@hidden @MercurialBlack @gav We can't escape the medical connotations of these roots. It doesn't mean the same thing if I say "your posts are on fire" versus "you have post-itis."

As far as I can tell, the medical profession uses three criteria to determine whether something is a problem:
1. It is abnormal (in a statistical sense).
2. It prevents you from meeting a "baseline" standard of living.
3. It differs from what you consciously want for yourself, in a way that causes discomfort.
So someone might be diagnosed with arachnophobia if (1) they fear spiders a lot more than people on average (the DSM makes sure to mention the "sociocultural context"), (2) their fear prevents them from engaging on normal life (the DSM calls it "social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning), and (3) they say to their doctor, "I really wish I didn't fear spiders as much."

We can't escape these three meanings when we use "homophobic" or "transphobic" in a non-medical context. Moreover, the rhetorical *purpose* of these words is to characterize anti-homosexual or anti-transgender attitudes as abnormal, that is, "pathological." The users of these words *want* to draw on the medical connotation. "You're homophobic, so there's something wrong with you."

However, we are now in a cultural mood which says that people should never be blamed for their pathologies. Thus, casting anti-homosexuality as a "phobia" absolves the homophobic person of responsibility. With this in mind, the rhetorical purpose of using "misia" is obvious. "They hate us, they want us dead, and they have no good reason - such as overwhelming fear - for being that way." When I think of a "misogynist," I don't think of someone who is afraid of women, or who has any one particular reason for abusing women.

But there are also medical disorders which use the "misia" root. I consider myself to have mild misophonia. Some annoying sounds fill me with rage, (1) much more than for most people, (2) in a way that often keeps me from getting work done or enjoying life, and (3) I wish I could be less sensitive to sound. Based on introspection, however, I think that the worldview of a homophobic / transphobic / xenophobic / etc person is closer to a "phobic" disorder than a "misic" one.

My personal opinion is that most linguistic inventions which are driven by politics or rhetoric are bad. A new made-up word becomes another shibboleth for purity tests. The "misia" suffix is intended to demonize the opposing viewpoint even more, essentially to shift the frame from fear out-of-proportion - a potential "rational irrationality" as you guys put it - to something entirely irrational - violence for its own sake. I think this site is good evidence for this interpretation: https://diversitypride.org/misiapledge.html

I think a cleaner use of language would just be the "anti-" prefix, such as in anti-Semitism and (more recently) anti-Blackness and anti-racism.

As a sidenote, note that criterion (3) is inherently transhumanist. For this reason, I believe the medical establishment has always had a certain predisposition (susceptibility?) to promoting gender transition, well before the topic became as prominent in culture as it is today.