To answer an accusation, you have to know what it means. If the words have no fixed meaning, no argument can show that it’s false. Certain words in the culture of the left serve this purpose. They allow irrefutable accusations — irrefutable because they mean whatever the accuser wants them to. Denying the accusation or defending someone else against it can even become evidence of guilt. Words are supposed to be the tools of thought, but these words are designed to make thought impossible.
“Racist” is the broadest catch-all word. I’ve been threatened with having rumors spread that I’m racist, because I opposed formal racial categorizations at science fiction conventions. On this blog, a certain Hugo winner hinted that my criticism of the Chengdu Worldcon was evidence of racism. You may notice a certain lack of logic in the charges, but logic has nothing to do with it. The purpose is to intimidate and enforce conformity within the group.
The “phobia” words — homophobia, islamophobia, transphobia, etc. — conflate unjustified hostility, legitimate criticism (primarily in the case of Islam), and involuntary psychological aversion. They offer a veneer of science. Recently I learned that “islamophobia” not only isn’t a phobia, it doesn’t have to have anything to do with Islam. A joke in which someone claimed to remove all the humans from a Nativity scene because they were “foreign” was supposed to demonstrate the existence of “islamophobia,” even though no one has ever seriously suggested such a thing and Islam didn’t exist in Jesus’s time. None of that matters. Using that stereotype is supposed to demonstrate how “islamophobic” an imaginary group of people is, as a way of attributing the phobia to actual people.
“Fascism” literally refers to the government of Italy under Benito Mussolini. In the extended sense, it’s an authoritarian system of government that seeks to unify all the people under a powerful leader, completely subordinating the individual to the leader and the group. In common usage on the left, it refers to any political practices or attitudes which someone doesn’t like. This one goes back quite a way; when I was a college student around 1970, the “New Left” crowd would regularly yell “Fascist!” at anyone who disagreed with them. I was yelled at that way when I was trying to pass through an obstructive protest line to get to class.
The point is to intimidate with an accusation, not to identify facts. The charge has no specific meaning, so standards of evidence can’t apply. Rejecting the charge makes you guilty. The only thing to do is stay clear of people who act that way and not help them pretend they’re saying anything meaningful. That may feel like giving them what they want, but there’s nothing to gain from talking with people who argue that way.
Are you trying to say that there’s no such thing as the “phobia” words?
What word or words would you suggest as a replacement?
Obviously the words exist, even if they’re misused. For legitimate criticism of hostility, “bigotry” or “irrational hatred” would serve better.
Some people may have actual phobic reactions, or at least extreme nervousness, when dealing with people in these categories. That’s not how the words are usually used, and help is more appropriate than denunciation when we’re actually dealing with such reactions.
If I may, here’s an example from personal experience, a few decades ago. I learned that a friend was transitioning to male, at a time when this was rare. This had me nervous and confused, even if “phobic” isn’t quite the right word. I talked with a close friend to both of us, and she helped me to understand. I just needed time to make sense of it.
Your reaction of being nervous and confused is understandable and common. And talking to someone about it was probably the best thing you could have done as it obviously put you more at ease. I’m sure your friend who was transitioning appreciates your actions.
But hating people simply because they are trans – where does that hatred come from if not from equally irrational fear (phobia) of what is different?
And don’t say such hatred doesn’t exist. Just because you have not seen it or experienced it doesn’t mean it’s not real.
Phobia, if we take the word in its normal sense, would be an excuse. Suppose, for instance, someone has a phobia of dogs. It’s irrational and can be overcome only by controlled exposure under non-threatening circumstances, or at least that’s the usual formula. For most people with cynophobia, it doesn’t lead to their conducting systematic campaigns against dogs, though some might do that to rationalize their phobia. A phobia might lead some people to lash out at its object, but it’s more common to flee the object (think of spiders, crowds, etc.). People who kick dogs because they’re cynophobic lack self-control, and the phobia is the lesser issue.
My impression is that ongoing hostility to LGBTQ, blacks, immigrants, people of other religions, etc., is almost always the product of bad ideas rather than phobic reactions. They think that the people in question are acting unnaturally, stepping outside their proper sphere, endangering people’s souls, or whatever. They’re responsible for their flawed thinking and the actions they take because of it. If it was a phobic reaction, they’d have diminished responsibility, and I don’t buy that.
It’s clear enough that such hostility exists. Just yesterday there was a news report of someone who violently assaulted a trans woman on the Boston subway, yelling things like “You’re not a woman, you’re a man.” Was that just phobia-induced panic? I really doubt it. It’s more likely his head was full of ideas that trans people are a threat tothe natural order.
If they think that transfolks are a threat to the natural order, they are going to hate and fear transfolks. It’s the feelings that cause them to act irrationally, that trigger the “fight” part of flight or fight. And because neither the hate nor the fear is rational, I don’t think there’s a better word for it than phobia.
WordPress isn’t letting me reply another level down, sorry.
Phobias are involuntary and generally don’t grow out of a conscious set of premises, rational or not. The term gives such people an excuse which they don’t deserve.
Here are a couple of pieces from organizations with professional competence on the subject (which I definitely don’t have). One point I see repeatedly is that people with phobias generally know their fear is excessive but can’t control it.
Johns Hopkins
WebMD
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/transphobia
Languages shift over time. Fifty years ago, “gay” didn’t mean “homosexual” – it meant “happy” or “cheerful”. Now those are considered older usages, because the newer meaning is much more common.
So, I think, it is with phobia. The definition is becoming more relaxed.
Well said, sir! The point is, as you say, to intimidate. Stand firm!
Best,
G