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

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

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

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

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

Thanks

-Smac

"Bigotry" is not specific to the thing, while "homophobia" is. 

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

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 person, 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.

Pedants?

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

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

It could be inconvenient, like if K-pop is the musical medium of the angels, for example. 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Pedants?

No, that word is already been used to refer to "a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning" and it isn't funny.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

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

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

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

"Bigotry" is not specific to the thing, while "homophobia" is. 

But "homophobia" and "bigot" are not synonymous.

I don't think "homophobia" is "a better term."  It is, instead, a weaponized neologism, which materially diminishes its legitimacy.

THanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

Just now, smac97 said:

But "homophobia" and "bigot" are not synonymous.

I don't think "homophobia" is "a better term."  It is, instead, a weaponized neologism, which materially diminishes its legitimacy.

THanks,

-Smac

Lots of words can be misused and "weaponised," and words are not illegitimate because they're misused or new. Learning will inevitably require the invention of more words.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

But "homophobia" and "bigot" are not synonymous.

I don't think "homophobia" is "a better term."  It is, instead, a weaponized neologism, which materially diminishes its legitimacy.

Lots of words can be misused and "weaponised," and words are not illegitimate because they're misused or new.

I think when the misuse of the term exceeds its reasonable use, the term becomes materially less useful.

"Homophobia" is almost exclusively used as a pejorative.  As a Kafka Trap.

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Learning will inevitably require the invention of more words.

"Bigot" seems to fit the bill.  No need to re-invent the wheel.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

But "homophobia" and "bigot" are not synonymous.

I don't think "homophobia" is "a better term."  It is, instead, a weaponized neologism, which materially diminishes its legitimacy.

Lots of words can be misused and "weaponised," and words are not illegitimate because they're misused or new.

I think when the misuse of the term exceeds its reasonable use, the term becomes materially less useful.

"Homophobia" is almost exclusively used as a pejorative.  As a Kafka Trap.

Quote

Learning will inevitably require the invention of more words.

"Bigot" seems to fit the bill.  No need to re-invent the wheel.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

Just now, smac97 said:

I think when the misuse of the term exceeds its reasonable use, the term becomes materially less useful.

"Homophobia" is almost exclusively used as a pejorative.  As a Kafka Trap.

"Bigot" seems to fit the bill.  No need to re-invent the wheel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Bigotry refers to vastly more things than homophobia. By the way, how often is "bigot" not used as a pejorative?

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

"Bigotry" is not specific to the thing, while "homophobia" is. 

It's not clear if the "thing" is the person or the act, though.  Hating a person who engages in any act involving same sex sexual relations is not the same thing as hating any act involving same sex sexual relations.

It's akin to not distinguishing between hating someone who steals / and hating the act of stealing.  We can love one while hating the other.  

Maybe we're just trying to be economic with words while trying to combine things that should be distinguished?  We should all love everybody while at the same time hating all forms of sin.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Ahab

[Sunslight]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

Look for yourself. Did you see my post on the 1828 dictionary definition? I'm not basing this off of my opinion but rather historical evidences.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Sunslight

[JAHS]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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

But in your own mind there must be a rational basis. Those things might either make you  feel sick or uncomfortable or a true fear(phobia)
When I see two men making out with each other I get an actual sick feeling in my stomach. I don't hate or fear them though. 

[Nofear]

How about the term: LGTBQ+ Bigot?
Though, even the term bigot may not necessarily apply to those who don't hold that homosexual sexual acts are condoned of God. It's like calling Baptist a bigot because they don't subscribe to the authority of an LDS baptism.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Nofear

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Nofear said:

How about the term: LGTBQ+ Bigot?

If used in weaponized form, against people who do not actually feel "bigotry," your suggestion is not helpful.

1 minute ago, Nofear said:

Though, even the term bigot may not necessarily apply to those who don't hold that homosexual sexual acts are condoned of God. It's like calling Baptism a bigot because they don't subscribe to the authority of an LDS baptism.

Yep.

Is there a word for someone who has a principled and reasoned religious/sociological/philosophical disagreement with homosexual behavior, but who neither feels nor exhibits hatred or fear against those who engage in such behavior?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is there a word for someone who has a principled and reasoned religious/sociological/philosophical disagreement with homosexual behavior, but who neither feels nor exhibits hatred or fear against those who engage in such behavior?

Sure.  Quite a few I think.  A saint, or a person-who-knows-the-difference-between-an-immoral-act-and-the-person, individually.  No reason we need to try to make it only a one word thing.  We can use multiple words to talk about this.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Ahab

[Hestia]

Please keep it civil.  If we get more reports on bad behavior the thread will be locked.

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If used in weaponized form, against people who do not actually feel "bigotry," your suggestion is not helpful.

Yep.

Is there a word for someone who has a principled and reasoned religious/sociological/philosophical disagreement with homosexual behavior, but who neither feels nor exhibits hatred or fear against those who engage in such behavior?

Thanks,

-Smac

How about "tolerant" ?

[Nofear]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is there a word for someone who has a principled and reasoned religious/sociological/philosophical disagreement with homosexual behavior, but who neither feels nor exhibits hatred or fear against those who engage in such behavior?

