Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

WORDPLAY

AP: 'Homophobia' Is Now a Forbidden Word

The term fails the neutrality test, says guidebook for journalists

Next>

by Dain Fitzgerald

Staff Writer t

Or at least the word / Image: reroad.blogspot.com

Not that the AP's opinion concerning which words to use is the final, well, word on anything, but The Atlantic's Alexander Abad-Santos informs us that the term "Homophobia" will be stricken from the organization's 2013 stylebook.

The word guide published by the Associated Press is the go-to source for journalists searching for terminology as "neutral" as possible, which is why "Homophobia" will no longer cut the lexical mustard. According to AP 'Deputy Standards Editor' Dave Minthorn - whose official job title has apparently not yet been stricken from the working world - "journalists aren't doctors," and so should avoid deploying words better used by a psychiatrist.

Minthorn's recommended alternative? "Anti-gay," which doesn't sit well with Abad-Santos, who says it fails to capture the essence of someone who, e.g., defends violence against gays (such as a certain rep for Salvation Army).

Of course, the word "homophobia" likely sounded clinical and lacking in emotional impact when it was first used, but folks have come to rely on it because they get what it means. Still, "Anti-gay"? Hopefully the new standard will decide on a word with a bit more phonic power.

Via The Atlantic.
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Should journalists stop using the word "Homophobia"?

Comments (view in Forum)

  • bsking
    !
    it's only useless to sane people.

    anybody who pays attention to the AP and thinks they have journalists working for them... eats this crap up. they can add that word to Islamophobia.

    if they ban enough words some of the morons at work for the AP will start to make sense.
  • MongoAPillager
    !
    @Jet_Silverman yea I know,I removed my tinfoil hat for dinner and they got me,however I fooled them with an unintelligible response,I do that a lot
  • Denizen_Kate
    !
    @MongoAPillager "we are becoming a nation of plastic nails and paper saws(face in palms)" There, there, Mongo. Please don't cry. ;)

  • View all 8 replies >

  • SavageMazx
    !
    homophobia homophobia homophobia homophobia HOMOPHOBIA....oh no, I am saying a forbidden word, are the word police going to come and write me a ticket or rush me off to the politicaly incorrect interment camp....grow up people
  • u
    RobertJHarsh
    !
    I agree with Lisa, that black drone over your house isn't in your head...it's really there!!! But seriously though, banned words? Who comes up with this???

  • View all 9 replies >

  • Bobolinsky
    !
    @dances-weebles-- Ahhh. I see what you did there. You used "anti-christian" as an adjective. In that sense, I agree.

    Now what does that have to do with all the people who whether through fear or anger are against Christianity?
  • dances-weebles
    !
    @Bobolinsky read it a few more times and pay attention. the analogy is between homophobic and anti-christian... oh, never mind. you probably wouldn't understand anyway.
  • u
    EMS_Servant
    !
    @Bobolinsky
    I would imagine it could have something to do with loving your near neighbor as you would love yourself. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin, that means if you live your life by the Bible you shouldn't do it. It doesn't mean you should hate the people that are homosexual because that is certainly NOT loving your neighbor.

    Did you know in the Bible it also says that if you hate someone it is the same thing as murdering them? So yeah you can disagree with homosexuality but as soon as you start hating on the people for it you are being anti-Christian.
  • Bobolinsky
    !
    @dances-weebles-- I guess my explanation of how I got it wasn't quite accurate. I should have said that you used the "christian" part of "anti-christian" as an adjective as in, "That was nice. How christian of you."

    Now what does that have to do with all the people who whether through fear or anger are against Christianity?

  • View all 17 replies >

  • CanisCanemEdit
    !
    @Jet_Silverman - I did read the actual article.

    IMO:

    The subversive concept of some supposed authority,(in this case AP), is later given credence and referenced until it becomes commonplace and...ergo...damned by the highbrow public as gauche and lowbrow.

    Example: Why is a "prisoner" now a Client of the Correctional System and referred to publicly as being Socially Seperated because of his high Street Activity Index with his Youth Group against a Singular, Visually Challenged, Chronologically Gifted Domestic Engineer?

    To hell with that. He's doing 10-20 in Lansing for gang-raping an old, blind woman.

    But it sounds better...cleaner...more wholesome when you say it the "highbrow" way.

    Of course moving words then results in changing "thought".

    Eventially there will be no one that remembers that "Stolen non-human animal sweetener" was once just "honey".
  • CanisCanemEdit
    !
    @Jet_Silverman - LOL!

    Ok. How's this. My wife is black. Her father called himself a Negro. My sons and daughter are Half Black but call themselves black.

    Years ago, my wife was ten shades of pissed off when my youngest boy came home from school and informed her that she couldn't call him Black because he was an African-American.

