Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 11

Time for deletion
This article has been tagged for multifarious errors & policy violations for ten months and nothing significant has been done to rectify these issues.

But the problem with this article is larger than the technical violations (e.g. lack of citations).

The obscurity of this neologism might warrant a brief definition but in no way is deserving of such a long, disorganized and article.

Also, the this article is little more than a feminist polemic...and polemics have no place in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, this tends to confirm the opinion of many of the overweaning Leftist slant to many wikipedia articles. I would hope all editors would be striving for as much objectivity as is possible.

I move that this article be corrected immediately or deleted.

I further move that the primary editor's wikipedia privileges be suspended for six months for horrifically bad writing. (That was a joke for those unclear as to the statement's thrust.)

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


 * Please dial down the soapboxing, if you have a specific concern then start a new section and concisely state what you think needs to change and how it should change.  Generalized statements and proclamations aren't terribly helpful or actionable. If you think the article should be deleted see WP:AFD although I can't see it happening. And calling for editors to be blocked in some way is completely not acceptable even if later qualified as "just kidding". we need to encourage editors to contribute constructively and work cooperatively. This is a complex and theoretical subject so it may take time.  Banj e  b oi   09:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Does NO ONE on wikipedia have a sense of humor? We're not translating the King James Bible here; or even working on Encyclopedia Britannica.  You act as though I cast aspersions on the editor's heredity.  It was harmless HUMOR.  Perhaps not the best witticism ever written, but un peu amusant none-the-less.  So let me say it again for the cheap seats: IT WAS A JOKE!  And no one can seriously have taken it otherwise, especially since I used a parenthetical insertion so as to not confuse the residents of Rio Linda.


 * Actually, this was a test. I was hoping that my assumption that someone would post some supercilious comment such as yours would be (for once!) wrong.  As expected, it wasn't.


 * As for:


 * And calling for editors to be blocked in some way is completely not acceptable even if later qualified as "just kidding".


 * I did not "qualif[y] it later", I did it immediately! Please state the facts correctly.


 * As for deletion of the article, no, it probably won't happen. It should, the topic is Femi-Nazi propaganda and the writing is atrocious--but it probably won't given the left-wing bent of so many editors.  Politics plays a huge part in wikipedia and conservatives (comme moi) are routinely attacked, vilified, lectured, patronized threatened with being blocked, etc.


 * You're taking this way too seriously. As we said back in the 80s, "You gots to chill, bra."


 * And, your soapbox is looking more than a little strained from overuse; could use a paint job too.


 * PainMan (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC) t


 * I realize that you're being humorous, unfortunately that doesn't always carry over in print, especially to those who may be using English as a second language. Let's just agree that the article needs plenty of work and move on from here. Banj e  b oi   13:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Except your "joke" wasn't funny, which is crucial when telling jokes (having to explain at the end of your joke that it's a joke is usually a good sign that your joke is going to fail). Further, your comment offered nothing constructive but rather consisted of an attack on the politics of this article and Wikipedia in general. Not something I would expect from someone who has been around for as long as you have. Indeed, that's called trolling. -- Irn (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nontraditional majority?
I can see why someone think it is misleading for this article to say "[n]ontraditional families constitute the vast majority of families in the United States today", without noting that in this context "“Nontraditional” family forms, by definition, involve any kind of variation from this pattern ['of a middle-class family with a bread-winning father and a stay-at-home mother, married to each other and raising their biological children']. Thus, families with fathers who assume responsibility for childcare would qualify as nontraditional, as would families with employed mothers, with two employed parents, with one parent, or that rely on childcare centers instead of performing childcare exclusively within the home." As the article section is currently worded, the reader might infer that "nontraditional" refers exclusively to those families formed "[w]ith artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, and adoption". Gabbe (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Currently this is misleading. --Knulclunk (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead excludes relevant perspectives
I have a feeling that this lead is actually "anthroponormative" in its exclusion of zoophiles. It also excludes necrophiliacs. These would apparently also be regarded as legitimate sexual preoccupations. There must be more, I'm sure. Heteronormativity would also presumably implicate itself in the hideous repression of these sexual choices, too, wouldn't it? Unless there's an objection, I will include these designations soon, too. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you can find evidence to support the claim that heteronormativity implicates itself in sexuality issues beyond those between living humans, then no, it doesn't and it therefore should not be added to the lead. That would be original research and a straw man argument.  As far as I have encountered heteronormativity, it deals only with the comparative analysis of gender roles, same-sex attractions, power dynamics, and comparisons of the nuclear family structure to other kinds of human relationships.Luminum (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Let's leave that for now. By the way, what more does "sex worker" encompass than "prostitute"? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you are able to clear this up as well. This sentence appears to contradict itself: "She points to the examples of single mothers on welfare (particularly women of color) and sex workers, who may be heterosexual, but are not heteronormative, and thus not perceived as "normal, moral, or worthy of state support" or legitimation." Now if they are on welfare, how can it be argued that they are not perceived as worthy of state support? It would be good to clarify this. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The basic contention regarding heteronormative social structures and, for example, single mothers is that though they receive welfare, they are not entitled to the same child-raising benefits such as tax breaks as heterosexual diads. Though single mothers can receive welfare, and though they are also raising a child, unlike legally documented heterosexual couples, they will not be entitled to the same considerations and institutional support.  That's the differentiation.  The argument is that it is due to a society's bias toward a heteronormative institution that these inequities exist.
 * Sex workers encompass all individuals who work in sex-related industries like prostitution, pornography, adult entertainment, etc. This fits with the statements of oppression by heteronormativity based on what is deemed "moral or normative" such as individuals being oppressed because they work in adult film or because, though they are heterosexual, they engage in homosexual/homoerotic adult material.  "Sex worker" is usually used synonymously with "prostitution," but it is not actually synonymous.  All prostitutes are sex workers, but not all sex workers are prostitutes.
 * In addition, we have to be careful with our editing because in this case, it appears that the "sex workers" was the term used by the author from the cited material. If that is the case, we do not have the liberty to change it, because anything else may not be what she meant at all.Luminum (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I agree with most of what you've said. The explicit ways that single mothers are apparently discriminated against may be more precisely explained in the article, lest it give the impression that it is contradictory. I'm also not sure how much this article should be straying into the more tangential issues associated with the crumbling of heteronormativity as... well, a norm. When does it stop addressing the narrow issue of heteronormativity, and get too much into the related issues? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