I'm not aware of a generic term that describes one who holds a negative position that doesn't carry negative connotations. Usually, in a respectful dialogue, we might label someone more according to what they believe as opposed to what they don't believe. Consider, for example, pro-choice and pro-life. Both terms are generally accepted by adherents of fairly opposing camps.
 

edit to add: A flat-earther probably accepts that term. But, they would probably object to being called anti-science.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Nofear

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I'm not aware of a generic term that describes one who holds a negative position that doesn't carry negative connotations. Usually, in a respectful dialogue, we might label someone more according to what they believe as opposed to what they don't believe. Consider, for example, pro-choice and pro-life. Both terms are generally accepted by adherents of fairly opposing camps.
 

Sometimes, when in a respectful dialogue with other people, it's actually better to not talk about things you don't like or don't think are good, to talk about good things instead.  When in a conversation with someone who engaged in same sex sexual relations, for example, I would probably not mention that I did not approve of that act that I supposed they were doing with someone else of the same sex behind some closed doors, and I would be talking with them about something else instead. 

No need at all for me to say something like:  You evildoer, you!  You need to repent from all of your sins right now!  We might mention the concept of sin and the concept of repentance and the concept of the need to have faith from God to know what we should do and how we should live our own lives, but we could do that without pointing out faults we see or suppose that each other has. That's the type of conversation I would rather have with someone.  Just nice, easy going, how was your day and what good things did you do recently, types of things.

[Nofear]

A term that I've seen used is heteronormative. While it is often used by those who dislike heternormativity, our theology could nonetheless be reasonably and fairly (imo) described as heteronormative. That term does not necessitate opposition or antagonism to the existence of someone being homosexual.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Nofear

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

In my experience, most liberal-leaning people most commonly use the word 'homophobia' the same way they do 'racism' or 'sexism'; 'homophobic being the adjective akin to 'racist' or 'sexist.'  When used in this more general fashion, it isn't meant to describe an actual 'fear' of homosexuals, but rather, a bias against same-sex relationships, whether driven by culture, belief, religion, personal experience, etc.

I see a problem as the word is being used for two significantly different meanings, both of which suggest a cause, though different, for emotional reactions. This can lead to misrepresentations as one meaning carries connotations inappropriate for the other.  This does not lead to greater understanding, instead it increases conflict because it encourages in the one case outright rejection of the other's POV as impossible to understand as it is irrational rather than making an effort to understand it.

Use of the terms racism, antisemitism, etc. allow for an exploration of complicated causes.  Often such are recognized as a result of cultural influences or family dynamics.  Phobias, otoh, in general are treated at least by nonprofessionals as very one dimensional, irrational fears that are socially and mentally dysfunctional, impossible to change through normal everyday interaction.  Unfortunately in some cultures racism is highly functional.  And racism is often modified through social interaction which raises familiarity with the 'other', in essence altering someone's culture/environment can alter levels of prejudice.  Use of homophobia discourages such efforts, imo.

I see comparable reactions when "fornication" is used to describe homosexual sexual behaviour.  There is an inherent assumption of motivation, lust.  Even the presence of "sexual" in "homosexual" may reduce in some people's minds behaviour to a one dimensional need for sex..  At that point, such labeling for them means there is no real need to explore the actual much more complicated causes of attraction and behaviour.

Unfortunately there is not a separate word that I am aware of that indicates prejudice against gays parallel to racism or antisemitism.

Added:  the one DCP suggests, "anti-gay bigotry" seems the closest to being short and focused enough and one people can debate without getting sidetracked by the psychological implications of phobias.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Trying to remove clarity is what seems manipulative.

And many people see the use of "homophobia" as doing that.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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

Do you believe there could be rational reasons for rejecting homosexual behaviour even if based on faulty reasoning?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

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

Plenty of behaviours and attitudes require more than one word to describe them.  Why is it necessary to have one word rather than using a broad term and narrowing it with a qualifier...as in hatred or bigotry of homosexuals or hatred of homosexual behaviour (to avoid the confusion of using homosexuality which can mean either or both)?

Edited March 10, 2020 by Calm

[stemelbow]

I think its kind of silly to call a word that everyone knows and understands a nonsense word, in truth.  

 

As I understand it the term was coined to describe the concerns (or fears) brought on by religions mostly concerning homosexuals.  In this sense it makes a lot of sense.  And seeing the hugely public opinion shifts brought on the last few decades on the topic, it's no wonder religions who oppose LGBTQ are want to rid us of that term.  But as the Church and smac continually remind us, the Church opposes same sex activity of any kind, fearing as it is, that God opposes two people of the same sex who love each other romantically, to express that love physically.   Years back Packer identified homosexuals as one of three top groups whom the Church should fear (I believe he called them one of the three biggest threats to religion).  

Additionally since my youth up, as a Mormon, I was consistently taught by local members that homosexuality was a threat in that if it became normalized, we'd see more young people practice it and more people would be lost from God's graces.  The fears were evident.  So it's understandable that the word took effect and meant something.  Nowadays of course, the larger culture that often drives the Church has largely embraced LGBTQ, so it's really in the best interest of religions to steer away from the fear-mongering tactics of the past, which I think the Church largely does.

Thought this fit too:  

Quote

Moreover, in a Southern Poverty Law Center 2010 Intelligence Report extrapolating data from fourteen years (1995–2008), which had complete data available at the time, of the FBI's national hate crime statistics found that LGBT people were "far more likely than any other minority group in the United States to be victimized by violent hate crime."^[6]

https://lgbt.wikia.org/wiki/Homophobia