by westwood

Today, ladies and gentlecreatures, we are going to talk about definitions. Because in Uganda, they’re going a little crazy and trying to kill (or at least imprison for life) all the homogays (and jail time for anybody who knows a ‘mo but refuses to out them). So first things first, housekeeping. SPEND ONE MINUTE SIGNING THIS REPUTABLE INTERNET PETITION so the anti-gay bill doesn’t get passed. Yes, yes, we can argue about internet petitions in the comments, but it’s better than nothing, amiright? Okay, now that’s settled (and if you’re from the good old US of A, especially if you’re Christian, you can tell the American churches and church leaders sponsoring/encouraging this bill to kindly get their nose the frack out of it. Ask me how).

So what does this have to do with definitions? Well, as brought to my attention by lovely blogger Ellen Monkemeier the issue in Uganda is more complicated than just homophobia. It’s actually about flawed definitions as much as anything else.

Uganda didn't care about Arizona Robbins saving fictional African children???

What is the prevailing concept of a homosexual in Uganda? Well, according to this interesting discussion, “homosexuality and pedophilia had no clear distinction in [the mind of the interviewed educated Ugandan] or the minds of the people proposing the bill.” Futhermore, in “the Ugandan law and penal code – there is no punishment for sexually abusing boys. Girls, yes… the sexual abuse of boys is considered a homosexual act instead of an act of pedophilia.”

Okay, I’m assuming you are all educated and reasonable and understand that there is a very clear conceptual distinction between these two issues. However, for cultural and historical reasons, this distinction is not clear in Uganda (no wonder parents are terrified of gay ‘recruiting‘ at schools, since for them, gay = child molester. They couldn’t be more wrong, as science proves, if you’re living in the stone age). Also, apparently, by Ugandan definitions lesbians don’t exist. Probably a good thing, or else they might be subject to ‘corrective rape‘, like in South Africa (sign this if that practice makes you want to barf up your soy non-fat latte, which it should).

What does this have to do with philosophy? Well, I’m mostly angrily ranting, but the connection is not a tenuous one. Philosophers are very, very careful to define their terms. If you start a philosophy paper without doing so, you will get a terrible grade. Definitions need to be based on logic and careful rationalization. Even if philosophers seem to be making up overly and annoyingly obfuscated terms like ‘teleology’ or ‘hermeneutic liberalism’ while blathering on about ‘necessary and jointly sufficient conditions.’, they are very specific.  This isn’t all pretentious mumbo-jumbo. We cannot discuss anything without defining it at least somewhat, and though definitions are subject to change, the more precise the better we can understand one another and exchange ideas. If those proposing this bill, and the general public in Uganda, had stopped and thought about then inevitable logical definition here (ie: loving someone of the same gender is in absolutely no way related to molesting children), then this discourse might be ending differently. And depending how tomorrow’s vote goes, there may be men being put to death for loving other men because Ugandans have a really messed up and totally incorrect definition of homosexuality.

I lament: why does no one listen to the philosophers? And should the next foreign aid transfer to Uganda be a shipment of dictionaries? Just sayin’.

By the by,  it was also sad day for LGBTIqq**^&$@(#&%@ rights in Uganada… I mean Canada. Blah. In the words of Harvey Milk, ARE YOU ANGRY?