The definition of homophobia is changing.

The term is used in everyday language to mean that someone feels uncomfortable around gay people, hates gay people or is terrified of gay people. 

The editors of the “Associated Press Stylebook,” however, want to narrow down the definition and do away with the word completely in newsprint. They explained, “Phobia means irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness.” But what homophobia has come to represent in daily language is not a mental illness. They continue that, “In terms like homophobia, it’s often speculation. The reasons for anti-gay feelings or actions may not be apparent. Specifics are better than vague characterizations of a person’s general feelings about something.” 

According to Slate, “homophobia” was coined in the 1960s after some psychologists noticed that their colleagues’ anti-gay stances and behavior went beyond anything rational or reasonable.

“They had no argument, just repugnance,” said George Weinberg, a clinical psychologist who popularized the term, according to Slate. “They felt this way even about their own children. I realized this thing is deeply emotional and is based on fear.”

So even though the root of the term stems from fear, over time, “homophobia” has evolved beyond Weinberg’s original definition. It’s often used in political contexts to attack social conservatives. And the word definitely gets thrown around more than it ought to be. 

But that doesn’t mean we should just outright ban the word. Instead, we should carefully define the word and make sure we don’t use it in inappropriate contexts. 

“Homophobia” can be used to mean an irrational fear of homosexuals that borders on mental illness — and several anti-gay protesters seem to fit that criteria — but it has also been adopted into the popular vernacular as a cultural and political term. 

Oddly, the editors seem to take umbrage with the misuse of the suffix “-phobia,” not the word “homophobia” itself. The fact that the word can creep into and corrupt otherwise objective news doesn’t seem to be as big of a problem. 

“The stylebook editors are quite right to say that it is not a word to be used casually, though it sometimes has been,” wrote John McIntyre, an editor at the Baltimore Sun, on his blog. “In the same way, ‘racism’ and ‘misogyny’ got thrown around a good bit in the mercifully concluded presidential campaign. But to say that you should not casually call someone homophobic or racist or misogynistic is not quite the same thing as saying that you can’t talk about homophobia or racism or misogyny, especially when ample evidence is provided.”

The stylebook editors are fighting a battle they can’t win. The English language isn’t ruled by a committee. Homophobia — the word and the state it describes — is here to stay so is its culturally defined definition. The effort to curb the definition is, however, respectable.