How ‘-Phobic’ Became a Weapon in the Identity Wars

I interpreted "homophobic" as "afraid of being homosexual."

Irrationality is a human failing. As Aristotle said "man [human] is a rational animal"--meaning normal humans are rational, irrational ones are abnormal. Not that irrationality makes you nonhuman. "Inhuman" and "inhumane" can also be completely human, if abnormal. Species definitions must accommodate normal and abnormal specimens.

"Normal" here is not "average"--it means "nothing is wrong with you." But if nothing is wrong, you're perfect. The average person is a wreck. A "normal" distribution" is a bell shaped curve where top center is all three--mean, median and mode. Ideal specimens are at one bottom end of the bell--regardless of the human trait at issue. Not all distributions are normal in this sense.

Abnormality need not be illness--a medical condition. Normality--ideal functioning--physiology and personality--includes much more than health which is primarily about physiology including neurology.

But WHO--defines 'health' as complete physical, mental and social well being. Religious fanatics tried to incorporate "spiritual"--not as its original meaning--spirits being minds or psyches--but as supernatural well being.

Priests, rabbis, mullahs and shamans would be health care givers.

Bad social lives can, but need not, cause illness; all sorts of emotional and ideological harms/hurts diminish well-being; they can, but need not, cause illness.

Don't confuse healthy/sick, order/disorder, virtue/vice. Rationality covers all three; irrationality may be specific.

I can remember that if someone called you a "racist" well that was it.
Even though you were just pointing out that the cost of sending thousands of
students on long bus journeys throughout Boston for the sake of "forced
integration" might be better spent on building better schools and letting students and their families attend the school of their choice whenever possible.

Now if you question the 'absolute right' to Same Gender Marriages or for
Transgendered Persons to use the same locker room as the Gender they claim -
you are immediately labeled homo/trans - phobic.

Political and Sociological discussions do not profit from being immediately shut down because someone says you are _______ - phobic.

"The comparison also has the effect of excusing those Americans — like certain presidential candidates in the 2016 race — who wield prejudices strategically. "

Not at all, the term is used with contempt for the "phobic" person, not sympathy. The compound words entail a narrative, that one's opposition to a movement, or the normalization of previously censured practices, is irrationally based on a personal fear. The term is a way to avoid any actual discussion based on culture, norms or evaluation of characteristics of other species allied to homo-sapiens.

The "(anyposition) phobia" construction is the antithesis and negation of applying any body of knowledge to a movement, as it is ridiculed and condemned as such endeavor being a sign of mental illness. Even this article, assumes that there could not be any rational argument against, say, same sex marriage and does not acknowledge how epithets such as the "phobic meme" has obviated the possibility actual discourse on the issue.

This certainty has become like religious proselytizing, now meeting resistance in Africa and Asia with more hostility to gays. This writer, as a true believer, is not even aware of the full cost of dismissing any opposition to mental illness.

AlRodbell.com

I'm phobic about disease, having survived Stage IV lymphoma. So the CDC statistics for World AIDS Day cited by the NYT in November that HIV and syphilis were up by 61% among homosexuals in America made me phobic-by-proxy. That is, I feel phobic for what a lot of young men are going to learn about disease, in a health care system in flux, and Big Pharma gouging for medicines. Larry Kramer is a prophet in his own land, ignored.

It all amounts to political correctness, the ideological police. If I am offended, you must have done something offensive, and therefore wrong. Balderdash! It does not matter one whit if I like or dislike person or group based upon racial origin, ethnicity, religious beliefs or sexuality. I have a complete and perfect right to my opinions, beliefs, biases and prejudices. I also have a the responsibility to treat others with the respect and dignity with which I hope and expect to be treated. It is our conduct by which we should be judged, not our opinions.

