While the expression "coming out" is associated with homosexuality, it's a lot more associated with speech than with activity.

I've long thought that the real "homophobia" does not involve fear of homosexuality so much as it involves people being uncomfortable talking about it. In the old days, this discomfort was because of the taboo nature of the subject (i.e. "the love that dare not speak its name"), and while this traditional discomfort has not died out, a new discomfort has arisen which I'll call "fear" for lack of a better word. While it hasn't completely replaced the old fear, it's subtly insinuating itself into the well-worn, time tested touchy spots in the human psyche. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that there was a covert psy war operation going on.

To make sure that old prejudice is replaced by new fear, perhaps?

Might not it be worth at least addressing the old fear before it's been completely replaced by the new fear?

Let me admit my bias. I don't like traditional anti-gay prejudice, and I've discussed it in more posts than I can remember. However, I don't like the way gay identity politics has stifled discussion of things which need to be discussed. It is my thesis that discussing the gay issue in anything other than a politically-approved manner has become politically and professionally risky. Under the rubric of "gay rights," identity politics is generating a brand-new fear which is rapidly replacing the old one.

Homophobophobia?

Is such a thing possible?

The answer seems to be no. Wikipedia has deleted the word as well as discussion of it as a topic, but defines it anyway in its list of protologisms.

1. the fear, abhorrence, discrimination, prejudice, and all other perceived bias and intolerance against political, religious, spiritual, and/or other groups who demonstrate signs of disagreement or confrontation of - or even the desire to help or restore to wellness and good health persons living with - homosexualism, or against those challenging the medical condition of homosexualism itself 2. The unmerited or erroneous perception, classification, allegation, or name-calling of persons displaying certain characteristics - based on their religious, spiritual, political, or otherwise personal preference - as being homophobic 3. The fear of being, or appearing, homophobic 4. Deleting a WikiMedia article in regards to homophobophobia

What's Wikipedia afraid of? Unending cycles of contradictory definitions and counterdefinitions?

Dare we call it homophobophobophobia?

Whatever any of this might be called, it's pretty clear that the love that once dared not speak its name may not be safely discussed in an unapproved manner.

Yet at the same time this is happening, many of us are forgetting how profoundly divergent are the cultural viewpoints in the debate over gay rights. This "debate" (for lack of a better term) includes "sides" which might as well not be living in the same society, much less arguing on the same page in history. I am deadly serious: imagine trying to have a debate between people who want to bring back sodomy laws and people who want gay marriage. And the people who still believe in sodomy laws are nowhere near as fringy as an even fringier fringe which thinks in terms of the death penalty for "sodomy."

For those who didn't grow up in a gay ghetto, sodomy laws existed until fairly recently in a number of states, and while they weren't enforced, they reflect a tradition which was once mainstream. To deny this is to deny reality as well as history. Times were changing gradually, but the "old guard" still exists, and it fought hard to keep the sodomy laws in the minority of states which still had them. For the most part, this old guard has to content itself by spearheading opposition to same sex marriage.

While that's what leads gay activists to denounce opposition to same sex marriage as "bigotry," the fact that 70% of the public (including the leadership of the Democratic Party) also think the country is not ready for same sex marriage seems to receive less attention.

However, admitting opposition to same sex marriage, mainstream though it is, is these days an easier way to be called a bigot than voicing opposition to affirmative action.

The result of all this is that homosexuality remains the sensitive topic it has always been. A new taboo has quickly arisen to replace an old taboo.

But a taboo is a taboo. Like it or not, the social and political taboo is there, and I think it's getting worse. Open and honest discussion of this issue in which people are free to say what they think is more often than not hopeless. Liberals are allowed to voice support for gay rights and same sex marriage (an excellent way for them to obtain Official Certification of Non-Bigoted Status, BTW), but conservatives are generally in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation.

Factor in privacy, and factor in a discomfort with public discussion of dicey sexual issues, and the general consensus is that the topic is best avoided. This is especially true in politics, and Republicans are a lot more uncomfortable with discussing the gay issue than are Democrats.

