Phobia was term of art in psychology. It means irrational fear. So one can be afraid of enclosures (claustrophobia) or afraid of public spaces (agoraphobia). Now, and for some time, the term "phobia" has been weaponized in order to replace rational argument. This trick should be uncovered.
To stand for and defend traditional marriage as between a man and a woman and to not recognize other unions as marriage is not to be homophobic. That it, there is no irrational fear that homosexuals will try to outlaw heterosexual marriage. That would be irrational (I hope). However if you fear that any and every homosexual is a pedophile, that is an irrational fear. But having a position on marriage--and on the wrongness of sexual activity outside of traditional marriage--is not a phobia.
Rand Paul's question to Dr. about whether young children have the right to change their biological sex even apart from the permission of their parents was not "transphobic." It is a legitimate moral question, and one which Dr. Levine (a trans person) refused to answer, since her position is extreme and controversial: Yes, young children do have that right.
If you think that all transgender people are Satanists, that is an irrational fear. But claiming that gender is biologically and divinely given (and not a matter of choice, however persuasive the surgeries and chemicals may be) is not transphobic. Why not call disputes about this "matter of opinion up for debate"?
In short, the invocation of various "phobias" to demonize opponents commits the logical fallacy of "argumentum ad hominem." Instead of rationally arguing for or against X, you insult the person who holds the view. Even if the person holding the view is terrible, the view itself needs to be addressed as true or false to reality.
Comments