Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Game, Set, Match

OK, how about I just do a more direct route? Here are examples of heteronormativity not in academia or activist circles, most of which predate Ms Pinkett-Smith's comment:

Amazingly enough, apparently the Faux News Network itself was actually reporting on heteronormativity before Ms Pinkett-Smith's speech! No! Shock! Awe! “Birthday Bashing, Heteronormative Hoopla” Monday, September 27, 2004

(Feel free to read no further if you'd like to concede the point here. Everything after the FNN quote about the term that predated Ms Pinkett-Smith's speech by several months is really only gravy, since the claim that the FNN article on JPS's speech was the 'first' time this came on the public's radar is now absolutely refuted. Assuming we define play on FNN as the 'public radar'? Of course the 'sad little sperm who lost his tail' one is almost worth reading further. And some of these 'pop references' go back to 1996.)

From the Entertainment/TV Radio Section of The Age in Australia: Chasing rainbows March 12, 2004 “Gay men are allowed to feature in the scenario only to the extent that they will aid and abet this process of heteronormativity, and, it should be added, capitalist consumerism.”

Birmingham UUChurch's Children's Book Project: Sexual Prejudice Hurts Children: Sexual prejudice is a term that refers to a range of attitudes and behaviors including: homophobia: the fear of anyone who is not heterosexual; heterosexism: discrimination against GLBTQ persons; and heteronormativity: the pernicious, unquestioned and ubiquitous assumption that the norm is heterosexual.

Prospectus of a general purpose encyclopedia published by Greenwood Publishing Group (leading publisher of school, professional, and public library reference books.) “This has resulted in the exclusion of non-heterosexual issues and topics (variously manifested in heterosexism, homophobia, and heteronormativity).” “Clear and jargon-free entries particularly suitable for teachers, administrators, counselors, and students.”

British Columbia Court Document:Heterosexism expresses itself in “heteronormativity” which attributes some form of superiority or privilege to “heterosexuality.”

An art exhibit:In her first solo exhibition, the artist focuses on the themes of heterosexism and heteronormativity, which organize not only subjectivity and desire, but also language, knowledge and culture, family, state and economy.

Model corporate policy for a law firm from the Law Society of Upper Canada: Heterosexism/Heteronormativity is the presumption that heterosexuality is universal, normative and/or superior to homosexuality. Also: prejudice, bias or discrimination based on such presumptions.

HIV/AIDS handbook from USAID: “heteronormativity – standardization of the entire society under the presumption that heterosexuality is the only thing normal and acceptable”

From a Pro-Life Nutter Manifesto: (1997 revision): “Chapter 117: The True Objective Of `Gay Rights' - Total Domination!” (Idiots.... our objective isn't total domination, its world domination. Duh!) Quoting some normal person: “Our goal is to challenge the pervasive and often invisible heteronormativity of modern societies ... ”

Ooh, same quote used by more religious nutters: CHAPTER 4 — INTRODUCTION TO ANTI-LIFE STRATEGIES AND TACTICS American Life League (4/1/1996) “What more proof do we need? They even want to eliminate genders. The so-called 'Queer Manifesto' being circulated by sodomites at some universities says that 'Queer politics is no longer content to carve out a buffer zone for a minoritized and protected subculture. Our goal is to challenge the pervasive and often invisible heteronormativity of modern societies ... Our task is to confront modern culture with its worst nightmare a queer planet.' Homosexual strategists Kirk and Pill say that 'Our work will not be finished until we can say that the whole world is gay.'[7]”

Quote on a decidedly non-academic message board referencing the EWTN document... LOVE the 'fro on the guy who posted this.

Same quote, again in a pro-choice nutter howto guide. (Oct 2002.)

A conservative Blogger griping: “Meanwhile, heteronormativity is on the run in Ontario, where a newly passed law eliminates the terms 'husband' and 'wife' from the law book in favor of "spouse," so as not to discriminate against gay marriage.”

I don't know if you would consider this academic, but apparently one can purchase a term paper on the concept in Latin America. “Heteronormativity and the History of Latin America ” Is CliffNotes and purchased papers 'academic'?

KidsNet Australia: (Those little future-members-of-the-intelegentsia) “In the early 20th century, western gender roles were based around the idea of heteronormativity, and as such they were comparatively fixed. People who transgressed gender roles, such as a woman with a high-powered job, frequently experienced disapproval and discrimination.”

