The Associated Press has removed “homophobia,” among other terms, from its style guide. Dylan Byers reports:
The online Style Book now says that “-phobia,” “an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness” should not be used “in political or social contexts,” including “homophobia” and “Islamophobia.”
AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn explains the move:
“Homophobia especially — it’s just off the mark. It’s ascribing a mental disability to someone, and suggests a knowledge that we don’t have. It seems inaccurate. Instead, we would use something more neutral: anti-gay, or some such, if we had reason to believe that was the case.”
“We want to be precise and accurate and neutral in our phrasing,” he said.
George Weinberg, a psychologist credited with introducing the term in 1972, disagrees:
It encapsulates a whole point of view and of feeling. It was a hard-won word, as you can imagine. It even brought me some death threats. Is homophobia always based on fear? I thought so and still think so…. We have no other word for what we’re talking about, and this one is well established. We use ‘freelance’ for writers who don’t throw lances anymore and who want to get paid for their work.
Rod Dreher, meanwhile, applauds the change:
I know people who for whatever reason morally disapprove of homosexuality, but who are friends with gay people, and who aren’t the least bit afraid of them. [ . . . ]
To label these things as phobias is to psychologize what may be a rational moral stance, given the premises. Is an Orthodox Jew or Muslim “porkophobic” because their religion forbids consuming pork?
The changes have already been made to the AP’s online stylebook and are slated to appear in the printed edition next year.
November 29th, 2012 | 9:12 am
[...] AP Removes “Homophobia” from Style Book [...]
November 29th, 2012 | 9:17 am
This certainly seems reasonable to me. We need to use language with great precision. I don’t know anyone who’s “afraid” of gay people. I do know those who disapprove of homosexual acts, but aren’t afraid of gay people (and also don’t hate gay people). And, unfortunately, I know of those who do seem to hate gay people. What we need are highly precise terms and phrases that accurately reflect what people think and believe.
November 29th, 2012 | 9:20 am
From an etymological perspective, ‘homophobic’ makes even less sense, meaning either ‘an irrational fear of the same’ or ‘an irrational fear of men’.
November 29th, 2012 | 9:25 am
Even though I have defended the word, this is probably a good idea, but they gave all the wrong reasons. Calling someone a technophobe, computerphobe, anglophobe, francophobe, or xenophobe is not ascribing mental illness to that person. And the meaning of a word is determined by how it is used, not by the original meaning of its roots. To insist that calling somone homophobic is necessarily calling them mentally ill or pathologically frightened is to commit the etymological fallacy.
November 29th, 2012 | 9:26 am
No loss. The word is used nearly exclusively to impugn the motives of anyone who fails to fully embrace every aspiration of every homosexual activist in every arena. The comparison to porkophobia is exactly right.
November 29th, 2012 | 9:42 am
[...] Homophobia recognized “officially” as a meaningless word. [...]
November 29th, 2012 | 10:01 am
“Calling someone a technophobe, computerphobe, anglophobe, francophobe, or xenophobe is not ascribing mental illness to that person.”
When a mental health clinician coins a neologism, it is an an attempt to identify, define and categorize a condition, it’s not an attempt to coin a colloquialism.
What I love about this term, is that it spread like wildfire among people who reject labels that are supposed to insidiously connote derision, this one was clear attempt at derision. Interestingly, it most prominently used by oikophobes.
November 29th, 2012 | 11:11 am
When a mental health clinician coins a neologism, it is an an attempt to identify, define and categorize a condition, it’s not an attempt to coin a colloquialism.
Adam Baum,
Well, of course there no doubt are some people who could be diagnosed as homophobic—who are intensely anxious or frightened when around gay people and who are deeply disturbed at the though that someone of the same sex might make sexual advances toward them. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense"gay panic defense" has been used in court cases in which men who have beaten or killed a person claims the victim made homosexual advances to them, causing them to have something like temporary insanity. Just because George Weinberg coined homophobia intending it to be used as a clinical term does not mean that is the way the word is actually used. People use clinical terms in colloquial speech all the time. For example, a person or a group (e.g., political party) torn between two opposites, or doing contradictory things is described as schizophrenic. People say, “I’m paranoid about . . . ” or “Don’t be paranoid.” Idiot, imbecile, and moron used to be clinical terms.
As I said, even though I have defended the word, I would not mind it disappearing from the English language. It was of very limited usefulness.
What is interesting, though, is the intensity of some people’s dislike for the word. I think the the more strongly people object to homosexuality, the more strongly they tend to object to the word homophobia.
November 29th, 2012 | 11:22 am
I think it’s a good idea.
All -phobia type words in political conversation are most often used to write off an opponent as not worth engaging, killing the argument on the spot.