    HAHAHA! I remember her grabbing the yardstick and going after him letting him know as only a real Black woman can that he "... never set his goddam foot in no goddam Africa."

    Now where did that "African American" crap start?

    With the subversive, idiotic, better-than-you do-gooders.

    Some kid named Duncan wrote a poem and described himself as an "African American".

    That got published on a 1989 Black History Calander.

    Which fell into the hands of Jesse Jackson.

    Who sent it to Corretta King.

    Who, with the help of Ramona Edelin made the big push to get the phrase into the American Lexicon.

    It was IMMEDIATELY snapped up by AP and put into the 1990 "Style Guide"...and then used ad nauseum. It was dropped out of the guide in 2008 and is now replaced with....BLACK!

    Now that Black people are done with that crap, the current 2012 "Style Guide" has the following to say:

    "The preferred usage for African Americans is “black.” The term is notcapitalized."

    They adopted the term and THEY made it "popular".

    Now they have done a 180 degree return to the .

    They tell you what to think, how to talk and how you may describe yourself in mixed company.

    Yep, subversive thought police.

    (Want more fun with new words? Look up where the term "homophobia" originated...as compared to the eggheads that now say it is an intolerant term.)

  • View all 7 replies >

  • o
    steveandesinTN
    !
    is this a joke?
    even gays call themselves homosexual and they use the term homophobe to describe people scarred of them.
    so now can a person called a homophobe get offended at that name
  • o
    JpMonty
    !
    Homophobia, Homophobia, Homophobia, Homophobia, Homophobia, Homophobia, Homophobia, Homophobia, Homophobia, Homophobia, Homophobia, Homophobia!!!!

    I thought it was forbidden!!! Shut up and read the constitution you Communist pigs!!!
  • u
    Jet_Silverman
    !
    I wish people would read the actual article, and not just the headline. All it says is that the word will be stricken from AP's style book in 2013. It's not part of some commie plot. Their style book is just a guide for journalists, and journalists are free to ignore it. It also talks about proper punctuation. Does "Elements of Style" violate the Constitution also because it talks about the difference between "affect" and "effect"? AP's style guide also does that. Are they part of a conspiracy to eliminate free speech?
  • o
    Sharpshooter
    !
    @Jet_Silverman You do have a slight problem with your post.... AP and Journalism cannot be used in the same thought or the thought police will have you arrested and charged with illegal use of words and conspiracy to commit Homophobia ( just HAD to use the now forbidden word.)
  • o
    Sharpshooter
    !
    @Jet_Silverman NO.... We I shooting for silly it would have been funny. It's very presumptuous for anyone to forbid words. Granted it's an internal policy applicable only to employees of the AP, BUT this "INTERNAL POLICY" has been made public for a reason, to further their position on use of the forbidden word outside their little ring. When the AP isn't trying to monopolize the industry, they're busy holding themselves up as the standard bearer of the Journalistic Community, NOW THAT'S SILLY.... If the AP deems Homophobia a non-word, Journalists are expected to not use it; not a big deal really since there are almost no JOURNALISTS left in the industry and absolutely none working for the AP.... If the AP wants to actually do something meaningful, they should FORBID bias and spin, not the words but the practice.... Watching or reading news from the subscribers to the AP is sickening to anyone who remembers watching Cronkite, Rather, Dryer, Huntley, Brinkley or Reynolds or reading Woodward and Bernstein, Halberstam or even Royko. We now have buffoons like Maddow, Andrea Mitchell, Toure?, Radditz or Crowley.... The AP has become a sad joke, The Associated Press is now the Amateurish Press, actually it's rather sad. SO Did I Chevy the issue this time?
  • jamie91
    !
    I personally have always felt that redefining a phobia so people can feel better about their prejudices was stupid. Homophobia is an actual fear of sameness, and has squat to do with hating queers. I'm glad those people with unreasonable fears have their title back from those with unreasonable hate.
  • Dan_Tien
    !
    @jamie91 My own streak of homophobia did not come from fear of sameness, it came from the time I was 19 and a guy yelled that he was going to beat my head in and f*** me in the ***. I didn't have to fight him, but I am certain that it was only because I was trained and ready to do so. I have met quite a few respectful, articulate and cultured gay men since then who can take no for an answer, so my homophobia is still pretty much reserved for "rough trade". I am not as young and pretty as I used to be, so I will admit that it can be called an unreasonable fear now.