NY Times article describes how U of Chicago has several new bathrooms for those uncomfortable about classifying themselves in with the “hegemonic taxonomies of bourgeois heteronormativity.” (Sorry the whole times article is unavailable w/o paying.)

I don't know if you consider a trade union of public school teachers 'academia', but assuming you don't think grade school teachers are... “children begin school already having experienced 'heteronormativity' and homophobia. ”

OK, Admittedly, this is from an academic journal.... but I had to include it... just for the title: “‘Billy, the Sad Sperm with No Tail’: Representations of Sperm in Children’s Books”

Apparently people are even cybersquatting the term.

I'm guessing that you'd agree that merely because something is voiced by gay people, its not necessarily the words of an activist? This is from a gay.com travel article. “Theme parks bring out the kid in everyone. Only problem for us is that theme parks tend also to feature undesirable heteronormative imagery: a seething mass of "nuclear" families with dad, mom and 2.5 urchins. Pretty daunting stuff for a couple of queer fellas from Des Moines or two gay ladies with their own batch of surrogate-fathered children. What's a rollercoaster-loving non-traditional family to do?”

I'm significantly bothered that you are couching this in terms of a contest, rather than of research and the desire to find truth. That said, yes, you have some good citations there. I'd pick whichever you consider the one or two best and add them to the page. Nice find, and a decent update to the page. -Harmil 23:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Harmil: “What I'm interested in is the specific point, which you have not responded to. This term has been used in a way that the mainstream media and thus the general public would have been aware of once. If mentioning that damages the case for heteronormativity in some way, then there never was a case (and I believe there is such a case... but that's POV, and I'm not going to insert that POV). No entry on Wikipedia should be held up to a less harsh light than that of truth and rigorous, informed, logical debate. Period. Ever.”

So the cold hard truth is that the troll who inserted the comment about the JPS incident being the first time this has occurred in the media was FACTUALLY WRONG. I have known from (albeit anecdotal) personal experience this is not the case. So I have been arguing to protect this article from the troll's decidedly POV slur that this is just some academic PC nonsense. Then when I finally prove the point, you still don't want to remove the troll's slur, but rather let it stand and simply add this.

Sorry, but why don't you hold your own version up to the same light you'd like to add to my edit? “No entry on Wikipedia should be held up to a less harsh light than that of truth and rigorous, informed, logical debate.” Well, you've maintained the fact that the first time the term was in the 'public eye' was the FNN story about the JPS incident. However, when the debate on this proves it to not be true – by an article on the same 'news' network, you still don't want to remove that 'fact'.

And couching it in terms of winning is exactly right: truth will win out in the end. I have given you irrefutable proof that the comment is not true yet you still seem to only advocate adding this rather than subtracting the falsehood. NickGorton 23:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah... I think we've gone off the rails here. Let me be clearer:

YOU WERE RIGHT, PLEASE EDIT THE PAGE WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION THAT YOU GATHERED, AND THANK YOU FOR DOING SO!

I hope that explains my position in a slightly clearer manner. Take care, NickGorton, and please remember: I'm not one of the bad guys.... Really. -Harmil 00:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: In regards to your recent edit (looks like you already did what I suggested above before I suggested it... excellent). It seems good, but a tad convoluted, and I got lost on the logical transition from paragraph 1 to 2 of the new defense section. I've asked some others to take a look though, so that I can avoid further mucking with it, and therefore any bad feelings betwen you and I. -Harmil 01:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Jada Pinkett Smith paragraph

I really can't for the life of me figure out what that paragraph is supposed to be saying, even after following the links. The one in the article is absolutely worthless. But here on the talk page, I managed to locate:

"Women, you can have it all - a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career..."

Well, OK, doing way more work than a reader should have to, I can find a really mild and convoluted example. Yes, sure, this is a heteronormative comment, but about as banal and common a one as you can imagine. And something much like comments made by just about any famous person at some point.