“There’s no point in even arguing with them. They’re just —-aphobes.”
If you’re truly in the right then you should be able to beat your opponents in an argument without resorting to such tactics.
November 29th, 2012 | 12:29 pm
“What is interesting, though, is the intensity of some people’s dislike for the word. I think the the more strongly people object to homosexuality, the more strongly they tend to object to the word homophobia.”
Or it could just be that people don’t like being called names.
November 29th, 2012 | 1:43 pm
[...] AP’s decision to drop the use of the word “homophobia” has been met with wide approval among Christian and other moral traditionalists. This presents a [...]
November 29th, 2012 | 1:47 pm
Or it could just be that people don’t like being called names.
Steve Billingsley,
Nobody likes to be called names, but the usual response when someone calls you a name like liar, cheat, psychopath, etc. is, “Don’t call me that! It doesn’t apply to me.” It is not to deny there are liars, cheats, bums, and psychopaths.
The latest round of objections here was when Joseph Knippenberg said, “That term [gay-bashing] once had a precise meaning, applying to homophobes who literally assaulted gays.” Several people, who had not been called homophobes themselves objected to the use of the word. Flawed word though it is, I didn’t really understand leaping to the defense of people who assault gays and saying it was unfair to call them homophobes.
November 29th, 2012 | 4:23 pm
David Nickol,
Who’s leaping to the defense of people who assault gays?
Your assertion, that the dislike of the word “homophobia” is directly related to the intensity of dislike for homosexuals, is what I challenge. You are simply making an assertion without any supporting evidence. I am offering an alternative explanation. Some people intensely dislike the term “homophobia” because they see it as a catch-all term used to tar anyone who opposes the codification of gay marriage.
Who’s doing the leaping here?
November 29th, 2012 | 6:22 pm
Your assertion, that the dislike of the word “homophobia” is directly related to the intensity of dislike for homosexuals, is what I challenge.
Steve Billingsley,
Please note that I said, “I think the the more strongly people object to homosexuality [not homosexuals], the more strongly they tend to object to the word homophobia. Some of the people I discuss and debate these issues with endorse the blunt language of the Catholic Church condemning homosexuality without hesitation, yet they are quite compassionate when it comes to gay people themselves. I can’t help but feel that if Pope Benedict XVI himself (who wrote some of that blunt language) read some of the exchanges I have seen here and elsewhere, he would be appalled at the tone of some of the criticisms of homosexuality and gay people themselves. I bet if he were writing here, he wouldn’t be the least bit snarky, either. :P
Also, I didn’t say the converse was true, that is, the more strongly people object to the word homophobia, the more strongly critical they are of homosexuality.
Who’s leaping to the defense of people who assault gays?
I’ll clarify that to say “leaping to the defense of people who assault gays by saying it was unfair to call them homophobes.”
it is sometimes hard to read tone in comments like the ones posted here, and I know that I sometimes sound angry when I am not at all. But nevertheless I do think there is a lot of anger when homosexuality, abortion, and a few other topics are discussed, and often I don’t think it makes many of us look good.
November 29th, 2012 | 11:23 pm
Yes! Let’s replace the word. Those of us with actual phobias shouldn’t be tainted by association with people who hate other people because of who those people love. It gives those of us with mental illness a bad name. Let’s use a more precise word. How’s “bigotry?”
November 30th, 2012 | 5:24 am
What concerns me is that there may be some who are critical of the word “homophobia” not because they have legitimate concerns over its proper definition, but because they do, in fact, hate gay people, or at least have little respect for them. And, because they cannot, with proper moral legitimacy, state their real motivations explicitly, they hide behind the veil etymological purity. Certainly we don’t want to provide moral refuge for these types of people.
On the other hand, there are those on the other side, who use the term “homophobia” so indiscriminately, that any person who has moral reservations about homosexual activity, would fall under the umbrella of being “homophobic.” This comes rather close to being somewhat bigoted against those who, for religious reasons, consider homosexual activity morally unacceptable, but love homosexual persons (a position I wholly respect, and think is the position of those who have written articles concerning homosexuality for FIRST THINGS. These writers don’t hate gay people; just the opposite: they care a great deal for them, so much, I believe that they courageously risk being the victims of bigotry themselves for espousing it. I also respectfully disagree with it. I accept the moral legitimacy of homosexual relations among consenting, monogomous adults).
So, as Liana stated, let’s get rid of the word, but always have the proper words ready to describe those who hate homosexuals, those who love homosexuals but dislike homosexual activity, and those who view reigious people with disdain for condemning homosexual activity, and every nuance in between.
December 4th, 2012 | 5:03 am
[...] AP Removes “Homophobia” from Their Style Book – Which makes Matthew Schmitz wonders if it makes sense to write about Christophobia. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact