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

[Nofear]

26 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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

It is curious that those in this thread who support a more heteronormative view of our theology tend to dislike the term homophobic as applied to them and those who disagree with the heteronormative interpretation of our theology tend to like the term when discussing those that disagree their interpretation. Curious indeed.

[Sunslight]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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:  

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

I believe that the greatest threat is pornography. Then comes all other sexual immoralities. The reason that the LGBT movement is deemed or seen as a high threat to religion is that it completely undermines the very core and strength of society which is the family which is constructed principly off of the platform of a man and a woman who are married. Look at some of the results of the LGBT movement, none of which benefit society.

Normalized same sex relations as "natural" and edifying.

Diminished the eternal roles of men and women.

Diminished the Strength of the family.

Redefined morality to mean "what feels good"

Increased depression, suicides and violence.

Increased STD's

Increased pornography industry profits

Increased health care costs

Diminished faith based religion worship

Increased secularism

 

 

 

 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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

This from the same guy who just a few minutes ago said (speaking of the word "anti-mormon"): "I think that term should be not only considered a nonsense term but one he {Daniel Peterson} no longer employs"?

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As I understand it the term was coined to describe the concerns (or fears) brought on by religions mostly concerning homosexuals. 

Actually, no.  From Wikipedia: (emphases added) :

Quote

Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s, the term homophobia is a blend of (1) the word homosexual, itself a mix of neo-classical morphemes, and (2) phobia from the Greek φόβος, phóbos, meaning "fear", "morbid fear" or "aversion". Weinberg is credited as the first person to have used the term in speech. The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the May 23, 1969, edition of the American pornographic magazine Screw, in which the word was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay.

Conceptualizing anti-LGBT prejudice as a social problem worthy of scholarly attention was not new. A 1969 article in Time described examples of negative attitudes toward homosexuality as "homophobia", including "a mixture of revulsion and apprehension" which some called homosexual panic. In 1971, Kenneth Smith used homophobia as a personality profile to describe the psychological aversion to homosexuality. Weinberg also used it this way in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual,^[19] published one year before the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.  Weinberg's term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies. 
...
However, when taken literally, homophobia may be a problematic term. Professor David A. F. Haaga says that contemporary usage includes "a wide range of negative emotions, attitudes and behaviours toward homosexual people," which are characteristics that are not consistent with accepted definitions of phobias, that of "an intense, illogical, or abnormal fear of a specified thing." Five key differences are listed as distinguishing homophobia, as often used, from a true phobia.

FYI, those five differences are 

• 1) "{T}he emotion classically associated with a fobia is fear, whereas homophobia is often characterized by hatred or anger."
• 2) "{A} phobia generally involves recognition that the fear is excessive or unreasonable, but homophobic responses are often considered understandable, justified, and acceptable."
• 3) "{A} phobia typically triggers avoidance, whereas homophobia often manifests itself as hostility and aggression."
• 4) "{A} phobia does not usually relate to a political agenda, while homophobia has political dimensions including prejudice and discrimination."
• 5) "{U}nlike homophobia, people suffering from a phobia often recognize that it is disabling and are motivated to change."

I think item #4 is particularly noteworthy.  

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I invite you to re-visit this.  Dr. George Weinberg did not appear to have a religious agenda.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But as the Church and smac continually remind us, the Church opposes same sex activity of any kind,

Yes.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

fearing as it is, that God opposes two people of the same sex who love each other romantically, to express that love physically.  

False.  Quite false.  Neither the Church nor its members are operating out of "fear."

Sheesh.  This kind of stuff really diminishes your position, Stem.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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).

Well, no.  He referenced "the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals."

It sure would be nice for you to play it straight in such matters.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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.

Sincemy youth up, as a Latter-day Saint, I have never been taught any such thing.  I have been taught the Law of Chastity prohibits sex outside of marriage, and that homosexual behavior is a serious sin.  I've never heard of "homosexuality" as "a threat."

No such "fears" have been "evident" in my experience in the Church.

