I’m a bit of a word nerd. It would be weird if I were not, given my line of work. Showing no interest in words would be like a president who neglects his interpersonal skills, right? I especially like delving into the definitions of words and comparing them with their daily parlance. For instance, “fantastic” used to refer to something or someone that was beyond one’s imagination; today, it’s primarily used as a synonym for “great.” The word “nice” used to mean “silly or foolish,” which is vastly different from it’s current connotation. Well, lemme tell ya, anytime this interest of mine gets picqued while that darn internet is hanging around, well, there’s just no telling what can happen. For instance, I recently stumbled (is there any other way?) across an article that appears in the November 2016 issue of the journal Canadian Review of Sociology entitled “Is it Homophobia or Homoppression?” Author Dennis Hiebert argues that the term homophobia has long since become an ill-fitting one to describe those who do not approve of gay and LGBTQI individuals. He makes a great point. Objection on religious grounds certainly does not qualify as a phobia, or an “intense fear.” Nor does the mild discomfort some feel when in the presence of homosexuals. Furthermore, as Hiebert notes, homophobia is “…provocatively confrontational and adversarial.” It also asserts that those who put forth such views have a disorder, which is overwhelmingly not the case; homophobia, as it were, usually stems from moral or religious objection. The author submits that homoppression is a more apt term, as we often use “…the social power of moral and legal codes to take from LGBTQI people their dignity and liberty to express themselves sexually and enjoy the fruits of their love. Our legal and medical systems no longer do, but some moral and religious codes still want to.”

There’s a fair amount of irony in the exercise of coining a term to seem less judgmental of those who have perfected being judgmental to an art form. And yes, God forbid we upset the bigots for calling them a name they might not like. But Hiebert’s term is definitely more accurate and, at the very least, the rationale for retiring homophobia is solid. However, on a practical level, it must be noted that we live in a disposable culture. Terms and sayings come and go with frightening regularity, and with the never-ending flow of information and ideas, homoppression could easily get lost in the shuffle and become shoved to the periphery. Will we one day be visiting homoppression at the Buzzword Graveyard as it lies in eternal rest between “microaggression” and “woke bae”? Furthermore, the common refrain among many is that the gay community has become obsessed with indoctrinating the general public with terminology that seems to change by the day (case in point: I had never seen LGBTQI used before I read this piece). Do we want to foist another term onto the public consciousness? The esteemed podcaster and entertainer Adam Carolla has an interesting theory on the constant deluge of sexuality-related terms. He states that they are a way for the LGBTQI community to control the narrative and to gain recognition; it is an emphasis on individuality that these groups have so long been deprived. While there may be a kernel of truth in his assertion, I think this trend is driven by a desire to just get things right. We’ve largely moved beyond the age of sweeping generalizations when it comes to sexuality, and homoppression is yet another sign of this. This isn’t “political correctness run amok”; it’s the act of updating a term that wasn’t all that accurate in the first place. Judging from the red squiggly lines underneath the word as I type this post, it might take awhile for homophobia to take hold in public discourse.