Associated Press’ Discouraging “Homophobia” Is Discouraging

ap stylebookThe editors at the Associated Press Stylebook have announced that they are “discouraging” use of the word “homophobia.” The AP Stylebook is the widely used guide that media use to standardize terms and general usage.

Why should the LGBTQ community be in a kerfuffle about it? Because the editors made their decision without consultation with the nation’s leading LGBTQ organizations, leaders, activists, and newspapers. That is a problem.

With an estimated 3,400 AP employees in bureaus around the globe, its suggestion could have a tsunami-like effect on how the world comes to understand, be informed about or dismiss discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people.

AP’s online Stylebook defines “phobia” as “an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness” and therefore should be expunged from political and social contexts, including words such as “Islamophobia” and “homophobia.”

Preciseness in language is important, yet language is a representation of culture. How we use it perpetuates ideas and assumptions about race, gender and sexual orientation. We consciously and unconsciously articulate this in our everyday conversations, about ourselves and the rest of the world, and it travels generationally.

What’s in the word “homophobia”? A lot. The history and culture of not only discrimination, violence, and hatred toward LGBTQ people but also an irrational fear of us. It’s this irrational fear that may not need psychiatric or clinical intervention but should nonetheless be aptly labeled as none other than a “phobia.”

For example, the infamous bogus legal argument called the “gay panic defense.”  It’s simply an excuse for murder in which a heterosexual defendant pleas temporary insanity as self-defense against a purported LGBTQ sexual advance.

Another example, the “ick factor.” It’s the revulsion some heterosexuals feel toward the way we LGBTQ people engage in sexual intimacy.

Altering the hearts and minds of these folks will take a while, if not a lifetime.

According to Dave Minthorn, AP Deputy standards editor, who shared with POLITICO the word “homophobia… (is) 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.

It is of my opinion that by keeping the word “homophobia” narrowly used and confined within a medical context is controlling. I feel that only a homophobic word police would utter such absurd advice. Moreover, it’s also absurd for AP to think that their discouragement of the use of the word with absolutely no consultation with the LGBTQ community demonstrates hubris and insensitivity. It also raises queries about AP’s political and social motives for doing so.

Just ask George Weinberg, the psychologist who coined the word “homophobia” in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual.

“It made all the difference to city councils and other people I spoke to,” Weinberg told journalist Andy Humm, who shared the quote with The Advocate and other media. “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. … It seems curious that this word is getting such scrutiny while words like triskaidekaphobia (the fear of the number 13) hang around.”

The word “homophobia” derives from a particular history and struggle for civil rights of LGBTQ people across the world. And it has become part and parcel of a universal LGBTQ lexicon that speaks truth to our reality.

The word has power and unfortunately deleterious effect. And part of our liberation is in our strength to call acts of homophobia out.

To suggest the press eliminate the word can not only diminish the scope of people understanding homophobia’s wide range, but it can also diminish our scope of LGBTQ activists in our continued efforts to effect change.

AP now has control of the word “homophobia” yet it’s not theirs.  Several mainstream newspapers are pushing back. (Newspapers, and media, are under no order to follow AP guidelines.) John E. McIntyre of the Baltimore Sun wrote in his column “Sorry, AP, can’t go along on ‘homophobia” that the AP “ruling on this point in reasoned, principled, and wrong-headed.” McIntyre points to the 40 year usage of the word “homophobic” and makes a practical point—“If the editors of theAP Stylebook wish to discourage the use of certain words simply because they can be misused or misunderstood, there ought to be a great many in line ahead of homophobia.”

Rev. Irene Monroe

Wednesday, 28 November 2012

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Comments

  1. says

    No matter what gender, ethnic or racial standpoint, political world view, age, sexual identity, class or degree of wealth (and even the degree of one’s ‘education’ [how do you like that for "nuance", folks?] – it seems as though all of us have just got to feel superior to someone else. Ryder reminds me of once seeing anti Irish bigotry scrawled on a door on some fleabag hotel at the very heart of Skid Row in Downtown L.A.

    Like ol’ Japhy Ryder (Dharma Bums) once said: “Register your absence with The Null and Void Trust Company.” Jack Kerouac stayed at that hotel whenever he was in L.A. Phobias certainly do have a wide range – homosexual and otherwise.

    “Nuanced” ….. hilarious – (and EXSCEUWZE my superiority!)

  2. Ryder says

    I’m with the AP on this one. I think that if homosexuals wanted to have accurate and meaningful words to use to describe the complex interactions between people, it shouldn’t have started using “homophobia” as a sledge hammer to beat on anyone that said things they didn’t like.

    Turning a word into a weapon, instead of a way to convey true meaning, is the fault of those that have used it.

    Calling someone homophobic is a term of dismissal. It says that the person is irrational, and naturally the ideas of the irrational are fringe, or marginal, at best. In other words, marginalization.

    By the absolute denial that other people may have a sound/rational basis for coming to a different opinion on some things, and then complaining how the misuse of the word most used to accomplish this is causing serious people to avoid using it… is somewhat ironic.

    If gays wanted to keep homophobic useful for something other than a hammer to strike blows with, then they probably should have treated it better.

    It’s like racism. The charge is meaningless today. It means almost nothing concrete. It’s just a nasty word that racial minorities hurl, like a stone, at any perceived enemy.

    The people that use the term, seem to be the last to actually know what it means (the idea that some races are inherently superior to others). Lost are the nuances of “racial bigotry” or bias… everything is now “racist”.

    The joke among kids today is that if you even say the word “black”, like “no, I don’t want to wear a black shirt…” they instantly shout “racist!” as a joke.

    When children can see how stupid/funny it has become, one has to wonder why so many adults remain clueless, and keep misusing it.

    “oh, put it back in the deck….” should be the standard response for both terms…

    Yes, the AP is correct.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *