“Homophobia,” and Other Meaningless Words

Or: What George Orwell Tried to Warn Us About

“In a healthy condition of language a man finds it very difficult to say the right thing, but at last says it. In this empire of journalese a man finds it so very easy to say the wrong thing that he never thinks of saying anything else. False or meaningless phrases lie so ready to his hand that it is easier to use them than not to use them. These wrong terms picked up through idleness are retained through habit, and so the man has begun to think wrong almost before he has begun to think at all. Such lumbering logomachy is always injurious and oppressive to men of spirit, imagination or intellectual honour.”

—G.K. Chesterton

Much of modern political discourse is utterly vapid. Indeed, the more time I have spent engaged in political dialogue with my contemporaries, the more I am convinced that Plato was right: democracy is among one of the worst forms of government, and we are fools for continuing to participate in it, because democracy is rule by the people, and the people are stupid, incompetent, and barely qualified to rule their own homes, much less an entire nation.

Some of you who are reading this might be puzzled at how I can even say that. Democracy is either so sacrosanct that even criticizing it is inconceivable, or it is so obviously good that no one ever thought to criticize it, or I have clearly misunderstood what democracy actually is along the way because that is the only way I could possibly say such things about it.

Well, that is precisely part of the problem. Many of the words we use in political discourse are completely meaningless. In other contexts, they might have real, concrete meanings that we can all understand and agree on, but politically, the words are meaningless. They communicate nothing. They are simply vehicles for increasing the power of the one who utters them.

Let’s take a look at a few of these words, but be warned: I will be butchering a lot of sacred cows in this blog. You’ll thank me later.

“Homophobia” and Other “-phobia” Words

This term—and including all others like it—is couched in Freudian thought. The rhetorical force behind this word comes from that “-phobia” suffix which imparts a veneer of clinical precision and authority. Because of this, the “-phobia” words are all poisonous insofar as to be accused of having a phobia is to be accused of being mentally unsound in some way. After all, a phobia is, by definition, an irrational fear, mistrust, or hatred of something.

In other words, when a person is accused of homophobia or Islamophobia or fat-phobia (what a stupid idea), what the accuser is really saying is, “There is something literally wrong with you psychologically; no mentally sound person would ever say what you just said.” The question of whether homosexual behavior is morally good or morally evil becomes irrelevant at this stage, and now the topic of conversation has become the mental health of the accused: only someone who is mentally ill would disagree with LGBT politics.

This does not facilitate reasoned discourse. It stifles it. It silences opposition. It quashes inquiry. This is the kind of thinking that stops thinking, and that is the only kind of thinking that ought to be stopped.

“Cisgender”

This term was coined as a combination of the Latin cis, meaning “on this side of,” and gender, meaning “sex.” I am old enough to remember when “gender” and “sex” were interchangeable terms, but the introduction of “cisgender” into our political vocabulary is a backdoor attempt to jettison that presupposition. Within LGBT politics, “cisgender” means “one who identifies with the gender they were assigned at birth.” This carries with it a few assumptions: 1) gender is assigned rather than observed, and 2) one's identity is decided rather than determined. Neither of these assumptions is immediately obvious, especially within the context of biology and metaphysics. Thus, by using this word, one is already tacitly agreeing with the LGBT position. What this means is that if someone wishes to disagree with the idea that gender is fluid or that gender identity is voluntaristic, one should not use the word “cisgender” since using the word at all is to agree with the very position one is trying to dispute.

There are other issues with this word, however, which are more practical. First, it is a term that is forced upon people who do not wish to use it (a whopping 95% of the human population do not use this type of language at all). John Boyne, who wrote The Boy in the Striped Pajamas and other award-winning novels, supports trans rights, but objected that he was not a “cisgender male,” but rather simply a man, and he did not appreciate anyone who would “force an unwanted term onto another.” Thus, the term “cisgender” is rhetorically imperialistic.

Second, the term itself is incoherent when applied universally. For an intersex person born with an intersex body who believes they have a non-binary sense of gender identity that “matches” their body, it follows logically that they are both cisgender and gender non-conforming, which are presumably opposites according to the definition of “cisgender.” Thus, the term itself implies a binary sex model that is incompatible with the majority views of the LGBT bloc. Furthermore, babies are assigned male or female regardless of intersex status in most of the world, so to call someone “cisgender” is to implicitly marginalize intersex people wholesale.

Given how utterly problematic and confusing this word is politically, biologically, and even strictly logically, it is best that this word is never used at all.

“Queer”

There was a time when this word meant “strange” or “abnormal.” Within the last 150 years, it became a term of abuse used to disparage people who partook in homosexual behavior. Yet, as early as 40 years ago, it has been adopted by adherents to LGBT politics as an umbrella term to refer to any person who is “neither heterosexual nor cisgender.” However, as we just covered, “cisgender” itself is a meaningless word.

Despite the attempts by some LGBT adherents to “reclaim” the word “queer”—even going so far as to tack it on to the end of the acronym to form LGBTQ—this move has not been without controversy. The term seems to be perceived by many to be intrinsically political, both by some people who subscribe to LGBT politics and by some who reject LGBT politics. For example, it is not clear—to me, at least—how “queer” is qualitatively distinct from “homosexual,” given the history of the word. As previously stated, “queer” has been used to refer to non-heterosexual, non-cisgender people. “Cisgender” turns out not to mean anything, so “queer” really refers to non-heterosexuals. Well, what about queer heterosexuals? Queer heterosexuality has its own Wikipedia page. What exactly is this word referring to, then? Everything? Nothing?

Upon careful examination, it becomes clear that “queer” does not really mean anything. If it did, many people would have to stop using it altogether.

“Racism” and “Anti-Racism”

At this point, I must remind my readers that I am speaking strictly in terms of political discourse. Of course, there are still contexts in which the word “racism” means something, and it means something in a very real and serious way. “Racism” is one such word that, outside of political discourse, still means something—the belief in the superiority of at least one race over at least one other race. In this sense, racism is clearly something that is both irrational and evil.

However, that is not how the word “racist” is used in much political discourse. A more common, and contrived, definition you will hear in that context is something like “prejudice plus power.” This is a terrible definition for many reasons, chief among them being that this definition has absolutely nothing to do with race. Consider the mean-spirited and resentful robber baron, who delights in using his vast amounts of wealth to influence his local political leaders to pass laws that make the poor of his community even poorer. He clearly has a wicked prejudice against the poor, and he certainly has the power to make their lives miserable, but does that mean that the robber baron is racist against poor people?

Let’s suppose for a moment that what is meant is “racial prejudice plus power,” but this leads to another problem: what do we call someone who has racial prejudice, but no power? Well, we already have a word for them. Two words, actually. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche called someone who harbored resentment but lacked power a slave and called groups with such resentment and impotence the herd.

Is this really how the conversation about race relations ought to be framed? It seems to me that a poor Southern Irishman living in the 1820s can have tremendous racial prejudice against African slaves, even while being little more than a slave himself, and we are right to call him a racist despite his utter lack of power. By that same token, it would follow that black Americans, even if they are indeed being oppressed by white Americans, can still be racist against white people.

But this is why the definition of racism has changed. It was changed to make it such that black people cannot be racist at all. Furthermore, in line with the Revolutionary mindset, it is not enough to merely not be racist: one must be anti-racist, that is, actively resisting racism when one encounters it. Because racism is evil, it must be fought. This is rather ironic, since this is a defining characteristic of what Nietzsche called “slave morality.” Passivity is considered racism. Not fighting racism properly is racism. The denial of racism is evidence of racism. Do exactly as you are told, and obey with unquestioning devotion, or you are a racist.

Thus, the word “racism” now no longer has any meaning in political conversation.

“White,” “Black,” and Other Racial Words

Have you noticed that in some recent literature, and even in some university textbooks, the words “white” and “black” are often capitalized? This is done deliberately. “White” with a capital letter refers not to skin color, but an undesirable political alignment, whereas “Black” with a capital letter refers to a desirable political alignment—namely, an alignment towards Marxism.

This is how certain individuals, such as Ben Shapiro, can be branded as a Nazi-sympathizer and a racist, despite being a practicing Jew. He might be ethnically Jewish, but he is politically White. This is also how opposing social programs like universal healthcare can get you branded as a racist. Socialized medicine is politically Black. Capitalism is White. Communism is Black.

I do not appreciate talking about anything in racial terms, since the way race is used in contemporary political discourse is a relatively novel concept borne out of the Post-Enlightenment Era by light-skinned Europeans in order to justify the conquest of Africa. In essence, racial categories are made up. They are social constructs. They are not helpful tools for describing the world. Frankly, speaking of the world in racial terms is itself racist.

You will also find that, among those considered “White,” there is actually a tremendous amount of what might have been called “racial diversity” in years long since passed. For my part, I am English, Scottish, French, American Indian, and Czech. Likewise, my cousin is not Asian: she is Han Chinese. Another cousin of mine is not African—Africa is a continent—she is Ethiopian. One of my peers at university is not Indian: she is Punjabi, and not merely Punjabi, but Punjabi Sikh!