balance
I think it's not very balanced. i read it and the first thing i read is "critics" after reading what it is. without any supporting statements for it. that makes it an unbalanced article in my opinion, which is really biased and one sided. i think the goal of wikipedia is to inform, not to get across opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.243.127 (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed
Challenges to the label "heteronormative" may result from a belief that the description of a structure as heteronormative implies that the normative structure is inherently wrong. One of the most common criticisms of the concept of heteronormativity is that it is based on a purported desire to be politically correct. An example of this was a footnote to a March 11, 2005, opinion article by Scott Norvell of Fox News, which included a segment on a controversy over comments actress Jada Pinkett Smith made at Harvard University, describing the controversy as "politically correct nuttiness." Such criticism implies that the use of such carefully chosen wording and terms is a form of repression of speech, and that the articulation of important concepts is prevented or hindered by politically correct regulation of speech by intellectual elites.

Responses from those with heteronormative attitudes to individuals and groups who depart from heteronormative experience may range from tolerance, pity, and shunning to attempts to help members of these groups "gain normalcy" through compassionate, forceful, or violent means. Events that bring the idea of heteronormativity more into the foreground of social discourse, such as the Jada Pinkett Smith speech, do not necessarily represent such treatment. Ms. Pinkett Smith's comments were not necessarily homophobic, in that they did not represent active criticism of LGBTI people. However, her comments were heteronormative in that they made the assumption that normal relationships are only those between a man and a woman. Critics that describe her speech as heteronormative stated, "Our position is that the comments weren’t homophobic, but the content was specific to male-female relationships." I've removed the above as it was overly confusing and under-sourced. It also seems to take a jab at Jada Pinkett Smith, is she known for heteronormative speeches or opinions? Not sure. If this is important it's likely said better and by someone who's considered more an authority in the field. -- Banj e b oi   18:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The entire section is largely focused on Pinkett Smith, who really isn't that much of an authority on heteronormativity one way or another.  Additionally, the commentary around it is highly speculative and undersourced.  Remove it for now.Luminum (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that you removed "Some prominent theorists argue that heterosexual sex is itself one way that men maintain power over women, and therefore that heterosexuality is bad for women" as sex between two in love heterosexuals is a beautiful thing (in the view of heterosexuals) and has nothing to do with sadism in the male. Although i'm annoyed that you deleted my post: "Although humanity would become extinct if all women were homosexuals" as deleting that post basically means that the deleters believe that women can produce sperm that can impregnate another woman, which is biologically impossible and bizzarre. user:85.225.190.172 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.191.232 (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The point there was redundant. The page discusses an abstract social theory and how it applies to real-world social dynamics, not a delineation of reproductive realities.  Besides, even if someone advocated against heterosexuality because of its negative consequences for women, they could also argue (and probably do) that births would continue by promoting artificial insemination, which requires no heterosexual contact or interaction whatsoever.  Your entry was speaking to a non-issue and was an unsourced perspective (WP:OR), even if the content itself is a logical reality of life.  Similarly, you could have gone to the page Adam and Eve and written a similar blurb about how technically it's impossible that the entire human race arose from two people, and it would be deleted for similar reasons: The statement is logical and more or less factual, but in the smaller issue, unsourced and in the larger issue, not the point of the subject.Luminum (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

But how many men would want to donate sperm and have a child that they would never see or take care of? And a child always needs both a male and a female rolemodel. I'm not saying that two homosexuals don't want to take care of a child and are unable to love it, but a child needs both a male and a female perspective of things to have a normal life. It would also be likely that the child would be bullied for having two homosexual parents, as humans are more or less xenophobic by nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.190.79 (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting viewpoint. However, this talk page is for discussing sourced improvements to the article, per WP:TALK and WP:NOTAFORUM. Do you have any suggestions on how to change the article you would like to discuss? Gabbe (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Addition to 'Relation to marriage and the nuclear family'
I added to this section because many of the discussions surrounding heteronormativity tend to believe that "the family" has only changed post-50s. Research is beginning to show that this is often not the case. I added the following to reflect that. The traditional or heteronormative family has arguably not been the US norm pre- or post-1950s, and this should also be discussed.

The families of the second half of the 19th century and early 20th century in the United States were characterized by the death of one or both parents for many American children. Blended and stepfamilies have been common through most of American history and continue to be today. In 1985, the United States is estimated to have been home to approximately 2.5 million post-divorce, stepfamily households containing children. During the late 80s, almost 20% of families with children headed by a married couple were stepfamilies.

