gaylord

[Do228]

When you have a discussion with a heterosexual Englander and you call him "gaylord", could that be reason enough for him to start a brawling?
Or is it a term that most people would rather be laughing about and not take it too serious?

 

[emsr2d2]

I only know "Gaylord" as a man's name. My parents had a friend called Gaylord in the mid-seventies. I've never heard it used as anything else. I see absolutely no reason to use it to a straight man, a gay man or anyone else. Why would anyone do that? And why do you think the "Englander" (do you mean "British person") would start a fight over it?

 

[jutfrank]

It depends on how you say it, of course. This guy obviously took offense, for whatever reason.

As you probably know, gaylord is usually a playful way for heterosexual boys to tease other boys, whether the other boys are gay or not. It is not usually meant to cause real offence, but of course it can be used that way.

I might also add that whether or not the word is being used to cause offence, it is still ultimately homophobic in that it implies that being gay is a bad thing.

 

[GeneD]

When you have a discussion with a heterosexual Englander and you call him "gaylord", could that be reason enough for him to start a brawling?

Could it be a reason for a fight in Germany?

I wonder whether the word "homophobic" would cause an argument. It also could be considered offensive since it implies that a person who disapproves being a homosexual for one or maybe several reasons necessarily has a mental disorder.

 

[emsr2d2]

As far as I'm aware, the only way that "homophobic" could be considered offensive is if the person it is aimed at is absolutely not homophobic. They would be offended by the accusation.

 

[GeneD]

I'm unblocked! Thank you. If I'm allowed to post to this forum I'd like to post the text I couldn't send because of the ban.

I think you don't quite understand my point. The question is what makes anyone think that someone who disapproves being a homosexual (i.e. thinks that "being gay is a bad thing", in Frank's words) has a phobia, which is a kind of mental illness. If someone disapproves smoking or heavy drug use they aren't called "smokingphobic" or "heavy-drug-phobic". (Well, these invented terms of mine are very likely unnatural, but I hope you've got the idea.) Should having a different point of view be called phobic?

As far as I'm aware, the only way that "homophobic" could be considered offensive is if the person it is aimed at is absolutely not homophobic.

No, I'm speaking of a person who doesn't approve the sexual orientation but doesn't have any irrational fears (i.e. phobia) and doesn't even hate homosexuals to be called "homohater" (one more invented term of mine) either.

 

[Raymott]

This insistence that all these words like 'homophobia', 'Islamophobia', etc. must imply a mental illness because 'phobia' means an irrational fear, as in 'agoraphobia', etc. and that a dislike of homosexuals or Islamists is not a mental illness is an old worn-out argument.

Firstly, the people who use these words don't care about the derivation or Greek roots. Secondly, calling someone homophobic is usually supposed to be offensive and irritating, and if there's an implication of mental illness there, all the better.
A possible implication is that the person doesn't like homosexuals because he is afraid of maybe becoming (or being) one himself. The words are insults and are meant to make the person described as such angry and defensive. Nobody seriously believes they were invented as terms for a mental illness.

We're stuck with it. To object to these words is like objecting to someone who says they have 'Mondayitis', on the grounds that their Monday isn't inflamed.

 

[GeneD]

The first thing I wanted to know was asked in post 4: is the word "homophobic" offensive or not.

(As to mentioning mental illnesses, that must have served as an example. It just shows that "homophobic"="idiot" or "moron" in their casual usage. Right?)

The second is the question similar to the OP's (or in fact, a mirror question): could the word "homophobic" cause agression (verbal or other)?

I think you've confirmed both implications. Thanks for the answer.

 

[jutfrank]

it implies that a person who disapproves being a homosexual for one or maybe several reasons necessarily has a mental disorder.

No, it doesn't imply that. It just refers to an attitude. Do you mean that the suffix -phobic sounds like medical terminology?

 

[GeneD]

Frank, tell me frankly: what sense would be conveyed to you with the word or suffix? For instance, if someone would asked if you had any phobias? I think you would know exactly that you are asked about your fears. Secondly, would it sound to you as a medical term (at least to some extent)? (Even though the suffix is used more and more casually, it hasn't lost its medical air, I think. To me - definitely hasn't.) And it's hard to believe, honestly, that native English speakers don't know the meaning of the word phobia, as Raymott suggested. We (I think I can speak for all European, at least, people) have a lot of Greek and Latin words in our languages, but it doesn't mean we don't understand them.

 

[jutfrank]

Okay, I take your point that it might not be the best word to use. I prefer anti-gay, anyway. I accept that you can be anti-gay without having the kind of 'fear' that the word homophobia may or may not suggest.

 

[GeneD]

Thanks, Frank. Yes, 'anti-gay' is quite neutral. I agree.

 

[emsr2d2]

Thanks, Frank. Yes, 'anti-gay' is quite neutral. I agree.

I would disagree that "anti-gay" is a neutral word. It still expresses the idea/fact that the person has a negative view of an entire section of the global population.
I agree that the "-phobia" part of "homophobia" denotes fear but if you speak to homophobes, you'll find that a lot of them will say that they are actually scared.

 

[GeneD]

I would disagree that "anti-gay" is a neutral word. It still expresses the idea/fact that the person has a negative view of an entire section of the global population.

There are a lot of things about which we (I mean the inhabitants of this planet) will never (or, at least, very unlikely) agree with between each other. There are a lot of religions and much more 'little' (individual) beliefs that don't approve something. There will always be someone who won't agree with what we think is right. Using your words, there will always be someone who "expresses the idea/fact that the person has a negative view of an entire section of the global population". It's not good nor bad. It's just what we should accept.

I think 'anti-gay' is neutral just like 'gay' is neutral. These words express mere ideas. There are certain words that express negative emotions rather than ideas and which could be called negative. For homosexuals, there's 'f*ggot'; for those who disapprove the sexual orientation, there is 'homophobe' which could be interpreted as 'idiot' or something like this.

if you speak to homophobes, you'll find that a lot of them will say that they are actually scared.

It's interesting that you call 'homophobes' all those who disagree with your opinion while admitting that only a part of them is actually scared.

I don't really know the situation in the UK, so I can't know what those people you are talking about are scared of. I haven't been there. But I can tell you that there are a lot of people outside the EU who disapprove homosexualism. Some of them see it as highly immoral, some as impractical, some just dislike it without any thoughts. Are they really scared of homosexualism? I wouldn' t say so.

And I think we can say that someone is scared every time they don't agree with our opinion. We can say: "Are you scared of my opinion?" Then we are all "-phobes" of something.