, you are flagrantly wrong that "no one actually opposes Mormons--the adherents of the religion."  That happens all the time.

Piffle.  "Anti-Mormon" is a perfectly legitimate descriptor.  Like "anti-abortion" or "anti-Catholic" or "anti-Semite."

Thanks,

-Smac

Geez man, use whatever terms you like.  I'm just wandering down the trail of the logic employed by Dr. Peterson.  If more people actually hate homosexuals than hate Mormon people, then for consistency sake the term anti-Mormon should be rejected moreso than the term homophobe.  If he's so concerned about accuracy than anti-Mormonism would be a much more applicable term, as awkward as it may sound.  

Come to think of it maybe you and he are better termed as anti-LGBTQ.  It just so happens tradition suggests homophobia works as well.  It describes your belief that homosexuality is not tolerated by God.  

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

HIs reasoning laid out in his two parts is actually congruently a good case against the term anti-Mormon, which he has employed often.  No one actually opposes Mormons--the adherents of the religion--well at least no more than there are people who hate people who are gay (and really far less).  So if he were wanting to be accurate and consistent I think that term should be not only considered a nonsense term but one he no longer employs.  It could be he has stopped using the term, since I'm not sure I see it as prominently encouraged by him as it used to.

When someone's hatred is directed at a person rather than what a person thinks or believes, such as a person who believes what is generally termed "Mormonism" and is therefore called a "Mormon", it is appropriate to say that person hates Mormons as well as Mormonism.

Likewise, if a person actually hates people who engage in same sex sexual relations, as well as any act involving same sex sexual relations, that person could rightly be said to hate homosexual people as well as any act involving homosexuality.

If a person only hates any act involving homosexuality but loves the persons who engage in those acts, regardless, that person's hated is directed at the act itself rather than the individual person or persons who engage in homosexual behavior.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Ahab

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

No, it had a more limited meaning in the past. In the Bible the word it subs for makes it mean fornicator or adulterer. It, in essence, condemns unlawful sex whether it is fornication or adultery. You can throw homosexuality in if you squint but it is doubtful that was what the original writer meant when using that word.

I don't know that sexuality (Homo or Hetro as it is defined today) was even a thing at the time of the bible. The idea that one must be attracted to single gender doesn't really appear in history until recently. 

[JAHS]

24 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What is a word for "rejecting homosexuality without a rational basis"?

Stupidity, but many people have a rational basis for rejecting homosexuality, or at least in their minds they do. 

[Sunslight]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, it had a more limited meaning in the past. In the Bible the word it subs for makes it mean fornicator or adulterer. It, in essence, condemns unlawful sex whether it is fornication or adultery. You can throw homosexuality in if you squint but it is doubtful that was what the original writer meant when using that word.

I disagree wholly but oh well.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't know that sexuality (Homo or Hetro as it is defined today) was even a thing at the time of the bible. The idea that one must be attracted to single gender doesn't really appear in history until recently. 

Pretty much.

[Duncan]

50 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You're a gem, Duncan.  I mean it.  Thanks.  

Thanks man!!!!

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Stupidity, but many people have a rational basis for rejecting homosexuality, or at least in their minds they do. 

That is also quite broad and not specific to the thing.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

I disagree wholly but oh well.

I have a sneaking suspicion this disagreement is based more on personal desire rather than historical use of the word or knowledge of the word being translated so I am unimpressed.

If you want a clear cut declaration that homosexual relationships are sin you are better off turning to the words of apostles rather than trying to force meanings into ancient words.

[Duncan]

47 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

Do me a favor and look up the word "whoremaster" in Webster's 1828 dictionary. In fact I will do it for you. It says.

"WHOREMASTER, noun [supra.] One who practices lewdness."

Further, "lewdness" is defined as.

"1. The unlawful indulgence of lust; fornication, or adultery."

So, whoremongers (same word as whoremaster) are those who practice the unlawful indulgence of lust, fornication and adultery.

so, now we are talking about "whoremaster"?? by your own definition that YOU provided please show me where homosexuality is? there's not even an "H" in lust, fornication or adultery or indulgence or unlawful

Edited March 10, 2020 by Duncan

[Ahab]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you explain?

I meant I do not accept homophobia as word that should refer to "rejecting homosexuality without a rational basis" because homophobia is now defined as "a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people" and I believe it is important to keep in tact the difference between the acts of a person / and the person, individually... whether or not homosexuality is considered on a rational basis.

I think what we need is a word that refers to hating any act involving sexual relations between people of the same sex while distinguishing those acts from the persons, individually.  Can you think of a word that would refer to that?

If not we may need to sit down together and think up a new word that refers to just that.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Ahab

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

Um, homophobia?

Exactly, but the OP is about rejecting that, as if there is a better term. I was asking for a better term.

I'm not sure you are accurately summarizing DCP's point, which is at its essence (emphasis added) :

Quote

In my judgment, to use the term homophobia to characterize any and all resistance to every “gay rights” proposal (e.g., the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples) suggests that resistance to the normalization or endorsement of homosexual behavior is an illness — an excessive and irrational terror, a psychological defect needing to be treated and/or eradicated, rather than an opinion to be discussed and debated.

Those who have objected to homosexuals being branded as “perverse” and “sick” should think long and hard before they turn that same strategy against everybody who disagrees with their legal and cultural agenda.  It disrespects opponents.  It dehumanizes and demeans them.  It is, in that respect, merely yet another example of the terribly divisive discourse of our time.   Those who disagree aren’t mere opponents with whom we disagree; they are evil, depraved, sick, even subhuman.

Now, there may be some who actually “fear” homosexuals.  If so, perhaps the word homophobia might fit them.  There may be some whose opposition reflects their fear of their own repressed homosexual tendencies.  Maybe it would fit them, as well.  But the numbers of such people cannot be very large, not absolutely and surely not proportionately.

For people like me – and there are several other people, perhaps millions of people, like me – resistance to the regularization of homosexual behavior doesn’t even arise, in the first instance, from homosexual behavior itself.  It flows as an entailment from a more general worldview that is not specifically focused, even secondarily, on homosexuality.  And that worldview may or may not be religious.

In my case, it is a compound of both religious and secular considerations:  I don’t particularly wish to re-litigate the question of same-sex marriage, for example.  But, to my mind, marriage between men and women is prior to the State, both logically and chronologically.  Thus, given my strong belief in very limited government and a minimal State footprint, I’m not convinced that the State has the right to redefine marriage — especially via a one-vote majority in a court decision.  I remain specifically unconvinced, too, that the Constitution of the United States, reasonably interpreted, demands gay marriage.  (My political philosophy includes such concepts as “strict construction” of the Constitution, with close attention to “original intent.”)  On the other hand, in fact, I strongly favored civil partnerships that would have granted homosexual couples the legal rights (e.g., hospital visitation and inheritance) typically associated with marriage.  Other than my deep sadness when homosexuals forsake the Church, I’m quite uninterested in their private sexual arrangements; I’ve been working harmoniously and respectfully with gay people for decades and will continue to do so.
...
I reject the term homophobia in its wide application for the same reason that I reject charges that failure to support same-sex marriage is evidence of “hate.”

Moreover, you say you are "asking for a better term."  DCP provides it:

Quote

In fact, my objection to the word homophobia isn’t really about homosexuality as such.  It’s about civil, respectful discourse.  To the extent that there really are anti-gay bigots — and I accept that they still exist — the proper term for them isn’t homophobe.  It’s bigot.  And to the extent that a person really hates gay people, his attitude should be termed hatred, not homophobia.  But such terms should be used accurately, not sprayed about indiscriminately in order to gain unearned rhetorical advantage.  They should not be deployed in order to dehumanize opponents.

I think this is a reasonable point.  I adopt it.

Thanks

-Smac

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Stupidity, but many people have a rational basis for rejecting homosexuality, or at least in their minds they do. 

I hate some things without a rational basis. K-pop, reality TV, HR departments, and fire ants. Is that so wrong?