And what about the repugnance factor? To deny that the traditional repugnance towards homosexuality is very much alive is to deny reality. Yet denial of repugnance is all but demanded -- especially for anyone involved in politics. Those who find homosexuality repugnant have learned that this repugnance must not speak its name. Not because they don't have the feelings of repugnance, but because it is one of the quickest ways to be labeled a bigot. And very, very few people want to be labeled bigoted.

Thus, whether they realize it or not, their repugnance is quickly shoved in the closet. Traditional and personal repugnance runs head-on into identity politics, and the fear of being called bigoted. It's truly a no win situation, and the best resolution is usually the route of doing the politically expedient thing, and keeping repugnance in the closet.

Jonah Goldberg touched on this phenomenon last week:

So much of this current brouhaha revolves around the fact that Foley did at least one thing right: he resigned when confronted with the repugnance of his own deeds. This left a lot of angry people without someone to flay in public. Which in turn left the social conservative base of the GOP looking for a scalp at the same time the Democrats were eager to relentlessly exploit the issue for partisan gains. These high pressure and low pressure systems helped create the perfect storm we are in.

Here's another counter-factual for you. I deeply suspect the best thing in the world for the GOP would have been if Foley had refused to resign for a few weeks. That way the GOP could show its moral rectitude by defenestrating the guy with much gusto. If it lasted long enough, we might even have seen some Democrats hem and haw in his defense -- as they did with Gerry Studds, who did something much worse.

Who on earth wants to step into anything so toxic?

Add the aroma of pedophilia (and the aroma is there, even though the reality is not), and it's painfully obvious why the Republicans were not about to sit around and hold hearings in which one of their own leaders would be forced to explain that yes, he thought the boys were very cute, but no, he did not have sexual relations with them.

This can be called many things, and I have tried to identify some of the factors.

But to call it a "coverup" as the Democrats are doing is disingenuous. This is not to say that someone didn't coverup something, as scandals inherently involve the making public of things that people wanted kept secret.

But I think shame is at the heart of it. Not a "coverup" in the ordinary political sense of the word but an unwillingness to deal with uncomfortable feelings. If this is a coverup, it's the same sort of coverup which causes many a father of many a gay man to change the subject whenever the subject of his son's homosexuality comes up.

It's such a simple mechanism that I'm not surprised more people didn't catch it. But I shouldn't be surprised, for it took me a week .

Nothing like a national scandal involving an issue that people don't feel free to discuss.

Well, some people are more free to discuss it than others. At least, people think they're more free to discuss it than others. Maybe the people who imagine they're freer will overplay their hand.

(Hey, that it might lead to freer discussion, but I'd hate to end an essay like this on a note of optimism....)

MORE: Ann Althouse thinks that the morals voters are not as naive as commonly believed, and that they can see through political opportunism:

There is a tendency to assume the morals voters are naive, that you can play them and even talk about how you're playing them and they won't see the whole picture that includes you trying to play them. The aggressive politicization of the Foley story is itself a story and the voters witness it and react. It's hardly surprising if they've reacted with revulsion to politicians for their expedient use of the story to claw toward power, which really is more repugnant than self-indulgent sexual expression. Would it shake your preconceptions to find out that even hardcore morals voters see that?

A lot of people can distinguish between real and fake repugnance. And it wouldn't surprise me if they found the latter more repugnant than the former.

MORE: Be sure to read Mrs. du Toit's very thoughtful comment below. I think she's right that there's not much of a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual attraction to teens, but I think the latter is more touchy and more awkward to deal with for the reasons I discussed. There's just a visceral, teeth-set-on-edge reaction which wouldn't be the same had Foley talked dirty to young women. Its very nature makes it tough to acknowledge, much less discuss openly.

AND MORE: Commenter Anthony has pointed out that the Wikipedia discussion (of the deletion of "homophobophobia") is still there, and here's the link.

It seems to me that no matter what they do with the word (or who owns it), fearing the imputation of "homophobia" is as legitimate as many other fears. The refusal to attach "phobia" to it makes about as much sense as using the word "phobia" to denote bigotry or hatred in the first place. If "homophobia" is in fact an actual fear, then why aren't "homophobes" treated with the same compassion accorded sufferers of agoraphobia or arachnophobia?