My friend is afraid of mice. They spread disease, and I don’t want them in my house, but I would not scream like she did. She was deeply ashamed of her reaction, which she thought could not be objectively justified, but friends were sympathetic.
With homophobia, it is the opposite. Only fellow-sufferers sympathise, and they are not ashamed. I might sympathise if homophobes had any insight into their condition, or any shame for it. Homophobia is a grotesque overreaction.
The Associated Press style book bans the use of the word “homophobia”. It is easier to find delighted squeals or sober condemnation of this than the actual guide, which is behind a pay-wall. Here I find AP’s justification: Phobia means irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness. In terms like homophobia, it’s often speculation. The reasons for anti-gay feelings or actions may not be apparent. Specifics are better than vague characterizations of a person’s general feelings about something.
The key is “irrational”. Homophobia is an intense emotional overreaction. It could be felt as disgust or anger rather than fear. So there is “Institutional homophobia”, the entrenchment, within the structural and behavioural systems of groups and institutions, of negative attitudes to homosexuals and/or direct discrimination against them (Pilling Report p73).
Those who exhibit institutional homophobia may not be conscious of it as a fear, but do not question the institutional view: they have not applied rationality to the position they take. To that extent their position is irrational.
“Americans for Truth (sic) about Homosexuality” is fair pleased with their coinage “Aberrosexual”, meaning “Pervert”, for LGBT folk. Don’t you just love that plosive b? They can hardly complain, then, about the use of insulting and dismissive words for them.
Are there alternative words for homophobia? Aftah use the clunky “Moral opposition to homosexuality”, which shows difficulty with framing the debate. They don’t like being called phobic, but their word “moral” raises the question, what are the moral grounds for opposition?
As homosexuality is no more objectionable than left-handedness, the onus is on those opposed to homosexuality to demonstrate some rational reason to object. “We’ve always objected” is insufficient, as a teacher in the 1920s could use that to justify forcing a left-handed child to write with his right hand.
“All Christians object” is not sufficient either: it raises homophobia (yes, I know) to the level of the most important doctrine of Christianity, and no Christian believes all the official doctrines of their church, often because we are ignorant of them.
My friend could not ignore the mouse she saw, and the homophobes show a similar obsessive interest. For Fox sake, they even whine that Fox News has a pro-homosexual bias.
And yet, I am left with the question, “How could anyone believe that?” People do. I want to understand.