Can we find something a bit more clear, and a bit more compelling example? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:02, 2005 September 3 (UTC) {talkarchive}}

Political correctness

Heteronormativity (as a theory of social science) is one of the poster children for anti-political correctness conservatives in the U.S. [1], and to ignore that fact would be to do Wikipedia a disservice. I'm not saying that we should be beating the drum of right-wing ideology, but to remove the Category:Political correctness tag from the article does seem to be explicitly excluding that interpretation. That is why I put the category back. It gives people surfing categories a link to this page (useful on its own) and gives people reading this article a gateway to other topics similarly categorized. -Harmil 11:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

And, as I immediately noticed when hitting submit, that cat doesn't exist (anymore?), so I changed it to the two cats from Political correctness that seemed to match best: Category:Political neologisms and Category:Sociolinguistics. Those two also just happen to fit this article much more clearly, IMHO, so all the better. -Harmil 11:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea why sociolinguistics would be discussed under the political correctness article. I suspect the editors of the PC page are writing utterly nonsensical drivel (perhaps some C- undergrads who think every academic course they don't like is thereby "politically correct"; maybe I'll add linear algegebra on similar criteria... actually, I'm fond enough of algebra, but someone probably dislikes it). But I haven't even read the page, not being a masochist. But sociolinguistics, in any case, is utterly unrelated to this topic, so I'm going to make sure that silly cat isn't on this page (not an inherently silly category, sociolinguistics, it's an important subfield of linguistics; just silly in the context of this page). Heteronormativity is a neologism, so that's OK. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Bold text

Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people

"then the notion is said to be encouraged" Could this possibly be written in a more passive voice? yuck. Ace Frahm 19:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

Would a section of current examples in popular culture be a good addition? There's always several songs in the Top 40 that strongly convey heteronormative ideas. Herorev 17:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you think so? Can you give an example of a song you see as heteronormative? (I'm kind of out-of-touch with popular culture, but I haven't noticed any heteronormativity to speak of.) And secondly, please see WP:NPOV and WP:V, two of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies; do you think such a section could abide by them? —Ruakh_TALK 18:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ruakh is correct. Examples of hetronormativity (or of any other concept) must not be original research. If some has published a reliable book about Heteronormativity in pop culture source that - otherwise such additions would fall under the category of original research--Cailil 17:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A large number of the songs I hear on the radio are about male-female relationships. But this is most likely simply a reflection of their own heterosexuality. Personally, I think the very idea of "heteronormativity" is silly. Of course people are going to assume a male/female dichotomy: In the vast majority of cases, it's true! DanBishop 21:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I have tagged this article as NPOV. There is no discussion of various views either throughout history or in the modern era with regards to biological sex, sex, gender, gender roles etc... the article simply asserts one particular outlook on these issues as though they were a universally agreed on fact. (RookZERO 21:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

This statement: "the article simply asserts one particular outlook on these issues as though they were a universally agreed on fact" seems wrong to me. Like, so wrong that I'm having difficulty assuming good faith on your part. It's true that the article doesn't do a great job discussing all the various viewpoints, but it seems to me that wherever it is discussing one, it makes it clear that it's discussing one viewpoint; for example, it constantly uses phrases like "those who subscribe to heteronormativity" (meaning "those who believe that heteronormativity exists"). Can you give an example where the article assumes one outlook as correct? —Ruakh_TALK 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. One reads "Transgender people often seek gender reassignment therapy, thereby violating the assumption that only unambiguous female or male bodies exist." Surely the authors realize that this is not universally agreed to? (RookZERO 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

Oh, good call; my apologies for doubting you. Indeed, the entire first paragraph of the transgender section seems very unapologetically POV, now that I read it with an eye toward that. —Ruakh_TALK 07:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this part about "Defense of Heteronormativity" is pointless. It's a rant but not an article. Though I'm really interested into having other points of view mentioned and represented and won't deny that people feel a need of heteronormativity, it has to be presented clear and straight, wich this passage is not in the least. I can't really figure out what it should tell. I don't think this passage should be removed from the article completely, but it should not remain with this text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.64.122.11 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Defense section

I keep on deleting the defense section because it doesn't make any sense--what did Pinkett-Smith say? Why was it considered controversial? Reading the section raises more questions than it answers. It requires a large base of popular culture and historical knowledge about a specific event in order for the reader to understand it. Someone keeps replacing this section and has suggested that I am "vandalizing" the entry. I would be quite happy if this section was rewritten to include appropriate language, tone, and knowledge; but the section as it was written should not be included in this article.24.90.229.107 14:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)JS June 19 2007