I believe the correct term for many things is ___-averse. As in people who don't want to be around others are not afraid but averse to some aspect of that group. Homophobic is the most misguided label. Most people such labeled are actually homo averse, meaning homosexual sex and its activists are not liked.
Xenophobia is another term that in reality means those who are opposed to outsiders coming in and taking what is rightfully theirs, i.e. tax money, shelter, opportunities. One may fear one's goods being seized from outsiders but the actual people for whom these goods are seized are not feared. It's the act of seizing that inspires distrust and fear.

I concede that Islamaphobia is real. There truly is danger, not only from individual Muslims terrorizing the population in the name of allah,but the danger of encroaching barbarian cultures overrunning a democratic republic.

The problem in naming people phobic is that you fail to see that people have a right to like or dislike others. By claiming people are afraid , you paint them as irrational instead of admitting people have the right to their own preferences for whatever reason they want. If I don't like Hillbilly culture or hillbillies, I'm certainly not hillbillyphobic. You see? I don't have to justify my reasons for not liking hillbillies.

"‘Phobia’’ is...a metaphor comparing bigots to the mentally ill....[it] has the effect of excusing those Americans — like certain presidential candidates in the 2016 race — who wield prejudices strategically. It’s not your fault if you get sick. But hating people is a choice."

1. Sometimes getting sick IS the result of choice--unsafe sex for just one example--even if the sickness (disease etc) it not chosen directly.

2. Phobias are defined as irrational FEARS (a long list); NOT irrational HATREDS. We have MISogyny, MISandry and more generally MISanthropy (antonym of PHILanthropy)--all defined as hatreds. But no MIShomo.

Of course fears can slide into hatreds; both imply aversion. But hatred is more carefully the active version of envy--the vice or deadly sin-- "green envy" (not to be confused with either admiration or jealousy). Green-envy is an aversion to someone's benefits. Hatred is its opposite of sorts "(obversion" in logic)--the desire for harm (double negation--of attitude and object). Vengeance is a more egoistic desire to personally inflict harm (like Dirty Harry).

Fear is neither aversion to benefits nor desire for harm. It's the aversion to dealing with the "frightening" object. Normally frightening things are dangerous and fear of them abates with ability--both unlike the phobias.

1. MIShomo sounds weird. 2. Homophobia often confuses homosex with pederasty. 3. But It can also confuse personal orientation and aesthetics with public/political gay rights.

As a gay activist since 1974 myself, I had some resistance to Dr. George Weinberg's formulation of "homophobia" to describe what I saw as anti-gay prejudice and anti-gay hatred. But knowing George well now as I do, I've come around to his groundbreaking understanding of anti-gay attitudes being rooted in fear. That doesn't excuse homophobia, but helps us understand the nature of prejudice in our efforts to overcome it. I've spent my adult life working for gay liberation and trying to heal homophobia in both gay and non-gay people. It can be done. And if you don't think Islamophobia is real you have only to look at its marked rise this past year leading to wholly irrational attacks on people Islamophobes just think are Muslims. To read more on George Weinberg's views, here is his response to the Associated Press's proposal to ban the word "homophobia": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-weinberg/homophobia-dont-ban-the-w_...

Perhaps the author is suffering from Phobophobia??
Welcome to the Land of OZ - where people's neuroses have psychoses...

Thank you for this. You make some excellent points here, but I wish you dug a bit deeper into the "Denying fear is exactly what a -phobic person would say" argument. I thought the Salem witch trials ended a while ago, but it looks like 2016 is proving me wrong.

Another detail overlooked by the "phobia" rhetorical device is the distinction between antipathy directed at a set of thoughts, feelings, or actions, and antipathy directed at a set of people.

It's more or less impossible to lead a reasonable life without holding at least some thoughts and feelings in disregard, but it is entirely reasonable to give every human being the benefit of the doubt.

I like this article. It's thoughtful and interesting. In the case of homophobia, however, I think it often is the right description. But it's not fear OF homosexuals, it's fear of being LABELED as a homosexual. The alpha male in the example probably acts how he does in order to avoid any sign of homosexuality in himself that might cause him to be labeled as such himself. How many times have homophobic politicians turned out to be homosexual? Homosexuality is the scarlet letter of the high school male's masculine psyche. And some of us never graduate.