--Leininge (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A concern I raise above is whether this type of information may be too tangential to heteronormativity as a concept. This is basically background to one of the issues that heteronormativity implicates itself in - can its inclusion be explained?The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My perspective on heteronormativity is that it is a concept first and a reality second. In fact, most of the contention about heteronormativity is that it isn't a true reflection of reality, but a perception of reality that is upheld despite evidence to the contrary and that doing so is oppressive.  In that sense, the above information about diversity of family life even in the 50's is further proof that heteronormativity is not an accurate reflection of reality.  If you mean that the argument about heteronormativity is that it hearkens back to a no longer held reality that was the 50's, then the only problem would be that new evidence suggests that the concept of the heteronormative nuclear family was fraudulent even back then.  What are your thoughts on why it's tangential?Luminum (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (what happened to Signbot when you need it?)
 * I think what you are saying validates my point: unless the relevance of this information is explained in relation to the topic then it is a kind of original research. Somewhere, near that information, to interpret and explain it, a scholar or other noted person needs to say how this information shows how heteronormativity is this or that. We cannot include information that doesn't explicitly state how it's related to the article with an argument that "this is why I think it's related and what it proves about subject X." Do you see my concern? I'm not talking about whether what you have said is accurate or not. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I think the information can be incorporated quite easily in the section (I say this without any particular place in mind), such as a section discussing the flaws in heteronormativity. If it already discusses how heteronormative prescribes to a vision of normalcy that is inaccurate or outdated, specifically citing the 50's era or the nuclear family, then a follow up sentence would probably go something like, "Indeed, research shows that 'alternative families,' including those comprised of xxx, yyy, zzz existed in significant numbers during the era."  In that case, I don't think it would be OR, as it reinforces the point that the "nuclear family" was not the prevailing structure of 1950's America, though as it stands, I agree that it is tangential.Luminum (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Norm or discrimination?
Viewing the page on social norms, there is no mention of discrimination. Neither is there in the lifestyle article. From descriptions in the articles, it seems that if Heteronormativity is a social norm it is not discrimination (else most social norms become discrimination, or if it is discrimination it should not be classified a lifestyle norm.

Put another way, if it is a lifestyle norm, it implies choice, and thus would no longer be discrimination. Likewise, if there is no choice, it is no more a lifestyle than deafness.

For examples of a lifestyle which has no mention of discrimination, see Chav. As well, see the difference between the articles on Hearing impairment (discrimination against) and Deaf culture (no discrimination. Does anyone else agree that this topic should fall into only one of these two categories? Bakkster Man (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the issue aside that using Wikipedia pages as supports for other pages' content is a questionable practice (since other pages aren't the end all be all of those subjects), the definition of heternormativity does not describe that heterosexuality is a norm, rather than it intends to point out a perspective where people believe or behave as though heterosexuality is the norm. This socially pervasive perspective (heteronormativity) therefore contributes to discrimination against non-heterosexuals in various ways.  Heteronormativity is not lifestyle either, but heterosexuality is.  Establishing these norms about heterosexuality privileges heterosexuality and heterosexuals who follow those norms to the denigration of non-heterosexuals or even heterosexuals who don't happen to fall into the parameters of those norms.Luminum (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In which case, why do we have three different defined terms for essentially the same thing? Heteronormativity, homophobia, and heterosexism.  Why not merge all of the articles as they are highly interrelated? Bakkster Man (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would, assuming no one can find a clear distinction between them, agree that heterosexism and heteronormativity be merged. As far as I know, homophobia is defined as prejudice against homosexuals or the larger LGBTQ community.  I think heterosexism/normativity may result in, predispose individuals to, or facilitate homophobia, but they are not the same thing.Luminum (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this just is the norm and cannot be said to discriminate against homosexuals any more that stairs being the norm can be said to discriminate against disabled persons and so on. This is not pre-conceived, there is no group or thought behind this. - Schrandit (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is maintaining a norm justified in an era of awareness? This is only my opinion, but heteronormativity becomes increasingly problematic and less excusable as awareness of non-heterosexuals increases.  That also disregards the problems that heteronormativity creates for heterosexuals who don't fall into whatever rigid gender dynamics or gender roles established by a heteronormative/sexist culture.  To use your analogy, every building may have stairs, but in this day and age, why wouldn't it also have ramps and elevators for disabled persons' access?Luminum (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maintaining is the key word. Who goes about maintaining a norm?  By definition it does not require maintenence.  In a world of greater wealth where all building had handicapped entrences it would not be wrong to observe that the norm would still be to use stairs.  There is nothing wrong with observing that the norm is the family, to look at people who live outside it as inferior would be wrong but to merely acknowledge that this is how most folks live cannot be considered discrimination. - Schrandit (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Observing that something is the norm when it may not be is the problematic part. Can anyone specifically draw lines on what are "normal" families?  Is that decided by numbers?  Do families that involve divorced/remarried parents of opposite sex who engaged in infidelities outnumber families with opposite sex monogamous parents?  If they did, would that be the "norm"?  Anyway, that issue is discussed in a source in the article under "Relating to the family", suggesting that potentially, that idea of nuclear family normalcy wasn't predominant to begin with.
 * You are correct that observance has nothing to do with discrimination. However, assigning a "rightness" is discriminatory and subject only to personal belief.  Heteronormativity is not about pure observance; it is defined by theorists and its originator as including the privileging of supposedly "normative" heterosexualaity and deriving and assigning a moral ideal to it.  Heteronromativity also seems to describe social negligence (but this part is only my interpretation).  Using the analogy again, someone may believe/observe stairs to be the norm, but they'd still be guilty of social negligence if their building still didn't have access ramps and elevators.  Merely observing that "many people behave in X way" isn't wrong--I agree with you there.  That's just called being objective (assuming that the statement is actually correct to begin with).  But if you observe a norm, knowing that it is only a norm and not an absolute rule, then you have no excuse in neglecting to account for others (such as the analogy of not building ramps, or the reality of not incorporating comprehensive sexual health education and outreach or lacking resources salient to non-idealized heterosexual couples).  Negligence is problematic, and continuing to be neglectful or outright dismissive would be discriminatory (which we both agree on).  I can observe that the norm is to use stairs, but will saying that hold water or excuse me when I've failed to provide access to disabled persons?
 * Anyway, it seems that regardless of how we feel the correct terminology should be, the term as it is defined includes since its inception those "negative" aspects. I think you're trying to point out that what heteronormativity should mean is mere observance and therefore cannot be categorized as discriminatory, but the actual definition is more than that: (from Michael Warner's original publication; emphasis is my own)
 * "By heteronormativity we mean the institutions, structures of understanding, and practical orientations that make heterosexualty seem not only coherent--that is, organized as a sexuality--but also privileged. Its coherence is always provisional, and its privilege can take several (sometimes contradictory) forms; unmarked, as the basic idiom of the personal and the social; or marked as a natural state; or projected as an ideal or moral accomplishment. It consists less of norms that could be summarized as a body of doctrine than of a sense of rightness produced in contradictory manifestations--often unconscious, immanent to practice or to institutions. Contexts that have little visible relation to sex practice, such as life narrative and generational identity, can be heteronormative in this sense, while in other contexts forms of sex between men and women might not be heteronormative. Heteronormativity is thus a concept distinct from heterosexuality. One of the most conspicuous differences is that it has no parallel, unlike heterosexuality, which organizes homosexuality as its opposite. Because homosexuality can never have the invisible, tacit, society-founding rightness that heterosexuality has, it would not be possible to speak of "homonormativity" in the same sense. See Michael Warner, "fear of a Queer Planet," Social Text, no. 29 (1991): 3-17."
 * What you seem to be describing is (as fa as I know) some heretofore uncoined term. So if it's a question of whether this article should be categorized as containing subject matter relating to discrimination, and in particular, discrimination against non-heterosexuals such as LGBTQ individuals, by the definition of its subject it should.  I hope that's a helpful clarifier.Luminum (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct in your analysis that Heteronormativity, as a term, has the specific meaning of systematic perspectives that heterosexuality is normal and all else is of less worth. Thus, although it might sound like something else, we need to stick with the common definition (homophobia rarely describes an actual fear, as another example), even if it is a 'misnomer'.  Perhaps providing links to similar related terms might be good.  Some examples: Complementarianism, Gender equality, Difference feminism.  The question then, is why complementarianism or difference feminism aren't considered discriminatory, and to better elucidate the differences.
 * I'd be up for that, but also bear in mind that the lack of a compelling argument is being drawn from only from the discussion between myself, you, and one other individual. I would suggest either opening it up to the larger Wiki community, checking with social theory, queer therory, or LGBT project groups to see if anyone has more information to illuminate the issue, then go by that.Luminum (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I wouldn't want to make such a drastic change on a topic I know nothing about, without first consulting those who might have an idea. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case, I think it could be a stretch to lable heteronormativity as discrimination and as categories are supposed to be clearly deducable and uncontroversial I plan on removing it. - Schrandit (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, at least temporarily, as there is no mention of the word 'discrimination' in the body of the article. If it is discrimination, it should be labeled so in the body, not with a passive-agressive category tag.  I would keep the 'prejudice' tag, as the side bar labels it as prejudice and the prejudice category has a clearer explanation of the category requirements.  We can keep that setup until we get help from the LGBT studies group.  I have posted a request here. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still not certain that this topic belongs in the discrimination category, rather than simply the prejudice category (specifically Category:Sexual and gender prejudices). If so, then I would suggest a merge of this article with heterosexism as there seems to be no compelling argument that the two terms are actually referring to different things. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's a consensus to merge, then I guess discussing whether or not to remove the discrimination cat is moot, since heterosexism, by definition is discriminatory. Thanks for setting up the request!Luminum (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems it will be one or the other, not both. Until we've decided the proper course with the project, probably best to remove the category temporarily. Bakkster Man (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm surprised that I didn't see this before (along with you two) that the intro outlines rather blatantly that the page topic contributes to discrimination against homosexuals. It seems that the argument against maintaining the cat comes down to a technicality of it not being in the body in addition to being in the intro paragraph, which could be simply—and most importantly—appropriately integrated into the body.  Since the statement is sourced, I disagree that there is a consensus to remove (not that there was one to begin with) and I also disagree with the statement that it is safer to remove it, given that it's right there in the article.  I've added content based on sources I've found and those in the article to incorporate it into the body.  As far as the cat is concerned, it should now stay, since as the article is now, it fits the cat.  Likewise, I added the cat "Category:Racism" given that the source material highlights the impact of heteronormativity on racial prejudices.  I think the article can still use more sources and perspectives to form an ideal article, fleshing out perspectives and impacts (such as intersectionality, racism, "homonormativity", and perspectives in favor of heteronormativity (Ghallaggher probably isn't the only one out there, though I'm uncertain of the number of social theorists who may agree with her perspective), but I feel this is an improvement to its quality and organization nonetheless.Luminum (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just reread this statement: "This socially pervasive perspective (heteronormativity) therefore contributes to discrimination against non-heterosexuals in various ways" That seems to fit better with the description of heterosexism, rather than heteronormativity.  So, the argument should be that heteronormativity can lead to heterosexism, which is the actual discrimination.  Claiming heteronormativity 'contributes to' discrimination seems to be the politically correct (but not NPOV) thing to say.  How many other articles list topics that could contribute to discrimination in the discrimination category?  More importantly, if heteronormativity is discrimination, doesn't it instead become heterosexism?
 * So, rather that listing heteronormativity itself as discriminatory, would it not be better to list it as contributory to heterosexism which is heteronormativity taken to a discriminatory level? Of course, we would need to find citations, which might be difficult given nearly all sources on the subject are POV one way or the other, but it's worth a shot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakkster Man (talk • contribs) 13:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how saying that a normative set of beliefs that sets standards resulting in cultural levels of worthiness contributes to discrimination against those who do not fall into those standards is a "politically correct" thing to say. Normative beliefs about social wealth and status or about levels of cultural assimilation contribute to discrimination by socio-economic status or by ethnicity or cultural behavior.  Cited in the article, heteronormativity also relates to norms involving the concept of families, and also divides families into "ideal" and "not ideal" strata, privileging "nuclear families" over that of single mother homes, unmarried couples raising children, same sex parent families, etc.  (Even then, if one argues that this perspective of the "norm" is just the norm, research [also in the article] shows that the nuclear family may be based on a minority of actual families from the era, suggesting that the norm was never actually predominant, merely adopted as believed to be predominant.)  Likewise, discrimination (like sexism, racism, or heterosexism) can be passive or active.  If there's confusion about whether heteronormativity results in discrimination because one believes that by "discrimination" we mean "active acts of prejudice", then let's clear that up.  What I think sources on the page suggest has more to do with passive discrimination.  For example, if heteronormativity sets a perspective of focus solely on heterosexual needs, then a lesbian may find that her school's sex ed course doesn't address her concerns about having safe sex with another woman.  That is passive.  However, if she requests a comprehensive curriculum, heteronormative levels of worthiness and privilege manifesting through her teacher, school district, etc., favoring heterosexual needs and not those of non-heterosexuals, result in her concern being ignored or rejected.  That would be active.  That's my take on the linkage.


