I have not met him as of yet, and being a transgendered woman, I have no doubt that he would disapprove of my “life choices” or some such. Fair enough, but he can’t seem to grasp the concept that agree or disagree…being a GLBT person really is none of his or anybody else’s concern. We don’t get into HIS face. He is far too busy getting into OURS.

“The term “homophobic” is somewhat problematic, because the ending “phobic” is normally associated with psychopathologies, not just dislike.”

But Orson Scott Card’s rhetoric IS pathological. He’s NOT one of those people saying he disapproves of homosexuality, but is still willing to live and let live. He’s saying the law ought to be brought to bear on gays, to intimidate them and coerce them into invisibility and silence. As long as you think potential jail-time is a valid punishment, you ARE “homophobic,” you’re not merely “heterosexist.”

There are some people who don’t have friends of other races, and who would not consider dating a member of a different race. But then there are people who actually long for the days of legalized racism, of segregation, of blacks shoved to the back of the bus. The latter group ARE more pathological and more dangerous than the former. The former are close-minded, but the latter are truly harmful and hateful. Orson Scott Card DOES fall into the category of outright hate-monger, but is too dishonest with himself and his readers to admit it.

So, yeah, homophobic you bet your ass!

(And as for the homophobic denialists who bleat “but I just think it’s WRONG/Sinful, I’m not SCARED of Teh Gay!” – well, yeah, and not going to church on Sunday is a sin for Christians, and not fasting before communion is a sin for Catholics, and remarrying after divorce is a sin, and drinking a wine cooler is a sin if you’re Orson Scott Card or a lot of Baptists, but you don’t hear OSC screeching about how the government needs to bring back the Volstead Act, do you? or demanding that th government and society ostracize divorcees and refuse to grant remarried het couples legal rights?

And as for the homophobic denialists who bleat “but I just think it’s DISGUSTING, I’m not SCARED of Teh Gay!” – well, you can’t legislate your squicks and only cranks think they should even have the right to do so. I personally consider eating raw shellfish to be so repulsive that I can’t stand hearing about it, and find it hard to feel sorry for people who get food poisoning from it, because what normal person would do that? But I recognize that a) that’s just me (and yeah, a lot of other people, but so what?) and how does Joe or Jayi eating oysters raw harm me, really? and b) there is no public health menace in people choosing to eat raw oysters, even if there are sometimes algae risks etc. involved. People choke to death on cooked fishbones or meatballs, too. So, no, if you’re trying to ban rights for your GLBT fellow citizens, then you’re homophobic, not just ooked out by the thought of M/M or F/F intercourse, not just afraid for their immortal souls…)

“I’m seeing people saying that using the word ‘homophobe’ to describe people like Card may hurt the fight for gay rights because people like him can twist the word to make it seem like they are the ones who are victims (as Card does in his article).”

This is like saying “if feminists would just be nicer, then maybe more people would listen to them”. The person in question is definitely homophobic. Even if we were to agree that the word means a Freudian-style “irrational fear” (which it doesn’t) I would still argue that he is homophobic. There has to be something really wrong with a person when they intentionally terrorize a group of people whom they know barely anything about just because they seem kind of “icky”.

You know what IS icky? This concept of defining who is and is not mentally ill. Victims of oppression are labelled “depressed” when they have a reasonable and unavoidable emotional reaction to their oppression (and then are sold drugs, as if it will help with the oppression), but the the people who terrorize, demonize and exploit others receive no label. I saw we describe them as they are.