Again, it sure would be nice for you to play it straight in such matters.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So it's understandable that the word took effect and meant something. 

Almost as understandable as the term being weaponized and decoupled from its original meaning.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

With me, if I can't point someone to a general page on what phobias are and treatments for them in a discussion about "homophobia", why would I believe using "phobia" in "homophobia" is valid?

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This from the same guy who just a few minutes ago said (speaking of the word "anti-mormon"): "I think that term should be not only considered a nonsense term but one he {Daniel Peterson} no longer employs"?

Uh...you forgot the first part of that sentence "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."  That is I"m suggesting using the logic Dr Peterson employed, then it stands to reason the term anti-mormon should also be discarded and considered nonsense.  But you must realize I also suggested, outside of trying to employ his logic, I don't care what word you use.  Ultimately in context that quotation isn't really telling the story of my thoughts.  Figured you needed some education on what I thought, since it's apparent you misunderstood me.  

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Actually, no.  From Wikipedia: (emphases added) :

FYI, those five differences are 

• 1) "{T}he emotion classically associated with a fobia is fear, whereas homophobia is often characterized by hatred or anger."
• 2) "{A} phobia generally involves recognition that the fear is excessive or unreasonable, but homophobic responses are often considered understandable, justified, and acceptable."
• 3) "{A} phobia typically triggers avoidance, whereas homophobia often manifests itself as hostility and aggression."
• 4) "{A} phobia does not usually relate to a political agenda, while homophobia has political dimensions including prejudice and discrimination."
• 5) "{U}nlike homophobia, people suffering from a phobia often recognize that it is disabling and are motivated to change."

I think item #4 is particularly noteworthy.  

I invite you to re-visit this.  Dr. George Weinberg did not appear to have a religious agenda.

I used the wrong word when I said coined.  I meant to suggest the word was used in a religious context.  There was no agenda, in it.  Weinberg merely points out it became useful because of religious fear.    

Quote

Weinberg's term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies.^[9] He describes the concept as a medical phobia:^[15]

“	A phobia about homosexuals.... It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for — home and family. It was a religious fear and it had led to great brutality as fear always does.[9]

 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

False.  Quite false.  Neither the Church nor its members are operating out of "fear."

Sheesh.  This kind of stuff really diminishes your position, Stem.

Ok.  "Fear" may also not be to your liking in this instance.  Perhaps it is that you think God opposes those who are homosexual doing, well, things they enjoy when expressing their romantic love?  Does that work?  

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  He referenced "the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals."

It sure would be nice for you to play it straight in such matters.

"Straight"?  huh?  Are you saying he saw the gay-lesbian movement as something other than homosexuals?  

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sincemy youth up, as a Latter-day Saint, I have never been taught any such thing.  I have been taught the Law of Chastity prohibits sex outside of marriage, and that homosexual behavior is a serious sin.  I've never heard of "homosexuality" as "a threat."

No such "fears" have been "evident" in my experience in the Church.

Again, it sure would be nice for you to play it straight in such matters.

Almost as understandable as the term being weaponized and decoupled from its original meaning.

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you saying since you walked in your shoes while I walked in mine, that means I'm not "Playing it straight" when I mention the things I saw and heard in my life?  That's odd.  If homosexuality posed no threat in the Church's position then why spend so much time and resources fighting against the legislation put before states to stop it from happening?  Are you saying, for instance, the Church got involved in Hawaii in the early-mid 90s not because the Church saw a threat to family, but because the Church saw it as a support to family?  It appears to me you simply haven't been paying attention or have forgotten.  But I am playing it straight, don't fool yourself.  

[Damien the Leper]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Oooo, how exciting! We're getting a hellfire, damnation, and brimstone post! It even includes the word whoremonger!

Of course, telling someone "hey you whoremonger, you're going to burn in a lake of fire and brimstone for eternity" usually isn't a very effective tactic to elicit change in their perspective or behavior....

Cue the Westboro Baptist Church, please.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Well, no.  He referenced "the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals."