 * I agree that you're likely to get POV when searching for sources, but all abstract social theories are going to be POV, since philosophy and social theory is based on perspective, only meta-analysed by collecting all perspectives together. Basically most if not all sources discussing heteronormativity are going to link it directly to contributing to discrimination against non-heterosexuals (among others).  I think it'd be interesting and probably solve some overlapping issues if we could find sources that discuss heteronormativity as being synonymous or interchangeable with heterosexism.  I am unclear if the three terms are interchangeable, considering that I could personally argue distinctions between some of them.  Again, I'm not an authority on heteronormativity, it's only what I know and what I observe and theorize.  If the lit demonstrates either a clear distinction, no distinction, or controversy over whether or not they are distinct, then it should be included.  Until then, a recat would be inappropriate if there weren't any sources to challenge the content of the article, which is pretty explicit that heteronormativity is results in privilege for qualifying heterosexuals and results in discrimination against nonheterosexuals or non-qualifying heterosexuals.  Either way, the difficulty of resolving POV is probably going to come through clearly sourcing comments (such as stating that Lisa Duggin created the term "homonormativity" and an expansion on it came from Penny Griffin, rather than writing it as if one authority constitutes the consensus of all authorities, which would be misleading.)


 * I think the potential difficulty of finding "rich, thick, and deep" content for heteronormativity, particularly those that argue for it specifically (that is, sources that explicitly state rationale for why heterornormativity is positive or merely a neutral concept) owes to the fact that the term is relatively new and more predominant in queer social theory, compared to something like racism or racial privilege which is older and reached a broader range of individuals who can publish their perspectives on race-related social theory.  So far, all we're likely to find are bits and pieces of columns like Maggie Gallagher, which don't say much and don't expand the article besides merely being the limited antithesis of the other perspectives.Luminum (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Schrandit has been edit-warring to remove Discrimination of homosexuals from this and other articles. He states that this discussion is 3-0 in favor of removing that category to justify his last round. As more sources are certainly available that discuss how heteronormativity is indeed seen as discriminatory (whether it actually is or is not) I would appreciate others also keeping an eye on their edits here. The category does not mean heteronormativity is discriminatory but that the article is one in a category of articles where discrimination of homosexuals is part of the subject. Schrandit is keen on edit-warring this and similar categories off articles and that is degrading the quality of writing and research. 71.139.19.85 (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"Opression"
I'm sure there are people who hold that view but I'm not comfortable with taking that opion and stating that Heteronormativity is Opression, rather than describing the phenomenon and then saying that some commentators opine that it contributes to opression. - Schrandit (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hence it says "Critics such as...argue that..." rather than "Heternormativity is..." Also, if they were merely commentators, they would be indicated as such.  These are professionals in this field of study.  Commentators would be individuals like Amy Benfer and Maggie Gallagher, distinguished against professionals like McCreery, Cohen, Rubin, Somerville, and Todd.  Their "opinions" carry proportional weight.Luminum (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think the Cohen Heteronormativity = Heterosexism = looking down at signle mothers, many single mothers are black = Racism seems pretty fringe.
 * That's a good opinion for you to have, and you're welcome to find a credible source that describes her work as such. Cohen, on the other hand, has a professional opinion that passed review by peers for publication and whose work is reinforced by agreement from additional third party source, which validates her as a legitimate third party source.  And again, the statement is preceded by the indication that it is her opinion.  You can take issue with it if it were spun as hard fact, but it isn't.Luminum (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I also have no idea what McCreery is getting at. - Schrandit (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a forum to discuss his work. You can read the source material and attempt to refine it into something more understandable, but it seems clear to me and I summarized it to the best of my ability.  If you have additional criticisms of the content and can think of ways to improve the article, you're welcome to.  I think that would be best done by interpreting the statements based on the material and making appropriate changes and supplementing contradictory view points with legitimate third party sources.  Let me know if you need help.Luminum (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