I think we need consensus here prior to deleting such a large section. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 15:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't exactly get how wiki works and ban my students from using it for just this reason---facts are not up for debate and bad writing is bad writing. Nevertheless, I'll play by the rules. Please let me know how one finds others to reach a consensus that the section in question makes very little sense. If you note above, someone else has said it should be removed and it has been flagged for POV issues. Since you appear to be some sort of administrator but do not list sociology, political science, or LGBT/gender as areas of expertise, have you referred this posting to an administrator who does have such an area of expertise? If not, would you please? Thank you.24.90.229.107 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I just tried to edit this section to have no POV, consider only facts, etc, but I found it very hard. I checked out related entries such as heterosexism, etc. have no "defense of" section. I really think this section is unnecessary and inappropriate. The title "defense of" suggests an opinion, not facts. All that said, this is the best I could come up with in such a short time for an entry:

Defenders of Heteronormative Structures

Religious and political groups opposed to same-sex relationships, divorce, feminism, and other changes to the current gender culture are all defenders of heteronormative structures. They often use arguments rooted in religious texts and their understanding of cultural traditions in their defense of existing structures. Since gender role expectations, sexual norms, and behaviors considered to be heteronormative differ across cultures the substance and tenor of the defense of such structures also differs. Jmsast 18:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Well it took a couple tries but I think I agree with the Defense section however I believe it certainly needs a rewrite. I find it hard to imagine an audience, besides academics steeped in gender theory, who will readily follow that section as it is. I'm not saying dumb it down but sending people scrambling for a dictionary or thesaurus just to get through an article might be a roadblock to conveying thoughts and sharing information. I think adding references and quotes as well as reviewing some word choices might help as well as seeing the material from a newby reader who is trying to understand the concept. Benjiboi 18:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I am confused. You agree with the section? As in you think it should be removed? Or you think it should be rewritten following the model above? Or you agree with the opinions currently causing the POV problems? Jmsast 19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly please indent your comments as it makes dialog a bit easier. Second, I apologize if my comments weren't clear. I think the Defense section is probably valid but needs a rewrite to add references, quotes, clearer language and possibly examples while removing some of the "theory-speak" which makes the subjects explanation more confusing. Pretend our audience is reading at a grade-school level as many of them are. Benjiboi 21:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the indenting, I didn't mean to confuse you. I am concerned that the section has some serious POV issues and doesn't make any sense. It's not the "theory-speak" I studied a lot of gender/queer theory in college and am comfortable with it, even in this context, if it made sense. Even translated to the vernacular, this section makes no sense. I submitted this for peer review. Further, not all entries should be understandable to a 5th grader. Much in life is not understandable to a 5th grader, which is why I don't teach Kant to my 5th graders!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmsast (talk • contribs)

I am in agreement with User:Benjiboi here in that I think that the section makes very valid points about differing views regarding the construct of heteronormativity. The section may require some rewriting and certainly could use more references. I tried to help with that a bit after the revert of the blanking the other day. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think the section could use a better title. If I think of one, I will adjust it. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries as you didn't confuse me, however these conversations are archived and read by folks trying the understand where differing ideas are at as a part of making articles better. Perhaps another way of thinking about the language issues I reference is that if they were easier to understand for not only a 5th -grader but even non-native English users who are looking for more information. At the very least we can probably agree that it's better to break down barriers to learning. Benjiboi 23:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting and inclusive thought. Nonetheless, this term is not exactly a 5th grade vocabulary term (in most schools, at least). At root, the term is more "intellectual" in nature when it comes to thinking about homophobia in society. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 06:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This Wiki is not meant for non-English speakers, nor is it meant for fifth graders. Instead, there is a Simple English Wikipedia for that - and numerous Wikipedias in other languages for those who do not have a mastery of English at all. 65.60.137.13 (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Roots still has terrible POV issues

All that section really boils down to is 'everyone in defense of heteronormativity is a Bible-thumping conservative', which certainly isn't true. It'd be really nice if someone who can keep a level head (and has more expertise than I) when writing could rewrite that, if possible. --Charibdis (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the debates here

Wow. A lot of debate, and it looks like an interesting and informative article might get pulled because nobunny can agree. Not good.

Insofar as NPOV is a statistical concept (a "neutral" point of view is one shared by most people) then NPOV is going to be somewhat infected by heteronormativity, with the result that an article on the subject will be considered POV. This will silence LBTG people on wikipedia.

