Normally words with the word phobia in them mean a strong irrational even self damaging fear of something.
Words grow to reflect their usefulness in furthering accurate social communication. "Homophobia" is an excellent example of that. Its meaning is standard and it is clear. It is capricious and feckless to argue about that. What is important is that you use it accurately as to its meaning. I really don't follow the huge problem you seem to be having with such a simple idea.
Homophobia refers to "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"
I guess you understand what fear is; and I suppose that the word "aversion" is not entirely abstruse; and "discrimination" is hardly a challenge to an educated man. So we are only left with the word, "OR".
In general, the context or the commentary makes clear in what way a person is self describing their feelings toward homosexuality.
Homophobia is a word to describe the way some people feel about or judge homosexuals. There is nothing forcing you to be ashamed of the word. If you think that discriminating against, or fearing, or feeling repugnance for homosexuals is something to be proud of, then you have every right to consider that the description reflects positively on your moral character.
So what is the problem? The word has evolved to cover a larger area than merely fear. Words do evolve. What is the problem, Tim. If you don't fear homosexuals, or discriminate against then, or feel a repugnance toward them, then you are not homophobic. If you do discriminate against them or feel a repugnance for them, or an irrational fear...then you are. Whether or not you are homophobic, does not prevent you from an opinion as to whether or not being homophobic is something which one may rightfully be proud of. So what is the problem? Would you like to call people who are merely scared s-itless of homosexuals something like "classic" homophobes? How many of those are around? |