What is so often overlooked is that "phobia" has two meanings: fear, yes, but also hatred or loathing. Look it up. So labeling someone "homophobic" if they hate gay people is indubitably correct. (Leaving aside the whole question of whether one is what one hates or fears.)

We just need a really good term to throw at at those that throw the terms 'racist', 'bigot', 'diversity' and the various -phobic.

I sure am tired of that crowd. Time to have the pendulum swing the other way.

"civil rights agenda". this is another example of the expansive use of a phrase. civil rights originally referred specifically to the civil rights of blacks. In the last democrat debate (if you happened to accidentally come upon it while channel surfing) Hillary called the Flint water disaster a civil rights issue. but of course, it's not that any all. it's fundamentally an economics and political issue arising from the lack of participation of poor people (who happen to be predominantly black in Flint) in the political process and therefore resulting in a neglect of their needs vey public officials (after all, why would a politician bother to serve someone who isn't going to vote for you?).

While I very much agree that the term homo phobic puts the onus on the individual rather than the culture I disagree differentiating between hate and fear as separate motives for crimes. Hate is the reaction to fear and "patients" would be more comfortable because it is the way they deal with it.

The word "homophobia" always struck me as a bit of a botch. It would mean "fear of the same," but it's used to mean "fear of homosexuals," or more crudely, in this truncated version, "fear of homos." "Homosexualphobia" would be closer to the mark, but as a reader points out, the feeling it describes is closer to animus than fear. Let's stick with good old "antigay."

The profligate use of "phobia" is a symptom of the dumbed-down discourse created when thoughtful consideration of ideas and evidence are crowded out by agendas. Homophobia does occur, but it is rather different condition than a societal attitude. Just as "racism" implies an ideological content that simple "predudice" does not require, we are overrun by the rhetorical "overreach' concerning the "persecutions" of Christians by those so do not defer to them. Does a person like myself, who doesn't like raw fish, deserve to be labeled "japanophobic." I believe that Iran wants American dead, doesn't make me phobic. Get a vocabulary America!

Having a phobia means having a "fear of [something]"--which is not necessarily only the purview of the "mentally ill"--whatever that term means--any more than depression or anxiety is. Furthermore, no one who describes someone as Islamophobic is actually implying the person is sick, so it's not their fault. I think Ms Hess is playing fast and loose here when she says "it is a metaphor comparing bigots to the mentally ill." Is she doing that comparing? Because no one I know is.

These are not wars. They are a series of debates occurring in society about identity. It is a disgrace that the NYT continues to misuse the word 'war' (as in the title of this article). To sensationalize a debate by calling it a war dishonors the sacrifices made by those who have actually fought in a war.

Don't people still freak out when their sons play with "girls'" things? That's a bit of homophobia. It's not just "blowhards" that react this way but very liberal parents. There's so much gray here, Amanda. It's not a mentally ill phobic person versus a 4-star bigot, but human unease with things, people, culture, that is different from what they're used to. Get off the "haters" wagon.

Of course, this is Slate writing.

Oddly enough, we don't hear about "Judeophobia" from the left. Now, why might that be?

The leading past-time of the right is fear-mongering.
The leading past-time of the left is bigot-labeling.
Both are reductionist tendencies to 'win'. Sad that 'winning' is no longer seen as simply getting to know those with whom you disagree. Thanks for saying as much ("fostering reflective dialogue" vs. "shaming ideological opponents").

The Puritan spirit is alive and well in America. It started with the original fiend-o-phobes and it's still with us.

Over the years, I've come upon a sure-fire way to tell if someone is really a bigot or not: The more upset they get at being called a bigot, the more certain it is they are one.

Gays don't do anything to impede on the safety of others.
We are no longer living in the year 1492. Every country has borders. Border control is a necessity, especially in the age of terrorism. We share the planet with many cultures that are still living...well, in 1492. It is not in our best interest to take them in, and spend our resources in order to make them more like us (which they may not want to be anyway). There is nothing phobic or bigoted in deporting people not in this country legally.
Political Islam is to our age what Nazism was to the last.

