Post a response:
|
"The objections you raise would apply to anti as well, wouldn't they?" Eh, maybe. But we can just have "antis" grandfathered in easily enough. But if the idea really is to use "sex fascists" in place of "antis," I don't see the point. I would only use "antis" among in-group members as it is already an understood term whereas I can't imagine using "sex fascists" with either in-group or out-group persons. The whole point of virtue-signaling, on the other hand, is to achieve the in-group status of moral purity by unpersoning out-group members as strictly as possible (and we don't have the social standing to unperson anyone). Of course, languages do change and maybe we'll get closer to calling people "double-plus ungood" at some point, but in the meantime I have a personal preference for the term "erotophobia" because it just plain means what it means (as opposed to the SJW-adjacent "pedophobia" which also connotes a nonexistent social standing for vilifying haters). Now, I don't go around telling people to use the term "erotophobia." But in the case of "sex fascists" I do prefer that we as a whole not use terms that make us look like just another group of self-aggrieved victims begging to be included on someone else's rainbow. There may be things about the way we are treated by society that others may be willing to sympathize with, but the illicit status of our sexual preferences is not among them. Most people think their own tolerances are pretty middle-of-the-road and they will not take seriously accusations of "sex fascism" over their stance against kiddy diddling. |