Ineffective Communication

I'm trying to get my head wrapped around our new world order. Or, at least, our new use of terms. (Which, by the way, is a presentation of our new world order.) If words are symbols we use to communicate ideas, what ideas are we now communicating?

A news item this week was about actor Laverne Cox encountering a "transphobic attack." We use with ease terms like "homophobic" and "transphobic." Both words have "phobia" as their suffix. "Phobia" is "an intense, persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, situation, or person." We have, apparently, modified that to also include "an aversion toward, dislike of, or disrespect for a thing, idea, person, or group." That is, rooted originally in the concept of "fear," we've expanded it to "aversion, dislike, or disrespect." Well, okay. That, of course, changes a lot of things, but I suppose it only applies as the user sees fit. So "ablutophobia," for instance, means the fear of washing or bathing and not the aversion or disrespect of it, so we won't apply the latter to this word ... because we said so. Just try to keep up.

Both terms are relatively new to the English language. Homophobia was coined by a psychologist in the 1960's. It originally referred to the fear some men had that others might think they were gay. But that's so passe now, isn't it? The word is combination of "homo(sexual)" and "phobia." Transphobia was first used in 1990-1995 and only made it to the dictionary in 2013. It is the combination of "trans(gender)" and "phobia." And both now refer exclusively to "aversion, dislike, or disrespect" without any sense of "fear."

So, now we have aversion or disrespect to people who identify as either homosexual or transsexual, and that's a bad thing. In places, it's a criminal thing. Because "aversion" and "disrespect" are not defined by the one doing it, but the by the one observing it. And how does this aversion or disrespect manifest itself? Well, on one end of the spectrum there are the "gay bashers," people that actively seek out and physically assault people they believe to be homosexual or transsexual. On the other there are those who believe that they are "yucky." Over on this end would be the people who believe that the behavior is a sin. Because believing that X is a sin is the same thing as hating, disrespecting, or disliking someone ... as long as it is defined by the one observing it and not the one believing it. We define this aversion or dislike by "You made me feel bad."

Oddly enough, the free exercise of religion is protected in the Constitution. Why is it, then, that religious freedom is considered homophobic and transphobic while aversion, dislike, or disrespect of people who practice their religion is not "phobic" in the same sense? A genuine Christian can be praying for the well-being of someone practicing homosexual behavior and be classified as a hater for it, while the ones embracing such behavior will be actually hating the Christian. How odd. In fact, the mere exploration of these terms here will get me classified as homophobic or transphobic or both. And no one seems to notice how many terms (e.g., "phobia," "tolerance," "judgmental," "inclusivity," "hate," etc.) we've willingly and freely redefined to get here. It seems patently obvious that our wild and haphazard use of symbols to express ideas is not effective communication.