removed
removed a pieces that hurt the flow of the article, and a couple that were one-sided arguments vs. being merely informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badtoaster (talk • contribs) 16:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry but removing large and referenced sections of an article without getting the consensus of others is not the way things are done on Wikipedia. Leave the sections as they are and explain here why you think specific content should be removed. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I was abiding by the census. The comments here are all about how the article is one-sided, trying to put a negative spin on heteronormativity by portraying it as a form of discrimination instead of a social norm. There are extra bits of argument that don't belong in the article, such as a pointless piece trying to connect it to racial stereotyping and an unfounded claim that families with heterosexual parents are no healthier for children then families with same-sex parents. Badtoaster (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is important to provide balance in an article and sometimes this involves representing views that may be unpleasant to some - assuming those views are held by more than a tiny minority and are properly sourced. See WP:DUE. Hopefully others will add their opinions. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I had the same thought as you at first, although the term as most frequently used is much closer to heterosexism as discrimination than a pure social norm. As such I agree that it seems like a misnomer, but the term most commonly refers to the discriminatory aspects (often unintentional).
 * The claim about children's development relating to their parent's sexual orientation is sourced, and immediately followed by two sourced counterpoints. I would prefer higher quality references to counterpoints if available (we are currently comparing a developmental psychologist to a pundit and an ethicist).  It would be preferable to find better sources and expand the article or replace content with better sourced information, rather than delete well sourced information that you happen not to agree with. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Balance is fine, this is an issue of non-balance though. Only one side of the viewpoint was represented, I have made a few edits in an effort to rectify the problem. Bakkster Man's edit solved one issue. The racism paragraph does not fit the topic so I removed it. A few words were edited out (unfair, ect.) where their only purpose was to create a one-sided argument out of the article itself instead of representing that side of the argument.Badtoaster (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't a consensus. A consensus is an agreement between 1) the editors and 2) a sufficient number of editors.  One editor's comments are about how it's one-sided and the editor was encouraged to find reliable sources to back up his or her other claims.  One editor was uncertain and enlisted the assistance of the LGBT Project.  My edits were made by expanding the article with sourced material.  In fact, the discussion died out after I added sourced material.
 * The "unfounded" claim you mention is actually well-founded, given that the source is a licensed developmental psychologist who was called to testify as an expert in court and provided a review of the literature on child development. All other aspects that you removed were sourced by experts--noted by their professions and their publications--in the field of study.
 * As was discussed on this article's discussion page, the inherent definition of the subject is that it is negative, and there's no avoiding that. Depicting it accurately means that you depict it as it is defined and as it is debated; and I reiterate Biker's statement: assuming those views are held by more than a tiny minority and are properly sourced.  It is defined as privileged and biased, which is also supported by expert scholarly debate, and has also been defended as positive by at least one non-authority commentator and an expert ethicist.  As a general comment to keep in mind, individuals often mistake neutrality as representing all sides equally in all topics, when true neutrality is representing the debate as it objectively exists--either equally divided or with the majority of experts supporting one side and a minority of experts on the other.  Taking a, say, 70/30 split and representing it as 50/50 would be inaccurate and vice versa.  That is why it is important to see if dissenting expert opinions exist and add them.  If they don't, then the reality is a majority vs. minority opinion, and removing majority opinion will result in a specious portrayal of the issue.
 * The term has been expanded to include its effect on other minority groups beyond gays and lesbians, and those claims are also cited. That the term has expanded to cover its effect on other minorities isn't "pointless", but a factual, sourced observation of the evolution of the term and how it is viewed by experts in the field of political and social theory.  It "fits the topic" because expert opinion connects the two.  It wouldn't fit the topic if it was mentioned extraneously and without a source.
 * You're welcome to add more dissenting opinion, but that should be done by adding information that is properly cited and from reliable third-party sources rather than by removing sourced counter-information.Luminum (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. While I think it's possible that the content relating to racism is potentialy fringe, it has 3 citations and should probably stay.  If we can find a critique to this viewpoint, I would love to add it. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There were two at that point (they were different page citations for the same overall text), but I've since added a third. I'll see if I can find a critique.Luminum (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that clarified the link between the term and the section. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the racial and minority views section constitutes a fringe view. I can find no serious academic discussion of it, only one off writings and think it should be removed. - Schrandit (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see three corroborating sources for that section. Unless you can show that all of them are 'fringe' authors, it should probably stay as it's highly linked to this topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Having more than one author doesn't mean it is not a fringe opinion. - Schrandit (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but if these are respected authors, it significantly reduces that likelyhood. Are we aware of the author's credibilities?  I see a political science professor and a sociology professor (probably credible).  I also don't see this as "departing significantly" from the mainstream topic of heteronormativity, part of the definition of a fringe theory.
 * That said, I think it makes sense to leave this discussion in unless it can be shown to be fringe (dismissive responses from other experts in the subject) or can be discredited (the authors themselves are not depending on science). At the same time, reference in a peer-reviewed publication would also be good to add. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Badtoaster comes off as a bad-hand POV account with similar distaste for gay people that has been the flavor of contention for another editor here intent on removing content they don't like. Calling content fringe is a mask for POV edit-warring in this case. The reason Schrandit couldn't find any serious academic discussion is because they either didn't look at all or didn't know where to look 71.139.39.160 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rainy day in San Fransisco was it? Did you actually take a peek at those google scholar results?  There are plenty of articles that use the word heteronormativity and the word racial in the same article but very rarely in the same sentence and even fewer seem to be arguing the position that our article currently advances.  Can we take a look at the text of the 3 articles we currently cite? - Schrandit (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be a dick. If you want to disagree with the quality of the articles, go ahead, but there's no point in a personal attack, even if they are anonymous.  I do agree that reviewing the position is reasonable, but the absence of peer-reviewed articles in the top of a Google search isn't proof of lack of discussion.  Let's take that search as a starting-off point for finding improved sources, and hopefully put this issue beyond discussion. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Some 4000 links suggest that the search demonstrates the topic has been given serious academic discussion directly refuting Schrandit's assertion that it has not. Sources are readily available showing the topic is not a fringe theory. 71.139.39.160 (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is far from my first interaction with that ip range. The fact that google turns up 4000 results when you punch in heteronormativity and race shows that google is an expansive search engine.  