It sure would be nice for you to play it straight in such matters.

"Straight"?  huh?  Are you saying he saw the gay-lesbian movement as something other than homosexuals?  

Yes.  Not all homosexuals are part of "the gay-lesbian movement," and not all in that movement are gay/lesbian.

Similarly, not all women are part of the "feminist movement," and not everyone in that movement are women.

Quote

Quote

Since my youth up, as a Latter-day Saint, I have never been taught any such thing.  I have been taught the Law of Chastity prohibits sex outside of marriage, and that homosexual behavior is a serious sin.  I've never heard of "homosexuality" as "a threat."

No such "fears" have been "evident" in my experience in the Church.

Again, it sure would be nice for you to play it straight in such matters.

Are you saying since you walked in your shoes while I walked in mine, that means I'm not "Playing it straight" when I mention the things I saw and heard in my life? 

Yes.  And I shouldn't have said that.  I apologize and retract the statement.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 10, 2020 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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

Nah, I think that homosexuality has been the subject of social taboos for so long, and so currently, that it has an appropriate place in the English language. 

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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

People can give rational reasons that are unsound. I haven't come across a sound rational basis for opposing same-sex marriage. 

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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)?

I don't see a problem with having more than one term, and especially don't see the problem with the specific one of "homophobia."

[Damien the Leper]

I found this article on the etymology of homophobia to be rather useful and insightful.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

especially don't see the problem with the specific one of "homophobia."

You don’t see potential confusion due to how “phobias” are viewed in general both professionally by psychologists and by laymen? 

Would anyone be likely to anticipate a movie called “Homophobia” was going to be a horror film, unlike the concept for Arachnophobia?****

Are there any other uses of the term “phobia” parallel to the non phobic usage of “homophobia”? 
 

(all serious questions as my experience is there is a distinct gap between the use of “homophobia” and other usages of “phobia”, but I tend not to pay as close attention to popular uses of technical psychological terms)

****use of “phobia” in description of movies:  https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/best-scary-movies-to-watch-based-on-phobias

Edited March 10, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

You don’t see potential confusion due to how “phobias” are viewed in general both professionally by psychologists and by laymen? 

Would anyone be likely to anticipate a movie called “Homophobia” was going to be a horror film, unlike the concept for Arachnophobia?****

Are there any other uses of the term “phobia” parallel to the non phobic usage of “homophobia”? 

****use of “phobia” in description of movies:  https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/best-scary-movies-to-watch-based-on-phobias

Of course not. The term has been around for decades and people can handle words with similar roots but different meanings.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Sunslight said:

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.

And the King James Bible was translated in....oh.....oh dear.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Of course not. The term has been around for decades and people can handle words with similar roots but different meanings.

They can, but will they?  If someone is familiar with the use of phobia for fear, why would they not assume in casual use where an explicit definition is not given, that assumption of fear of some sort is not included?

Maybe it is my background from when many political, criminal, and dramatic stories were focused around suppressed homosexuality, such as in a rabid antihomosexual minister preaching against the evil only to be discovered as having illicit sex with male prostitutes and hearing the use of homophobia most often tied to that which makes me dubious that such mistakes won’t occur. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Sunslight said:

I believe that the greatest threat is pornography. Then comes all other sexual immoralities. The reason that the LGBT movement is deemed or seen as a high threat to religion is that it completely undermines the very core and strength of society which is the family which is constructed principly off of the platform of a man and a woman who are married. Look at some of the results of the LGBT movement, none of which benefit society.

Normalized same sex relations as "natural" and edifying.

Diminished the eternal roles of men and women.

Diminished the Strength of the family.

Redefined morality to mean "what feels good"

Increased depression, suicides and violence.

Increased STD's

Increased pornography industry profits

Increased health care costs

Diminished faith based religion worship

Increased secularism

Uhhhh.....yeah, except for the first one that was all going on way before same sex marriage was a big thing. Why does the hippie movement get a free ride while you shift the blame for everything to “those people”.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

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. 