  • View all 7 replies >

  • u
    Jasonopolis
    !
    Yes! Ban the word! Ban the word! But you might as well ban the word "anti-gay", because "anti" suggests that you are against something, which is a no-no. And "gay" is a term that divides one group from another, which is a terrible thing.
    Everyone should believe that exact same thing, and everyone should be in complete harmony with everyone else. That is the only way that we can progress from this world of having ideas and embracing them.
  • u
    Jet_Silverman
    !
    Have you read the actual article? They aren't banning anything. Have you ever used "Elements of Style"? This article is just about a change in AP's version of "Elements of Style". It also talks about stuff like the difference between "to" and "too".
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  •
    jessejaymes
    !
    This become a nation of really really whiny people. If you say a word against a single black person all of sudden here comes black people screaming RACIST at the top of their voices. If you say a word against a single woman here comes the women screaming SEXIST at the top of their voices. If you say a word against a single gay here comes the gays screaming HOMOPHOBE at the top of their voices. I guess it wouldn't matter if you said "gee I don't think that black gay woman should be a serial killer" then everyone would be at your throat. But not to worry. You're still allowed to blame the white man for EVERYTHING. EVERY white man. Say anything you like. Anything at all. Lie on him, steal his money, beat him to a pulp and leave him for dead in an alley. You can do that and if he says anything about it just call him a racist, sexist, homophobe.
  • u
    SophieB
    !
    It's probably because strong, competitive women have turned men into marriage-averse slackers...at least according to the story preceding this one. Obviously white men don't have a monopoly on being stereotyped. While it's true that white men have been negatively portrayed in recent years, most other groups have experienced this for centuries.... and since white men still hold the vast majority of political offices, leadership positions, and high paying jobs, the playing field is still far from level. I'm not saying you don't have a legitimate point, because you do...but I'll bet white men, as a whole, wouldn't trade their group's social position with women, African-Americans, or homosexuals.
  • u
    shadango
    !
    @SophieB PUHLEASE. We have a black president (going on his second term)- women in MAJOR governmental positions- other "minorities" in major offices. Seems to me that the only thing that "equality" works for is to tilt the tables/playing field in the favor of those who believe they are somehow being slighted. Rather than take personal responsibility for one's own inability to get ahead, they blame their race or gender. Get ahead on your own merits, not by having the playing field artificially tilted your way. The middle aged white man is the endangered species these days, thanks to political correctness and the BS concept "everyone is equal". All those ideas do is favor the groups who squeak the loudest. We had women try to run for president and they FAILED. It had nothing to do with what is (or isnt) between their legs.....it has to do with their ideas and experience (or LACK thereof). Equality should be just that. EQUAL. No special programs to "make sure" that equality is served...because that it artificially tipping the playing field.
  • jessejaymes
    !
    @SophieB On a more serious note Sophie I would like to respond to what you say. Do White men continue to hold the majority of money in the USA? Yes they do. About 1-2% of them. But the majority of white men today are in the same boat with everyone else. as the middle class jobs and benefits continue to shrink. What is to blame for this? Affirmative action. You see AA could never work with the size of the pool included, i.e. everyone except white men. There aren't enough jobs if you drowned every white man tomorrow. It's simple math. If white men are 25% of the population and hold the most desirable jobs, you take them out of the equation, then you still have 75% vying for those 25% of the jobs. And not all white men have good jobs. It's more like 5%. So Affirmative action was doomed from the beginning. What corporations have done and continue to do is bring white men down to the level of minorities and women instead of bring minorities and women up to the pay level of white men. And they get away with it in the name of "equality". Is that equality you seek?

    But this was not even my point. My point was that you can't say anything today about a woman, a minority or a homosexual in a negative light without the entire genre of species roaring back in your face about sexism, racism or homophobia. All women, all minorities, all gays are not perfect people. They are just as criminal, just as cruel, just as lying, just as abusive on average as any white man. Money doesn't figure into it. Human nature does and I for one am sick to death of being blamed for the problems of everyone and none of them being held responsible for ANYTHING.
  • u
    SophieB
    !
    @shadango @shadango Your response seems to be all about affirmative action programs, which I never mentioned. Nobody is suggesting that things aren't changing, but my point is that the playing field is far from level. Ninety percent of Congressmen are male, 98.5% of the CEOs at the top 2,000 companies in the world are male, etc. Surely, if you want to be seen as credible, you can concede that perhaps suggesting white males are on the verge of extinction might be a bit of an exaggeration. Let me ask you to reverse the situation... If Congress were 90% female and CEOs were 98.5% female, would you perceive the situation to be fair? Would you feel that men's interests in Congress would be adequately represented by 90% women? I'm not saying anyone deserves an unfair break. I never mentioned anything of the sort. I'm merely asking you to imagine, if the tables were turned, how the situation might seem to white men. Surely we can have a mature discussion about the perceptions of each side, both conceding points in fairness, without resorting to condescension.

  • View all 15 replies >

  • R Load more comments...