The fact that none of those results show a combination of the two subjects indicate that this is likely fringe material.  Are the cited documents avaliable for viewing somewhere? - Schrandit (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My viewpoint on homosexuality is not of any importance here, I came across this page and was annoyed by how the article was worded in a one-sided manner. It is my understanding that wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased source of information, not a debate platform. There were/are instances of phrasing where the editors personal opinion is too obvious. The racial tie in for instance, sourced or not, has no real relevance to the subject that I can tell, besides perhaps an editor overtly trying to tie in the subject mater to a readers feelings towards racial discrimination. I specifically started a wikipedia account to balance articles like this that offer only a negative or positive slant to the subject matter. Badtoaster (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Badtoaster those are reasons to improve the writing not to delete the material. Schrandit if those documents are searchable on Google generally they are available, you should know that. And my previous interactions with Schrandit can be best seen at article on Equality Mississippi where they edit warred to removed sources repeatedly. 71.139.39.160 (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, we are only talking about removing a paragraph here, not a whole page so calm down. Secondly, that part of the writing cannot be improved as (again) it is irrelevant to the subject matter. If I added a passage about the gay pride parade, it would possibly have a loose connotation to the subject but would not have any real relevance. The topic here is one of perceived social norms regarding sexuality and not an issue about racial discrimination, thus that paragraph should be removed entirely in my opinion. Badtoaster (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is no relevence to the topic and the sourcing is dubious. The paragraph should either be removed or drastically restructured to conform to WP:UNDUE. - Schrandit (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am calm so please don't insinuate I'm not. The paragraph is clearly stating the broader input that heteronormativity is not merely about whom someone has sex with and it impacts in many sociological areas and specifically cites race and people of color. The content is therefore useful to the subject and certainly relevant. Sociologists view homophobia and racism as similar social issues on different aspects of culture that often intersect. They have been studied and reported on many times and entire books are devoted to these subjects. 71.139.39.160 (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if homophobia were a form of racism, it would not infer that racism is a form of homophobia. Also, despite some people who confuse the two topics, neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals are a "race" so they are clearly two seperate subjects. The way the article is currently written, one would be lead to believe that a person who dislikes homosexuals would probably also descrimante bassed on race. I don't think there is enough corolation between the two subjects for it to be included here.Badtoaster (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where your leaping that logic from but the point remains that heteronormativity also has been shown in academic discussion to also concern racial issues. Whether you like it or not the subjects have been studied and reported on. Racism and homophobia are both social constructs and both have been studied in academic literature in relation to heteronormativity. 71.139.39.160 (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph is mostly one woman's opinion and then two sentences of someone agreeing with her, it is hardly a wealth knowledge from in-depth studies. I do not find find the opinions of two people relevantly significant here and I do not think they speak for the majority. Racial discrimination is a separate topic all together and should not be confused with the topic at hand, not even if you sited three people. Badtoaster (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to hundreds of books written by more than those three. We should consider who is indeed an authority on the subject and see what they state. 71.139.39.160 (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Anonymous, would you care to select any 1-3 peer-reviewed writings on the subject and cite the relevant sections here? If you can find them, then the paragraph clearly belongs and an explanation of the role race plays in 'heteronormative' discrimination (ie, certain races are viewed as more likely to be non-heteronormative).  If all we have are Google searches showing that the two words appear in the same paper, then we aren't any closer to determining if this is a fringe theory or not.
 * On the other side of the coin, can anyone show that these three authors cited in the article are either credible or radical members of their fields? Rather than assuming these three are radicals because you don't agree or like the paragraph, show they are radicals.  As they say, 'put up or shut up'. Bakkster Man (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems sensible Bakkster. A quick google search didn't turn up much information on either person. I can look more in the morning but I don't get the impression that they are very well known. For the record though Anonymous, writing books doesn't always make someone an expert. I have written hundreds of poems, a few of them award winning and published, but no one is quoting me as an expert on the poem page because frankly my opinion on the subject doesn't matter. In this case, I can't see how the opinions of two people represnt an entire social perception of what is normal. I certainly don't think they can merge this topic with the completely seperate topic of race.Badtoaster (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've punched around google a bit and I can't find much, I also can't find the text to some of our sources for the section. I see your flip-side argument Bakkster but it seems (particularly from the google scholar results) that the idea that heteronomativity is racist is so strange that very very few people have ever bothered to examine it in the first place so the lack of a academic rebuttle would be logical. - Schrandit (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, the eagerness to remove content because Schrandit's Google punching fails again is troubling and plain wrong. I'm sure there are many more but this should quickly demonstrate that academic sources do exist, this is not a fringe theory as alleged and many researchers have delved into these subjects. 71.139.39.160 (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1., Ignoring the Sexualization of Race: Heteronormativity, Critical Race Theory and Anti-Racist Politics
 * 2. From Homophobia and Heterosexism to Heteronormativity: Toward the Development of a Model of Queer Interventions in the University Classroom - "By examining homophobia and heterosexism within the larger context of heteronormativity at the intersections of race, class, and gender, I propose, in this article, a model of queer interventions in the university classroom. The article is divided into three sections. First, I describe the conceptual terrain of homophobia, heterosexism, and heteronormativity, and their potential limitations. Second, I present an integrative model, using heteronormativity as the central site of violence, to examine homophobia at the intersections of race, class, and gender within the larger social and cultural domain (macroscopic level) and interpersonal context (microscopic level) and illustrate this model with specific classroom activities. Finally, I discuss the implications of the model for teaching and theorizing about homophobia, heterosexism, and heteronormativity."
 * 3. The Gender Caste System: Identity, Privacy, and Heteronormativity
 * 4. Rethinking Homophobia: Interrogating Heteronormativity in an Urban School, "This article challenges the reader to think of homophobia as a negative social force affecting all members of an urban school community. The author argues that homophobia can only be undone if it is attacked at the intersection of race, class, and gender."
 * 5. Blood and desire: The secret of heteronormativity in adoption narratives of culture
 * 6. Texts of Our Institutional Lives: From Transaction to Transformation: (En)Countering White Heteronormativity in "Safe Spaces"
 * 7. "Now Why do you Want to Know about That?": Heteronormativity, Sexism, and Racism in the Sexual (Mis)education of Latina Youth
 * 8. Heteronormativity, Equality, and the Family: Beyond the Freedom to Marry
 * 9. Blogging the borders : Virtual skinheads, hypermasculinity, and heteronormativity = Les frontières bloguées : les skinheads viruels, la hypermasculinité et la hétéronormativité
 * 10. Moving Beyond the Inclusion of LGBT-Themed Literature in English Language Arts Classrooms: Interrogating Heteronormativity and Exploring Intersectionality