This will do so especially because (as it appears to me, without having the time to fully document the following claim) that a heteronormative approach is being used to normalize wikipedia AS A WHOLE, and to "clean up" articles. The motivation for this MAY be a drive by wikipedia insiders (who are probably mostly heterosexually oriented) to make wikipedia a paying commercial venture, thereby (please remember this is my personal POV and this is an edit page) making a bundle...from the unpaid labor of others, many of whom can be excluded after the self-defined normal have caused them to violate courtesy standards by deliberate bullying.

These comments relate directly to the conduct of editors who in most cases are self-proclaimed.

To my knowledge, NPOV hasn't been defined theoretically. This means at any time that any contributor, including contributors who in the past have contributed valuable material, can be voted outside the Pale when he or she does not adhere to a statistical norm...despite the fact that the statistical norm is commonly the consensus of very small groups, subject NOT to smoothing trends, but to the counterintuitive laws of small data sets!

Edward G. Nilges

Article seems safe for now and no more contentious than racism or any other subject that involves minorities of some kind. Banjeboi 09:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new section for review: Normalized deviance

"Normalized deviance" is a concept developed by anthropologist Diane Vaughan (The Challenger Launch Disaster, University of Chicago Press 1997) to help analyze the culture of the USA's space programme in 1986, when the Challenger space shuttle exploded on take-off. This was Vaughan's means of describing a safety culture which was changing rapidly under pressure from the Reagan administration to show quick results.

Engineers, already in a culture that can be described as very "heteronormative", which has traditionally excluded feminine-identified men, were confronted, at NASA in the 1980s by a new development: the definition of a higher, more intense heteronormativity to which they needed to aspire in order to progress in their careers, or even, given the reality of cutbacks, survive.

Previously to the 1980s, as Vaughan documents, engineers were able to question management decisions based on scientific and engineering knowledge. This pseudo-right, known in IBM as "pushback", was rarely used against engineers prior to the 1980s to question their status as "good engineers", where the identity as engineer was closely bound to heteronormal self-identity.

But by the eve of the Challenger decision, managers, without having the scientific and technical knowledge of engineers but having line authority, had a new way to control their reports. This was to encode heteronormativity as the willingness to go along with deviant schedules that ignored technical realities.

During a video conference on the eve of the launch, managers exhorted resistant engineers to think like a "MANager" (emphasis of course the writer's) not like an "engineer", which placed the two titles in a superordinate/subordinate binary opposition based on a male-female dichotomy. To question decisions was re-encoded not as being a "rugged individualist" and therefore heteronormative, but as not being a team player, raising the possibility of disaffiliation from the large system which was the only place for the heterosexually normalized male to exercise his skills.

To celebrate this new form of heteronormativity, at the same time, many technology companies used "corporate culture" in the form of paintball outings and beer blasts which had the side-effects of excluding many women, many men not interested in playing paintball nor drinking to excess, and many older engineers who have typically discovered, in American society, that they are gradually excluded from the sources of their heterosexual identity as they get older.

By the 1990s, it had (despite Vaughan's analysis, and physicist Richard Feynman's postscript to the official Challenger report which accused NASA of trying to repeal the laws of nature) become "common knowledge" that complex systems demanded a willingness to cut corners in a macho register. It could have gone either way. Taking pains in some engineering cultures, even at the cost of not meeting a deadline, was encoded as masculine, whereas being "sloppy", feminine. But, in American culture, WWII models of speedup, notably the fast construction of "Liberty ships" and the "can do" attitude were used to create the perception that ANY form of excess care was "adding too many frills"...in the female mode, of course.

Perhaps as a result a second crash occured in 2003 when the Columbia space shuttle, having lost heat shielding of critical size on liftoff. In what Vaughan et al. continued to describe as a broken safety culture, the possibility that large enough chunks of heat shielding could be lost on liftoff had been dismissed because prior to the Columbia's launch, the chunks lost were small.

Independence of thought, and the willingness to speak truth to power, were by this process de-normalized and willingness to be a "team player" replaced it as the heteronormative ideal.

Edward G. Nilges

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.46.45 (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "manager" derives from the verb "to manage" and is not related in any way to the English word "man" which means both person and a person of the male sex.

The etymology of "to manager" is from the Latin via Italian and ultimately is derived from the word "manus" meaning "hand." Its similarity to the English word is purely coincidental.

"It's Reagan's fault!" Is there an echo in here, or have I been beamed back to the 80s when blaming everything on Ronald Reagan was de rigeur amongst Liberals (much as George W. Bush has been blamed for everything from hurricanes to bad breath).

Further, the assertion that massive cost-cutting occurred during Reynaldus Magnus' administration is simple non-sense. Had the spending cuts been passed along with the tax cuts, and baseline budgeting eliminated, then meaningful reduction of Federal spending might have happened.

However, as long as Liberals and so-called "moderates" prefer to win votes by bribing voters (promising that the money for said "entitlements" will be confiscated from the evil, thieving rich), then no one's going to "speak truth to power." And the "power" in this country is the people. Or would be if even a modicum of the spirit of 1776 were revived in the US.

Because, to paraphrase Edward Albee, "In a democracy the people get the kind of government they deserve."

PainMan (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Heteronormativity and Heterosexism

Is there really any meaningful difference? AnonMoos (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

After reading this article on heteronormativity, I clearly see that the authors are confused, particularly when it comes to attributing heterosexism, i.e. the presumption, belief system and forms of discrimination particularly on a societal level, to heteronormativity instead. While the heteronormativity article is longer, it reads like a personal essay or term paper that never gets to the point. What's more, it's not simple as an encyclopedia article should be. It also appears that the mistaken use of the term "heteronormativity" to encompass heterosexism is due to shortsighted (ab)use of queer theory. Moreover, it goes off on tangents and includes some strange things such as a link to a Swedish university ("See also") and outright bizarre text under "Heteronormativity in the past".

Before any conceivable merge of its contents is made, the heteronormativity article itself needs a major overhaul. In the meantime, I'm going to work out a more concise intro. Also, keep in mind that about two years ago, the heteronormativity was just a paragraph within the heterosexism article. --CJ Withers (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is not NPOV, Has a bias against Heteronormativity. Although it might not appear so given current media trends, It is a valid point of view to oppose normativity of homosexuality.

210.8.82.20 (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So-called "Heteronormativity" and "Heterosexism" should be designated as terms that were created by the homosexual lobby in order to vilify those who oppose it. The terms themselves, like "homophobe," are fundamentally flawed, despite "media trends" that suggest otherwise.75.67.87.195 (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Heterosexualization is an article which is strongly related to this article about Heteronormativity. There appear to be some overlapping concepts; should some of the material from each article be duplicated in the other? or should some kind of merge take place with a portion of their contents? I am not an expert on sexology topics, nor sociology in general; i'm hoping somebody with extensive knowledge of these areas can help us here? ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~₄₁₁~ 20:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Term itself seems confusing

Hetero- means different/other in Greek, so Heteronormativity as a word would suggest something that is different from the prevailing norms/normative belief systems of the time, whereas in this usage it seems to be used in almost an opposite sense. Should it be noted how such a weird word has gained any significant currency in this meaning? --86.164.126.9 (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging Heteronormativity with Homonormativity

Some activists may lay the claim that the very act of merging a discussion surrounding heteronormativity and homonormativity in itself is normalizing homonormativity and taking away it's legitimacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.134.171 (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Some activists" are welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia and making the article fair and balanced. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Such activists should just keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox.68.46.183.96 (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And I think you mean "make the claim" or just "claim". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.104.120 (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

{help} Has anyone asked Michael Warner to help with this article? I was just reading parts of his book "Fear of a Queer Planet" and it seems that their is a lot of background information missing about the term and the politics of the term.Aslyone (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC) aslyone

Homonormativity

Hunh. Can we get some more sources on that? Perhaps some mainstream ones? One would instead assume that homonormativity would mean everyone was designed to be homosexual and that the societal norm, preference and prejudices would be for same-sex relationships, that opposite-sex relationships would be marginalized. --Knulclunk (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the two terms don't really seem to be consistent with one another. "Homonormativity" seems to be being used to mean something like "making homosexuality seem 'normal' by conforming to socoietal models of respectability", which is quite different from what heteronormativity is used to mean. Paul B (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So, why isn't there anything about homonormativity on this page? You type 'homonormativity' into the search box, it brings you here, and the term isn't even brought up, which makes them look like synonyms. And I'm going to have to disagree with Paul B's definition there. That is, it's less making homosexuality seem normal, but creating a homosexual norm that works in the same way as heteronormativity, thus still excluding various other queer-identified people. On a secondary level, though, your definition is consistent with the idea that homonormativity borrows heavily from traditional heteronormative performance, and many of the norms have carried over. Anyway, I don't want to half-ass it, so, I'm going to come back when I have more time on my hands, and if there isn't anything, I'll go nuts on some Queer Theory books and at least make a passable section on the concept. Franzose (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Homonormativity should be defined on this page if typing in that term directs you here. What are thoughts about another page for homonormativity since all of these terms from LGBTQ studies have been separated?199.17.226.216 (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC) aslyone

