Moralphobia and the Art of Name Calling

It is sometimes difficult to know whether we live in confusing times or interesting times. Perhaps it is a little of both. But either and both often seem hard to live with.

Over the past few years, a new question has become a source of considerable cultural controversy: “What is a woman?” At first glance, that would seem to be a fairly simple question, wouldn’t it? Yet the answer to the question has become deeply contested in our culture. Is the answer a matter of science, XX or XY or is one’s feelings and personal narrative the arbiter of the answer?

During the 2022 confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, Senator Marsha Blackburn asked Jackson whether she could provide a definition of the word “woman.” Jackson responded that she was not a biologist and did not think the question was appropriate in that context. The exchange became a cultural flashpoint and illustrated how questions that once seemed straightforward had, in latter years, become surprisingly contentious.

The controversy has extended into questions about women’s sports, language, law, education, and public policy. Those who disagree with various aspects of the transgender movement may quickly find themselves labeled “transphobic,” among other things.

This brings us to a much larger problem: the abandonment of reasoned arguments and debates in favor of the ancient art of name-calling.

Name-calling is nothing new. Human beings have been attaching derogatory labels to those with whom they disagree for as long as we have recorded history. But in an increasingly polarized culture, labels can become a substitute for making a substantive argument. Rather than addressing a person’s reasoning, we can simply attack the person making the argument, thereby attempting to discredit them and ignore the argument itself.

Such name-calling is a dangerous habit—whether practiced by the political left, the political right, religious people, secular people, or anyone else. We wrote about this in our book, A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and His Cultic Teaching:

In the 1930s, Roman Catholic priest and radio commentator Fr. Charles Coughlin discovered a very effective way of discrediting people he considered political threats. He would appeal to the anti-Semitism and isolationism shared by much of his audience by denouncing various individuals as “atheistic Jews” or “imported radicals.” It mattered little to Coughlin that the sources of his “information” were often untrustworthy. He knew that once he used the power of the broadcast medium to slap labels on people, those people would find it very difficult to remove them from their reputations.

In the 1950s, Wisconsin Senator Joseph P. McCarthy used the new medium of television to boost his political career by taking advantage of Americans’ fear of Communism. No evidence was too slight, no testimony too tainted, no logic too specious for him to use in labeling various individuals as “Communists” or “subversives.” Reputations were destroyed. Careers were ruined. For decades after, McCarthy himself was discredited and died as his victims struggled to rebuild their shattered lives. McCarthyism has come to be synonymous with intimidation through labeling and blacklisting and has often been mistakenly portrayed as a “right-wing” tactic. The fact is, however, that McCarthyism is equally useful to demagogues of all political persuasions. In truth, it has become a favorite tool of the left for stifling opposition to their agenda today.

Conservatives are often labeled “Uncle Toms” if they are black or “racists” if they are white for daring to voice opposition to any aspect of the left’s “civil rights” agenda. People who oppose gay “marriage” are labeled “homophobic.” Men and women who oppose abortion on moral grounds are dangerous “extremists,” and so it goes. Thus, opposers are allegedly motivated by “hate” or “fear” rather than rational disagreement. Name-calling becomes a very effective substitute for rationally defending one’s case, legitimate viewpoints are summarily de-legitimized, and thinking is short-circuited by knee-jerk reactions to an emotional appeal. Whenever you hear someone slap a label on someone else without providing careful definitions and clear evidence, you are more than justified in suspecting that you may be listening to a propagandist, rather than someone who truly desires to inform the public.¹Don Veinot, Joy Veinot & Ron Henzel, A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and Cultish Treachings; MCOI Publishing LLC; 2023, pp 179-180

This practice is probably as old as time, but it has become THE “go-to” tool for silencing any opposition when a sound, reasoned argument is unavailable or seems likely to be less effective than a good old-fashioned smear in silencing one’s opposition. Of course, we have properly updated labels to throw around today. While the “homophobic” label has been applied to people for some time now, the term has been updated and expanded to include “biphobia,” “transphobia,” and other sexual preference/“identity” phobias. “Racist” has been upgraded to “White Supremacist,” although racist is still quite popular in everyday negative labeling usage. However, “White Supremacist” is far more malleable and can be applied to anyone who does not salute and support the ideas and assertions of the more vocal in various so-called “victim” groups. Then there is the “Domestic terrorist” slur, used against people who merely love their country despite its flaws, with “extremists” thrown in for good measure. You might be an “extremist,” for example, if you complain about people rioting or running rampant in a violent manner in city streets, destroying businesses, or generally raising havoc. The rampant rioters are NOT extremists, of course, because their “cause is just.” First rule of extremism — you cannot be considered extremist if you have an “approved cause.” Then there is the “dog whistle.” A dog whistle is speech with no racist, sexist, or homophobic connotation at all, but what the speaker actually said can be understood by an opposer to be a “stand-in” for a racist, sexist, or homophobic comment that the extremist would make if they felt free to do so. Only an extremist fellow traveler gets their “real” message — along with the approved interpreter of “dog whistles,” of course.

