Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Fingerpointing? I see your point (I could not resist!   ), but cannot help but turn the matter around and contemplate using the word heterophobia.
Both homophobia and heterophobia are about being fearful, no? In that sense, it's not about the innate attributes of a person, but rather, what the person is feeling/thinking. Is describing this labeling? And is labeling a bad thing? I guess it would depend on who is doing the labeling.
Its very hard to change something one isn't aware of. |
Phobias by clinical definition are
irrational fears or irrational hatred. It is a very strong implication to label an individual with a phobia. Phobias definitely exist. Someone with arachnophobia may jump out of the window of a burning building rather than walk through a safe doorway with a spider sitting on the door handle.
clear examples of Homophobia would be members of the westboro Baptist Church. These folks meet all medical definitions of antisocial or psychopathic personality. The reason they are not imprisoned is that they are too skilled at manipulation to lose in criminal prosecution.
It might be a stretch to call a "love the sinner hate the sin" proponent homophobic, but definitely could be defendably considered Heterosexist a heteronormalist. I strongly suspect Antiochian's professors fall into this category and indeed did taint their scholastic criticism with transferrence.
As far as this being a debate of semantics..... I agree it is very much semantics! But you say that like it is not valuable! labelling is relative. and with reference to a standard. Whether it is a clinical standard, Legal standard, Scholastic standard.
For me presently I am reconciling thoughts, feelings words actions with the eight-fold path of the Dharma with honed focus on nonviolence. So far this is dissipating inner pain and fear and suffering with delicious efficacy for me. So exercises in semantics like this have great value to me.