We noted that Judith Reisman, in her Oct. 27 WorldNetDaily column, made use of the heretofore unknown word "homosexist." Reisman's Nov. 6 WND column explains the word -- namely, the fact that she made it up:
I recently coined the terms "homosexist" and "homosexism" to describe "Spirit Day," Oct. 22, 2010 when President Barack H. Obama challenged American youth to view homosexuality as "a source of pride and a source of strength."
I've been asked, as Socrates says, to define the word "homosexist."
Webster defines "homosexual" as "of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex." Many homosexuals, aware of their early physical and emotional wounding, are now "ex-gays," while others quietly endure.
However, the suffixes -ist, -ism, -ize connote someone who holds certain principles, doctrines, schools of thought, as in "sexist" or "racist."
Synonyms include "chauvinist, doctrinaire, dogmatist, fanatic, fiend, maniac, monomaniac, opinionated, partisan, persecutor, zealot" – as opposed to "humanitarian, liberal, tolerator."
"Homosexualists" are zealots, partisans, chauvinists and persecutors, dogmatists in their fanaticism (see "Partner Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation").
Even the left-leaning Wikipedia admits "homosexists" label normal married couples "breeders," "a term of disparagement used primarily by homosexuals to describe heterosexuals who have produced or will produce offspring."
What is the "Partner Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation" she is referring to? She explains:
In our study, "Partner Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation" (1995), Dr. Charles Johnson and I analyzed the premier "gay" magazine, The Advocate.
Was The Advocate humanitarian, or homosexist? To answer that question, our research rank-ordered the numbers of most-to-least "In Search of" advertisements. The Advocate published ads and essays on sex with boys and on how to seduce "straight" men and boys. I have sanitized the language for this column.
Here's the paper she's referring to. In it, Reisman and Johnson compares ISO personal ads in the "predominately heterosexual" Washingtonian magazine with those in the "predominately homosexual" Advocate in order to determine "what is common heterosexual and homosexual conduct. Needless to say, Reisman finds results designed to further her anti-gay agenda: Gay personal ads are more likely to seek someone for"prostitution services" and "man/teen sex," while heterosexual ads are more interested in "time-bound relationships" and someone "to share nonsexual interest."
Reisman's methodology is flawed. In citing demographic data, she overlooks that the a magazine geared toward a specific city and a magazine geared to a nationwide audience in a specific culture defined by sexual identity are not really equivalent, despite her unsupported assertion that the Advocate "is often described as the homosexual equivalent of Newsweek." And even she concedes that "it is inaccurate to state that the men advertising ISO represent all male readers of these two publications."
Reisman, of course, is not interested in an objective analysis of the subject -- she's too biased. She has an agenda, and it takes shoddy research and mae-up words to advance it, she's totally down with that.