I don’t get that reaction.

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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

Okay, now I am having that reaction.

[Nofear]

same sex attraction vs homophobia

[Ahab]

29 minutes ago, Nofear said:

same sex attraction vs homophobia

That is cute.  One of them wants a bear hug and the other one is insisting that the other one stay away! 

And then one of them gets the other one on the ground, and that's when the video just loops back to the start of it all.

I know which one I am hoping will win.

[Sunslight]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Uhhhh.....yeah, except for the first one that was all going on way before same sex marriage was a big thing. Why does the hippie movement get a free ride while you shift the blame for everything to “those people”.

Just replace the LGBT for sexual impurity movement and you get the same thing.

The bottom line is that nothing good comes from breaking the law of chastity. And, homosexual behavior is breaking the law of chastity.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

They can, but will they?  If someone is familiar with the use of phobia for fear, why would they not assume in casual use where an explicit definition is not given, that assumption of fear of some sort is not included?

Maybe it is my background from when many political, criminal, and dramatic stories were focused around suppressed homosexuality, such as in a rabid antihomosexual minister preaching against the evil only to be discovered as having illicit sex with male prostitutes and hearing the use of homophobia most often tied to that which makes me dubious that such mistakes won’t occur. 

It's already used and understood, and fear is part of one possible meaning of it. Not sure what your concern is.

[bluebell]

I like this article.  It's written by a gay man so I feel like it's a valid voice in the discussion, as he has a dog in the fight, so to speak.  He does not believe that homophobia is an accurate term though.

At the beginning he states:

Quote

 

“You, my friend, are a gaycist.”

This remains one of the best lines from Happy Endings, an ABC sitcom that ran from 2011 to 2013. Brad (Damon Wayans Jr.) has set up Max (Adam Pally) on a date with a gay co-worker named Franklin.

“I thought you guys would’ve had a good time,” Brad says, innocently, over a video game. “I mean, you’re both …”

Gay. It’s a misstep many gay people are familiar with, even from our most well-meaning friends. You’ll love him—he’s gay! (As a general rule, hearing this predisposes me not to like the homosexual in question, if only to prove a point.) It’s the sort of comment that would be deeply offensive if it weren’t so naive.

“You think all gays are the same,” Max counters. “You think just ’cause Franklin and I are both friends of Elton, we’re just gonna pack it up, move to Vermont, and start selling antiques?”

“No, I did not say that.”

“Relax. It’s fine, I’m just messing with you. Besides, some parts of the stereotype are true. Just ’cause we didn’t get along doesn’t mean we didn’t have raging sex in a bus terminal.”

“Really?”

“No! Playdate suspended on account of your gaycism.”

As goofy as the word appears in this context, it’s in many ways an improvement on the language we now use to describe anti-gay bigotry: homophobia, homophobe, homophobic. Gaycism is an obvious play on racism, one of the most pernicious and deeply rooted issues in American life. Both words share the -ism suffix with sexism, classism, and ageism, forming a foul linguistic family of social ills that contrasts sharply with personal foibles like a fear of spiders (arachnophobia) or heights (acrophobia). When you think about it, homophobia feels insufficiently damning, at best.

Of course, it’s also inaccurate in most cases. Homophobia is a phobia more figurative than literal; in fact, if homophobes were literally phobic of homosexuals, we all might all be better off. At one point in the gay web series The Outs, Mitchell’s boss, Ty, says to him, “Homophobia gets a bad rap, but what it means is people being afraid of homos. And I know I’d feel a lot safer walking home alone at night in Charlotte, North Carolina, if more people were afraid of me.”

Compared to a phobia—something that can’t be helped—an -ism is a doctrine, a system of belief. Isms may be institutionalized, systematized, or proselytized, passed down to subsequent generations. The -isms capitalism and communism have shaped nations, as have the -isms racism and colonialism. Phobias can be debilitating, to be sure, but they exert nowhere near the force of -isms, socially or linguistically.

