When I do those linguistic geography quizzes it put me in the Midwest iirc. I was born in California though.

I would always use 'you two" or "you both" if I was using anything other than "you guys" for two people.

I have no idea if that's a thing or just some weird sense that I have, but I'm not an "you all" person-- although for sure every native American speaker will use (I'm guessing) "you all" in some contexts, i just couldn't imagine ever using it when you two is available.

I’ll respond in more detail later, but briefly I think it is absolutely crucial to a fair and just society that we can call out racism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry as just that.

That is bedrock.

I couldn't agree more.

However, it is vital that those words only be used where they are factually accurate, and not just
used as a rhetorical device to shout down those who aren't in lock-step with the Secular Left's interpretation of what constitutes racism, homophobia, etc.

I think there really needs to be a better word than "homophobia" to express what is normally meant. A phobia is by definition an "irrational fear" of something, and not something that anyone would normally pass judgement on. Someone who has claustrophobia certainly isn't happy about it, and doesn't have the fear by choice. If someone really is homophobic, that should mean he is irrationally afraid of homosexuals, and will probably try to avoid being near them, but not because of any real reason, and it shouldn't imply that he wishes harm on them or wants to take away their rights.

Just did a google and found "homomisia" as a possible option. It would take some learning, just as we've had to learn the meaning of "cis-".

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-misia

We already use phobia for not actual fears, such as photophobia as a symptom of painful sensitivity to light. I think expecting the suffice phobia to only refer to fears is too literal and prescriptivist.

Yeah, I know it isn't the only "improper" use of -phobia, but I think it's definitely not great when you could actually have the need to describe a condition where someone has the actual fear. What would you call someone who is truly afraid of being around homosexuals, but wishes them no ill?

I just realized, you're the psychologist, right? Is there a word for this condition? Have you encountered any instances of it?

"Homophobia" was a dumb word from the get-go.

yea, that was it but much better worded.


synonyms. I dont like to use you all and avoid it as best as I can. I just say you I guess.

I suspect many altar boys in the Roman Catholic Church literally have a fear of homosexuals.

They should; if they have actually been sexually abused, that's not an irrational fear. Although I think the fear would be better directed at the priesthood.

yes there are many ways to navigate around my much loved phrase.

I googled a wiki page about "you guys" now: its a pronoun, of course it is. was wondering if it was a pronoun.

"What part of speech is you guys?

Pronoun

Pronoun. (colloquial, chiefly Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Britain) You (plural). Hey you guys!"

you guys - Wiktionary

https://en.wiktionary.org › wiki › you_guys

I agree.

It is certainly not an indictment against homosexuals per se.

I wouldn't even say the fear would be better directed at the priesthood per se either.

It was a heinous act committed by one evil person. (While often covered-up by Bishops and Archbishops, etc.)

good point, many men would be offended a lot if they were addressed with gals or girls, I mean felt excluded or whatever. good idea to try to reverse it and try to look at it from the other perspective.


I mean men do it too, right? they say "whats up ladies?" but then it is jokingly.

I'm a psychiatrist, and I don't know if such people really exist. If they do, I don't think we have a specific term for them. But it's ok, we don't have real terms for many phobias, despite some sites claiming all sorts of fanciful words existing.

but they shouldnt. its not homosexuality that caused that, its much rather chasity thats was causing that imo.

they would bang a cat, if there were altar cats and all they had access to.

When the term "homophobia" first was made common, was it more specific? I'm thinking about some straight man who was approached by a gay man, which upset him so much that he physically attacked and maybe killed the gay man. I guess that seems like actual homophobia to me, although obviously it doesn't justify a violent response.

Cats would be tough, I don't think they're big enough.

Altar sheep should be where it's at.

I changed my mind I guess. abused women by men have a fear or men, and abused men by men have a fear of men. thats correct.

lol.

do you know the joke: " I have to feed the wife and bang the cat" , I heard it once before someone left a poker table.

"Homophobia" is just a stupid made-up word to squelch honest discussion about a controversial topic.

Several points.

1a. Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc (henceforce simply labeled bigotry) unfortunately remain significant problems in our society. I think we all have a moral imperative to try and address these issues
1b. Part of addressing bigotry involves identifying when something is indeed bigoted.
1c. I thus believe that as a moderator you should be extremely hesitant putting in restrictions against labelling bigoted things as bigoted.
1d. I also believe that bigotry in our society is an order of magnitude larger in its negative consequences than inappropriate accusations of bigotry, and your moderation approach should similarly be far more focused on dealing with bigotry than dealing with inappropriate accusations of bigotry.

2a. I think there is a huge different between labelling a statement or word choice or argument as bigoted and a person bigoted. For instance, many people might not realize the bigoted ramifications of their language, and identifying it as bigoted as very different from identifying the person who ignorantly stated it as bigoted. I try to be excessively clear on this distinction in my own posting.
2b. However, occasionally we see a pattern of bigoted statements and I think it is important to identify the pattern in addition to isolated statements.
2c. I thus believe you should generally follow Rule 1 and make a clear bright line between identifying a statement or pattern of statements as bigoted, and a person as bigoted.

3a.Your job as a moderator is not, in my view, to adjudicate political arguments and to decide whose is more persuasive.
3b. What is and is not bigotry is a political debate. Those lines are something we negotiate through debate. A lot of the statements about how to moderate bigotry - including this one - reflect political worldviews.
3c. I thus think you should ensure your own personal biases as to what is and is not bigotry does not inform when you are allowing and not allowing accusations of a statement, a pattern of statements, or even a person of being bigoted.

4a. I accept that some people can flippantly accuse others of bigotry when this isn't the case and there is little reason to suspect this is the case. That said, I think on this forum it is pretty rare.
4b. I also think that it is a standard right-wing talking point to accuse the left of doing the above, and have a number of political opinions related to problems that arise from framing the bigotry debate around the idea of false accusations of bigotry as opposed to about bigotry itself.

All of this is meant to support my main point: When somebody asserts that a statement, pattern of statements, or person is bigoted, you should judge that assertion based on whether it is said in good faith, whether the person is backing their belief up with quotes and evidence. If someone is spuriously asserting anyone and everyone is bigoted on no evidence, delete/ban that ASAP. But if they are explaining why they believe what they believe in a genuine and productive way, I would be extremely hesitant to shut that down, even - and most especially - if I disagreed with them.

I think this is a silly argument for any English speaker to make. All sorts of words and expressions in our language are not meant in their most literal sense! I don't see you objecting to most of them!

Sure, I don't object to any non-literal usages of words, but I hate when they crowd out the literal meaning, which still would still otherwise be useful.

Speaking of "literal" meanings, the worst of the current language degradation is young people using the word "literally" to mean nearly it's complete opposite.

Someone who literally "fears" gay people would undoubtedly still be correctly called homophobic. I don't think there is any crowding out of the literal meaning. However, the standard usage of "homophobic" is nowhere near as literal as just this, and that shouldn't perturb you in the slightest given any number of other words and phrases that don't solely have the most strict literal meaning attached to them.

Except the only purpose for dumb words like "homophobia" is for certain folks to use as a way to silent legitimate, fruitful discussion.

"He's just a homophobe, so just ignore what he says...."