[sublupo]

If we are already talking about redefining the language, one term that always bothered me was homophobic. As in

> two thirds of the LGBTQ community have frequently or often heard homophobic comments

It sounds weird to use the suffix phobic for something other than a fear. I doubt that the comments that 2/3 of them hear was something along the lines of "don't get close to that gay person or else you'll get AIDS". I'm guessing what they were referring to was comments like "I'm going to continue to call you he even though you insist that you are she". A better word would be antihomo or homo-hating.

I assume homophobic is used to make fun or degrade those people. Similarly to how terrorists are called cowards (even though I don't know of many people with enough guts to die for what they believe in) or calling kids suffering from cancer as brave (what else should they do? Die?).

[defertoreptar]

> I assume homophobic is used to make fun or degrade those people.

I think it stems from how people would react to the thought or sight of homosexual acts. The response some homophobes have to two men kissing can be compared to a child's reaction to seeing broccoli on their plate.

Of course there are still people like that, but when talking about the meaning of words, I think it's important to point out the difference. We often conflate revulsion to a sexual act with prejudice to people who identify with that sexuality. They almost always go hand in hand, but the point is that there's a case to be made for the word "homophobic."

If anything, I would say that "homophobic" is too soft a label for actual prejudiced people. We think of real phobias as something we should tolerate in people and something we should be sensitive towards. That's not the case here.

[luckylion]

> but the point is that there's a case to be made for the word "homophobic."

Yeah, but that case is rare, while the usage isn't. Homomisiac would be more accurate, though I find that too strong for many occasions: hate is quite high on the dislike-scale, and shouldn't be the first one to go for.

> We think of real phobias as something we should tolerate in people and something we should be sensitive towards. That's not the case here.

Unrelated: that sounds like you believe that people make a conscious choice regarding what they like and don't like, and to what degree they do so. I'm pretty sure you're going to have a rough awakening at some point.

[defertoreptar]

> that sounds like you believe that people make a conscious choice regarding what they like and don't like, and to what degree they do so. I'm pretty sure you're going to have a rough awakening at some point.

That's not how I meant it. I was alluding to the many examples in society where discrimination against homosexuality is not tolerated: in the workplace and legally in other cases, but also in the community at large. That is an observation of the society we live in and how a member of it should adhere to the norms of that society and its laws. It does not contain information about my own individual, personal viewpoints.

To clarify the point I was making: let's say a company needs to transport an employee to another state. The employee is afraid of flying. That company, being sensitive toward the employee's phobia, permits him to drive instead. Contrast this with an employee who refused to make a sales call to someone who is gay, because that client is gay. Would you say that that employee should receive the same amount of tolerance and sensitivity as the one who was afraid of flying?

[wingspar]

> Contrast this with an employee who refused to make a sales call to someone who is gay, because that client is gay. Would you say that that employee should receive the same amount of tolerance and sensitivity as the one who was afraid of flying?

To make it even more complex, what about the employee who refuses to make a solo sales call to someone who is the opposite gender, for religious reasons? At a dinner meeting for example.

What level of accommodation, if any, should society demand for this salesperson?

What if the salesperson is LGBT and refused to make a sales call to an anti-LGBT organization?

Should society demand both these salespeople to be given the same level of accommodation?

[luckylion]

> Would you say that that employee should receive the same amount of tolerance and sensitivity as the one who was afraid of flying?

It depends on how much I think about it and who is asking. If anybody who isn't academically interested is asking: Of course not, how dare you even present this idea! Otherwise, starting from the lack of free will, why are we judging them differently, and aren't we claiming that one made a conscious choice to not talk to gay people while the other didn't make a conscious choice to not fly? I'm with you that norms and traditions provide a clear answer, one that I'd most likely give as well intuitively. (And I'd be very surprised if you couldn't treat both with similar methods; neither is treated by firing her.)

[WalterGR]

If we are already talking about redefining the language

This happens continuously, whether we talk about it or not.

[luckylion]

There is a difference between artificial change of languages and natural change though, isn't there?

[WalterGR]

This is natural change.

People - including me - have been using the singular gender-neutral “they” for decades. I was never taught to use it. There’s no shadowy cabal trying to get people to use it. It’s just a natural change in the language that I and million of other speakers have picked up.

Language changes continuously. Just because someone doesn’t personally use a construct doesn’t mean that it’s an example of artificial change of language.

[beaconstudios]

I always thought it was related to older terms that linked hate with fear, like "yellow peril". Older racist beliefs like this often played into fear, and I can't help but wonder if historical hatred of LGBT+ people was also based on fear.