In other words: homophobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia aren't vaguely similar. There is good reason to have an aversion to the death cult that Islam often is. It isn't a phobia to want to good choices when it comes to who is allowed to become a citizen of this country. Gays are harmless.

It's reminiscent of the Soviet habit in the 1970s of sending dissidents to mental hospitals.

I remember learning early on that homophobia was more than just a dislike or prejudice against homosexuals. it was a hatred based in fear, and the fear wasn't of contact with a homosexual, it was a fear of being homosexual. So not a panic that a homosexual man might come on to you, but that you might accept and enjoy it. I can certainly see where conflating all anti-gay behavior with this fear might encourage some anti-gay men to at least project an air of tolerance.

However, while it's true that not all anti-gay feelings are fear-based, it's seems to be also true that much of it may be. Certainly the anti-gay sentiments of congressmen who later turn out to be gay would provide some evidence of this.

As for other prejudices, yes some are fear-based and phobic would be the right suffix. Islamaphobia often does seem to be based on fear, though not the nuanced fear homophobia identified. Whole-phobia on the other hand, doesn't quite fit the bill.

Good article. A lifelong liberal, I confess nonetheless to being, in the current climate, "SJW-phobic."

Why is the "phobic" suffix never applied to terrorists who would wantonly murder unarmed innocent people.

Good column, Ms Hess

Interesting that the author does not mention that slander, name calling in order terrorize an opponent or his/her potential supporters in to silence in order to win a debate is the most base logical fallacy, assault against character, an abusive ad hominem attack. By the way the current most used abusive slander used by those claiming to be "liberals", "humanists" and advocates for human rights is to brand opponents with some descriptive noun. like "native" for native-born citizens and then add an "ist" suffix to it. For example anyone that questions the US's immense yearly legal immigrant intake, that voters never approved of in the first place, and now overwhelmingly disapprove of in polls, and asks why in light of this massive flood/generousity our leaders can't even enforce our immigration laws (allow many 100's thousands more illegals to stay a year) is called a mean, evil "Nativist".

The social justice and anti-racism movement are run by people who are as logically and ethical as Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. They are the leftwing version. We must believe that a religion that makes up 25% of the planet and executes gays, cleanses it's 60+ countries of non-Muslims, and is killing on every continent for more land is less of a threat than those white men holed up in an empty wildlife refuge in rural Oregon. We are hounded if we dare believe that the US has the right to enforce immigration laws. We are commanded to think that not giving illegal immigrants the rights of US citizens is akin to not giving blacks equal rights to whites. The left currently in charge of the dialogue (which is really a monologue) on social issues is super fringy and is ever inventing new phobias and methods to silence critics. Just like Trump and the Tea Party overpower the more moderate and intelligent conservatives the intelligent and reasonable left is drowned out by the loud and shrill far leftists who act like brown shirts. To say that many of these people are fascist is not an exaggeration.

The use of the label "phobic" as a weapon is no worse than the use of the label "racist". At this point in time the word racist means nothing. Burning down Asian owned businesses? Apparently not racist. A mob of 300 gathered on the property of a Jewish business owner on MLK Jr Day in Seattle and told him he wasn't wanted in this "black neighborhood". The neighborhood in question is a historically Jewish neighborhood and he's a 4th generation Jewish resident. This apparently is not racist either. Nor was the mob who shut down a LGBQT meeting yesterday because Israelis were invited, something that is a pattern.
What is racist is that blacks have not been nominated for Oscars for 2 years in a row. What isn't racist is that there is an outcry over the lack of black inclusion despite blacks having received 10-12% of Oscar nominations over the past 20 years while other minorities are far more shortchanged.
What isn't racist is the uproar and condemnation on college campuses over any perceived slight towards blacks while anti-Semitism is openly defended.
The larger problem is a "social justice" movement that acts like brown shirts. They have a huge pro-black and pro-Muslim bias and all other groups must take a back seat.

The tactic Ms. Hess described is the same as the Soviet policy of declaring dissidents insane. And whether it’s this sort of argument by diagnosis, or general Bulverism, or kafkatraps, the goal is always the same: make it impossible to have an honest discussion of the issues so that you win by default—at least, so long as you retain control of the press and public view.

"One reason ‘‘homophobia’’ was such a provocative neologism was its somewhat trollish imputation that the person who holds anti-gay beliefs is pathetically scared of gay people". I read this and thought of someone I know who has to change channels when he sees two men (or women) kissing on TV - it's just too much for him. Is this homophobic? Yes. Is it pathetic? Yes. Maybe those alpha-male patients the author mentions hate gays PRECISELY because they fear them.

---comparing bigots to the mentally ill.

"The" mentally ill is as offensive a reference as "the" Blacks. It ought not survive the editorial process.

Please check your stylebook and revise it if that phrase appears as accepted.

"Islamophobia" is certainly the #1 silencing tactic of the bleeding-heart, vacuous Left in the modern day.

I agree with the author's point that it is silly to conflate a psychological condition ("phobia") with a genuine mistrust of something.

Which is indeed why the term "Islamophobia" has been so effective in silencing critics of Islam... because it makes it seem like Islam critics **MUST** have some screws loose in their heads.

If I can explain to you, with a level head, with plenty of empirical, historical, and palpable evidence, that the way Islam is practiced today in many parts of the world is certainly reason for discomfort, is that a "phobia"?? Surely not.

The author is right that in the Twitter age, in which quick one-liners are more valuable than productive, patient dialogue, that we must be extra careful to engage with people of differing opinions.

Voltaire would be shaking in his grave if he learned that today, "Liberals," resorted to silencing techniques rather than intellectual debate with people whose opinions differ from their own.

Thank you for this article. This issue certainly needed to be discussed.

Same thing with teachers wanting undocumented illegals accounted for in classrooms across America for safety reasons being told they are xenophobic. Funny thing, the name-calling is exactly why we are not solving our current social issues, because we are too busy slapping labels on one another.

Interesting perspective. While I agree your article is on point in expressing the inaccuracy of comparing run of the mill prejudice to illness, we must also not forget that some prejudices are extreme and may be founded in a fear and loathing that will manifest itself in bashings and murder. Do you believe that someone who physically abuses another person is not ill? Hatred is an illness, often an incurable illness and in my belief, an illness which ought to be controlled through societal condemnations and punishment. If you don't believe it is incurable, try to rid yourself of your own controlled prejudices, irrational though you acknowledge them to be.

In the end, I don't think you need to worry because like many terms which gain traction, I am sensing that phobic is now just another slur rapidly loosing usage.

The word "Homophobia" is Greek for "fear of sameness" and has nothing to do with sexuality. When I first heard it I thought it had been coined by a propagandist who didn't understand or care how one derived a word from Greek, and I certainly didn't take it seriously as a psychological term. In particularly the coiner seemed to think "phobia" mean "hostility" rather than fear, which made it sound even more awkward. After all "acrophobia" does not mean "hostility toward heights".

Anti-gay feeling, discourse, behaviour and identity are probably too complex to be able to be encapsulated in a single epithet. Moreover, many words change hue over time through popular misuse. Nowadays, the term 'homophobic' as used in my circle, and in stories I read seems to mean simply "anti-gay". The pathological connotations of "-phobia" appear to me to be largely lost, but in the younger demographic it's considered no more cool to be homophobic than it is to be racist or sexist, indeed the three terms are often used in the same sentence, because it's recognised that human beings don't choose their race, gender or sexual orientation.

Other terms like 'Islamophobic' may justifiably be said to incorporate fear or loathing, but unlike gender, race and sexual orientation, are choices people make, and can be unlearned through education and interacting directly with the hated group, much the same as homophobia is unlearned when families and social groups are confronted by the coming out of one of their own.