The fundamental problem is, as the fictional character Inigo Montoya in the 1987 film The Princess Bride would often point out:

You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

According to Harvard Health Publishing:

A phobia is a persistent, excessive, unrealistic fear of an object, person, animal, activity, or situation. It is a type of anxiety disorder. A person with a phobia either tries to avoid the thing that triggers the fear or endures it with great anxiety and distress.²“Phobia: What is it?,” Howard E. LeWine, MD, Chief Medical Editor, Harvard Health Publishing, March 9, 2022, accessed 8-24-2026

A phobia is defined as an “unrealistic fear.” Since 2013, the meaning has been expanded and adapted to include “hate.” Though inaccurately used to describe anyone with whom one might disagree, it makes for a convenient, emotionally charged verbal weapon against any naysayers and/or detractors of the pet cause of the moment.

Wikipedia’s entry begins by describing “Transphobia” as “negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender people or transness in general.” But the entry is also honest enough to admit this usage is inaccurate. Under the subheading “Etymology and use,” it is pointed out that the correct term is “transmisia” or trans hatred.³Transphobia is not a phobia as defined in clinical psychology (i.e., an anxiety disorder). Its meaning and usage parallels xenophobia.[9] The noun transphobe denotes someone who harbors transphobia. The adjectival form transphobic may be used to describe a transphobe or their actions. The words transphobia and transphobic were added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2013.[10] It has been argued that transmisia, with the suffix “-misia” meaning “hatred”, would be a more accurate term, because transphobia is more about hatred of than about fear of transgender people”

As we said, name-calling is as old as the sun (that may be a slight exaggeration), but now many seem to set a much higher bar by demanding lock-step agreement with their views — or they will be labeled “phobic,” “haters,” and/or “White Supremacist,” and canceled. Are there not any legitimate grounds for disagreement anymore among free people without utter defamation of character? For the most part, those falsely labeled as sexually “phobic” are not afraid of nor do they “hate” homosexuals, lesbians, trans, etc. They simply are unwilling to view these behaviors as normal but believe them to be wrong or, dare we say, “sinful,” based on long-standing biblical moral teaching. It should be noted that sexual sin of any kind, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is sin in the eyes of God. The same is true of lying, pride, gossip, slander, bearing false witness, and anything else that is contrary to God’s holy nature, against which all of us are measured, whether we accept that truth or not. The Law was given to demonstrate to us how utterly sinful we all are —which may lead us to redemption. (Galatians 3:19-25) We most assuredly do not fear or hate people we disagree with on these issues. Christianity 101: All human beings are sinners, having transgressed God’s Law. All of us need a Savior, which God has provided in the person of His Son, to pay our penalty and with His physical resurrection secured our eternal life if we will but accept it.

Is it the case that those engaged in the “Art of Name Calling” — to ostensibly defend their beliefs, but actually to defame opposition inappropriately — have “moralphobia?” It depends. Obviously, the problem is not that they have an “unrealistic fear” of morals, as they shake their fists at God’s moral law and demand that He conform to their image and likeness. That does not look like “fear.” It would be more accurate to point out that they have what we might call “theosmoralmisia,” a hatred of God’s morals. The Apostle Paul describes this condition in Romans 1:28-31:

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Not only do people engage in all the behaviors the Apostle Paul outlines, but they also often demand that everyone condone, celebrate, and agree with them. And many do agree, for their own reasons.

Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:32)

As we said above, we, along with other Christians who hold to the Bible’s teaching,  are not “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” “transphobic,” etc. We do not “dog whistle” either (truth be known we can barely whistle at all). Our fervent wish is for all people to lay down their angry opposition to God and find peace with Him through His Son, Jesus Christ. But we accept that everyone freely makes that decision for him or herself.

What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? (Mark 8:36 NIV)Ω

© 2026, Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. All rights reserved. Excerpts and links may be used if full and clear credit is given with specific direction to the original content.