The reason why Homonormativity redirects here, but there is no information here regarding homonormativity is because, there used to be an article on homonormativity, but this article was deemed inadequate (although it's not totally clear to me that there was much discussion. You can check out the talk page

for more info), so the article was redirected to a paragraph within the article on heteronormativity. However, this paragraph was recently deleted. So if you want to start an article on homonormativity, there's already a lot there for you to work with. However, you might want to think about the resistance that the previous article ran into. -- Irn (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated the redirect for deletion, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 7. Mintrick (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, in your opinion what were the reasons why it was left out? 209.98.144.82 (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Aslyone

I added anew section about Homonormativity, I believe my sources are verifiable and my tone was good. If anyone has a problem with it please let me know. it was not my intention to make anyone angry by adding this section.Aslyone (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Aslyone

POV lead

Folks, the current version seems unneutral, especially the bunches the view that heterosexuality is the normal sexual orientation and that sexual and marital relations are normal only when between people of different sexes. So if I consider heterosexuality a normal orientation and sexual and marital relations to be normal only between people of different sexes, I turn odd? IMO, there is a need to make heteronormativity look more like discrimination, homophobia and prejudice as classified in categories, so far the article looks like another example of LGBT propaganda. brandспойт 13:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

For some insight, imagine that the article was about the idea that only right-handedness is normal and proper. TruthIIPower (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Brandmeister. This article is attempting to view heteronormativity through a moral, rather than factual, lense. Worse yet, much of this article is either unsourced or cites unreliable sources. - Schrandit (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

...except that being right-handed isn't necessary for the continuation of the species. Homosexuality isn't immoral, but to imply that it could be the standard or primary way to do things is honestly silly. It's a practice that works because it can be and is practiced on an individual level, not on a global level. To even pretend for a second that, for anything other than completely asexual organisms (and slugs, I guess), heterosexuality isn't "normal" is just torturing the meaning of "normal".Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In the sense of this article, "normativity" and "normal" mean "accepted behavior in mainstream society" -- and not "common within mainstream society". On a related note, this article is meant to discuss the facts of what is and is not considered normative by society (or has been historically), and not what should be considered normal. In particular the section --Heteronormativity in the present-- lacks a neutral POV, though the content of that section could be retained if rephrased. --SteelSoul (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The gist of heteronormativity is the social attitude that heterosexuality is normal and/or healthy while homosexuality is not. It's a cognative bias (often culturally-rooted) that can affect how a person sees manifestations of sexuality and orientation. If you believe both are normal or that neither are normal, it's not a belief in heteronormativity. Just to clarify: If you believe that heterosexuality is normal, that does not make you heteronormative—you're heteronormative if you believe heterosexuality is the only norm while believing that homosexuality is not. When this conclusion is treated as an immutable rule or law, it can become heterosexism and full-fledged homophobia. These issues are why heteronormativity is relevant in LGBT studies. - Gilgamesh (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Could presenting the uses and misuses of the term help make it viewpoint neutral? Aslyone (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC) aslyone

WEASELness

From WP:WEASEL:

• How many is some?
• Some/many/most/all/few. Sentences like Some people think... lead to arguments about how many people actually think that. Is it some people or most people? How many is many people? [...]

—EqualRights (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(help) I am in an English class and one of our assignments is to improve the quality of a Wikipedia article, are there any specific areas that have weasel words that could be changed or citations could be found? Aslyone (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC) aslyone

Section on the Controversy about the Concept of Heteronormativity

This section needs more citations. Does this section help the article? Isn't there more controversy about the term that has been expressed by all of us on this discussion page?Aslyone (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Aslyone

self expression

In the second paragraph, "certain types of self-expression more difficult when that expression violates the norm," What does "self-expression" mean? It is not clear by the context.--Knulclunk (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I believe it's connected to the buzz term "gender expression" and worship of Judith Butler's skew on performativity (careful, the article is actually about her skew only), I agree that the idea was not complete. The author should rework it. That's why I left it as-is. --CJ Withers (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh... as a side note, article performativity totally needs a [[WP:JARGON]] tag.--Knulclunk (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)