To summarize: racial words like “Black” and “White” are not helpful, they are far too broad, they are over-inclusive, and they have nothing to do with race in modern discourse. They don’t mean anything. It is time to stop using them.

“Fascism”

Did you know that Hitler thought that fascists were stupid?

How can this be? The Nazis were fascists, weren’t they? No, they were not. They were National Socialists. The word “Nazi” is an abbreviation of Nationalsozialistische, which is German for “National Socialist.” The Nazi Party was thus the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei: The National Socialist German Worker’s Party. National Socialists were not fascists, although they shared many beliefs in common with fascists.

Meanwhile, Hitler’s ally, Benito Mussolini, literally wrote the book The Fascist Manifesto. He was also the dictator of Italy and head of the Partito Nazionale Fascista: the National Fascist Party. The word “facist” comes from the word fascio which means “a bundle of sticks.” The idea was that a bundle of sticks is harder to break than a single stick: there is strength in numbers. It was originally a symbol of political authority in Ancient Rome, in which the presiding consul during his time in the Roman Senate was said to “hold fasces,” but for the Italian fascists, it was a symbol of how the working class of Italy ought to unite in the form of trade unions and corporations.

Well, that’s how the fascists used the word “fascism,” but how is it used now? George Orwell said it best: “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.” That’s not very helpful for political discourse, is it? Everything that isn’t desirable is fascism, which means it is so, so easy to vilify one’s political opponents as fascists.

If we go by the historical definition of “fascism,” then I think there is only one fascist government in existence at the moment (though there are perhaps one or two others), and that is the People’s Republic of China, which is a bit ironic, since China is, or at least claims to be, a communist country. The irony is that the fascists hated communism, and the communists hated fascism. The organization Antifa (Antifaschistische Aktion or “Anti-fascist Action”) was originally formed by the Communist Party of Germany in 1932.

If you still need more evidence that “fascism” is a meaningless word, I would like to point out that the Online Etymology Dictionary notes that the word has been applied to everyone since the rise of the internet.

“Democracy”

Again, Orwell said it best here:

“In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.”

This is why I mentioned that it might seem shocking to many readers for me to say that I hate democracy. To me, democracy means “mob rule” or “tyranny by the majority.” I do not want to live my life at the mercy of the majority, the 51%, even if they think they know what’s best for me. I do not believe that popular voting is always the best way to make a decision, especially if that decision is extremely important. I could be wrong, but that is not my point. My point is that most people do not think about democracy this way—most people do not think about democracy at all.

I would say that, as it currently exists, America is not a democracy, strictly speaking. However, it is in the process of democratizing. Perhaps I am wrong, but this is why you can easily start a debate on the internet by saying either America is a democracy or saying America is not a democracy.

“Socialism”

George Bernard Shaw, who was arguably a socialist himself (his views were quite nuanced), once said, “I find that socialism is often misunderstood by its least intelligent supporters and opponents to mean simply unrestrained indulgence of our natural propensity to heave bricks at respectable persons.” Misunderstood indeed, Mr. Shaw, and perhaps deliberately so.

If you ask a person who leans far enough to the Left, “socialism” is often used as a catch-all term meaning “everything good,” much like how “democracy” is used. Senator Bernie Sanders even combines the two to talk about the merits of “democratic socialism” (which he maintains is completely different from socialism). On the flip-side, if you ask a person who leans far enough to the Right, “socialism” is often used as a catch-all term meaning “everything bad.”

Even self-described socialists cannot agree on what this word means. Do we use the definitions or practices of Marx? Lenin? Stalin? Mao? Orwell? Were the Nazis socialist (yes)? Was Jesus a socialist (no)? Those questions can generate a lot of heat. Either there is no clear answer, or the answer is so clear that if we were to acknowledge its clarity, we would have to stop using the word “socialism” altogether.

I like to think I have a pretty good idea of what socialism is. The problem is that people who call themselves socialist often do not accept my definition…but neither do they accept many definitions offered by other socialists. Perhaps it would be better to discuss actual practical policy rather than debate on what to call it.

“Tolerance” or “Toleration”

As I understand the term, tolerance is the willingness to put up with something that one does not like or agree with. In this sense, I would say tolerance is a necessary condition for maturity. It seems proper for us to allow undesirable ideas, actions, or people to exist among us. I don’t particularly like corporate media, such as CNN or MSNBC or Fox, but I certainly tolerate them, since I believe that the press has a right to exist and should not be censored by the government and that a significantly free press is a good thing.