 

I think he has a good point in that homophobia isn't correct, so why cling to it's usage?

He goes on say:

Quote

Now, four decades since the last edition of the DSM to pathologize homosexuality, when 37 states and Washington, D.C., have legalized same-sex marriage, we’re due for a new shift in the language we use to talk about anti-gay bigotry. Homophobia is no longer sufficient to describe the cultural and legislative forces currently working against LGBTQ rights. The Westboro Baptist Church is not frightened of gay people; it just hates gay people—as does God, if the picket signs are to be believed. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee—one of many competing poster children for the mainstream Christian right’s chummier, family-values brand of bigotry—told Jon Stewart in 2008 that “If a person does not necessarily support the idea of changing the definition of marriage, that does not mean that they’re a homophobe.” On this point, Huckabee’s not wrong. What may have been defensibly called “fears” 40 years ago have now crystallized into a clear ideology, an entrenched dogma, of prejudice. Huckabee and his ilk aren’t afraid of anything (other than encroaching irrelevance)—they’re just gaycist.

I obviously disagree with his conclusions. I don't think that not supporting SSM makes someone a gaycist anymore than I think that not supporting Christianity makes someone a christiancist.  And I think that the idea that "either someone agrees with what I do or they hate me" is childish, but I'm with him on the problems of championing the term homophobia.  

If we're going to label each other, let's at least try to be accurate as we do it. 

[Duncan]

5 hours ago, Sunslight said:

I believe that the greatest threat is pornography. Then comes all other sexual immoralities. The reason that the LGBT movement is deemed or seen as a high threat to religion is that it completely undermines the very core and strength of society which is the family which is constructed principly off of the platform of a man and a woman who are married. Look at some of the results of the LGBT movement, none of which benefit society.

Normalized same sex relations as "natural" and edifying.

Diminished the eternal roles of men and women.

Diminished the Strength of the family.

Redefined morality to mean "what feels good"

Increased depression, suicides and violence.

Increased STD's

Increased pornography industry profits

Increased health care costs

Diminished faith based religion worship

Increased secularism

 

 

 

 

all of which existed LONG before the "LGTBQ movement" and homosexuality leading to secularism? violence? healthcare costs? strength of the family? Give us a break

Edited March 11, 2020 by Duncan

[carbon dioxide]

I would say that in 97% of all instances where the word "homophobia" is used, there simply is no clinical phobia present.  To hate, not like, not support something is not a phobia in any sense of the meaning. Lots of people who use this word hate Donald Trump.  Are the afflicted with magaphobia?  I suppose so if one was to think they they do.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Sunslight said:

Just replace the LGBT for sexual impurity movement and you get the same thing.

The bottom line is that nothing good comes from breaking the law of chastity. And, homosexual behavior is breaking the law of chastity.

That is not true either. A child conceived out of wedlock is “nothing good”? A relationship that started as a drunken hookup can result in “nothing good” even if real love blossoms and marriage follows?

I would agree that there is always a better way then breaking the law of chastity and breaking it has spiritual (and often other kinds of) negative consequences but “nothing good” is hyperbole. When someone who is under eternal covenants breaks it the results can increase in intensity.

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would say that in 97% of all instances where the word "homophobia" is used, there simply is no clinical phobia present.  To hate, not like, not support something is not a phobia in any sense of the meaning. Lots of people who use this word hate Donald Trump.  Are the afflicted with magaphobia?  I suppose so if one was to think they they do.

I have been diagnosed with Trump Derangement Syndrome on this board. I do not think I am deranged about Trump. Deranged in general? That might be a fair point, no comment on that accusation, probably fair.

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would say that in 97% of all instances where the word "homophobia" is used, there simply is no clinical phobia present.  To hate, not like, not support something is not a phobia in any sense of the meaning. Lots of people who use this word hate Donald Trump.  Are the afflicted with magaphobia?  I suppose so if one was to think they they do.

There’s already a perfectly serviceable term for this: Trump Derangement Syndrome.