As with other words on this list, “tolerance” is used with various meanings in political discourse, many of which are incompatible with each other. Some have taken “tolerance” to mean that whatever is being tolerated is undesirable in some way. Others think that “tolerance” necessarily entails full-blown acceptance of the thing being tolerated. It’s commonly said that we ought to be tolerant of all points of view. Does this mean accepting all viewpoints as equally valid, or merely allowing certain viewpoints to be publically expressed without fear of punishment, even while judging these viewpoints to be disgusting, absurd, or evil?

Furthermore, what constitutes intolerance? Merely refusing to accept a viewpoint as legitimate? Resorting to violence? What about views that do not advocate for physical harm, but are nevertheless hurtful? Is intolerance distinct from bigotry, or are they the same? As far as I am concerned, I tolerate every religion on earth, since I believe every human being has the right to practice whatever religion they want without fear of government interference. However, it can be said (and has been said) that I am intolerant of every religion on earth except Christianity since I reject all religions other than Christianity as false and even inferior to Christianity.

I think we would all do well to be suspicious of anyone, regardless of their politics, who demands tolerance from others. A reasonable request for tolerance is all well and good, but an unreasonable demand is a possible indication that the one making demands is not asking for tolerance in good faith, and might be trying to manipulate you.

“Hate Speech”

Riding on the heels of tolerance is the discussion of hate speech. There is absolutely no clear answer to the question of what hate speech actually is. There is also absolutely no clear answer to what we ought to do with hate speech if we ever figure out what the hell it is. I will use a real-world example to illustrate my point:

Let’s talk about The Slants.

The Slants is a rock band from Portland, Oregon. Their name is a reference to, among other things, a derogatory slur used against certain Asian ethnic groups, itself a reference to the epicanthic folds on the eyes of such groups, which gives the eyes the appearance of being slanted in some cases. The band was denied their request to register their band name as a trademark on the grounds that the name promoted hate speech against Asian peoples. To be sure, calling a person from the Orient a “slant” is indeed insensitive, abusive, and often genuinely hateful. However, there was just one problem:

Every member of the band is Asian American.

The Slants submitted an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, but this appeal was rejected. Finally, in 2015, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of The Slants, saying in their ruling, “whatever our personal feelings about the mark at issue here, or other disparaging marks, the First Amendment forbids government regulators to deny registration because they find speech likely to offend others.” In other words, as far as the government is concerned, hate speech is not recognized. There is no hate speech. There is only free speech.

Now, it has been said, “freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.” Well, actually, yes it does. There is no balance between protecting society and protecting individuals. Individuals are the only society. We do not require certainty, but when it comes to the question of “hate speech,” we do require the benefit of the doubt and due process of law.

This brings me to the final meaningless word I wish to discuss here…

“Community”

Perhaps you have noticed, but I have not once referred to LGBT as a “community” here. This was deliberate. “Community” is another meaningless word, and I believe those who subscribe to LGBT ideology misuse the word. To wit, LGBT is better described as a collective than a community. In a community, there is a shared geography, a shared culture, a shared language, and often a shared religion. The only thing many in the LGBT collective have in common is their politics. This does not make a community, and it certainly does not guarantee a sense of belonging that is part and parcel of living in a community. Indeed, there is currently a split in England between LGBT and LGB (dropping the “T” which stands for “Transgender”), and each group claims to be the one true representative “community.” English feminists who favor LGB over LGBT are even given a unique disparaging title: TERF, which stands for “trans-exclusionary radical feminist,” despite these feminists including such people as J.K. Rowling, who is not a radical by any stretch of the imagination.

This type of factional in-fighting is not found in communities, in which people are allowed their individual differences because of greater shared values that unite them. Similarly, there is no monolithic “Black community” or “Asian community” which includes every black or Asian person on earth, or even every black or Asian person in America (this misuse of “community” seems to be a primarily American phenomenon). Rather, there are black communities—actual locations populated by black persons with a shared culture, language, and customs—and there are Asian communities—actual locations populated by Asians with a shared culture, language, and customs.

The misuse of the word “community” in political discourse has a very clear strategy: the manufacturing of the appearance of solidarity.

While these words are—and seem set to remain—politically meaningless, there is yet hope. English is among the most plastique and adaptable languages on earth. If its political discourse has become messy and cloudy, it can be cleaned and cleared up again. That will require us to be clear and precise in our speech, even when we are not discussing politics. It will necessitate defining our terms carefully, avoiding unnecessary exaggeration, and steering clear of unnecessary euphemisms. Will this take more effort on our part? Perhaps. Is it worth the effort? Absolutely.

Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.

—George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”