Interesting how little one can find about these authors when the first Google search about them seems to hammer in their authority:
 * From the University of Chicago: "Cathy J. Cohen, is the David and Mary Winton Green Professor of Political Science. Cohen is the author of the book The Boundaries of Blackness: AIDS and the Breakdown of Black Politics (University of Chicago Press, 1999) and the co-editor with Kathleen Jones and Joan Tronto of Women Transforming Politics: An Alternative Reader (NYU, 1997). Her work has been published in numerous journals and edited volumes including the American Political Science Review, GLQ, NOMOS, and Social Text. Cohen is also editor with Frederick Harris of a new book series from Oxford Press entitled "Transgressing Boundaries: Studies in Black Politics and Black Communities."
 * An explanation of what David and Mary Winton Green Professorship means: "The David and Mary Winton Green professorship is the result of a new $2 million gift to the school by David and Mary Winton Green made to recognize and support the work of a distinguished clinical faculty member."


 * Lorena Garcia as a PhD and Assistant Professor at University of California


 * From New York University on Patrick McCreery: "Patrick McCreery's teaching and research interests lie in the areas of sexual politics, family life, and social space—particularly in the United States of the last 60 years. At Gallatin, he has taught interdisciplinary seminars that focus on the politics of childhood, artistic representations of HIV-AIDS, and the relationship between urban space and sexual identity. His dissertation, "Miami Vice: Anita Bryant and the Discourses of Child Innocence and Homosexual Predation," examines Bryant's 1977 anti-gay campaign as a case study that illuminates the political efficacy of child-centered rhetoric. Professor McCreery has published essays in journals such as GLQ, New Labor Forum, Radical History Review, and Social Text. He is coeditor of the anthology Out at Work: Building a Gay-Labor Alliance. McCreery is also a recipient of Gallatin's Adviser of Distinction Award."

Two sources from widely published academic professionals, one of whom is particularly distinguished compared to the other two. No where int he article does it state that this is a majority opinion or a minority opinion. Removing the authors, if anything, would suggest that the opinion is a majority opinion. Citing the authors in text demonstrates who says what. If you want to counter it, find sources that critique the opinion or depict it as a fringe or minority opinion. That is going to stand as the strongest argument against them. That section explores additional effects of heteronormativity, documented and debated by scholars. But saying that the sources consist of "some woman" or trying to diminish their notability by saying that you "just can't find anything" isn't going to cut it. It's all right there. Is it so difficult to find the sources you need? Let me know if you need help. Because I'm seeing a lot of "let's just take it down" instead of "let's prove our position". I keep suggesting the appropriate steps to take and I'm not seeing much action.Luminum (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that countering is an option here. Perhaps these two individuals Luminum have piles of published papers between them, but their choice of subject matter in this case (tying race to heteronormativity) seems to be on the fringe enough not to have roused the interest of critiquers as far as I can tell. As such, it should either be removed for being fringe or should be worded in such a way that it is clear that this is only the opinion of the two individuals listed and perhaps a small minority.

And for the record, sometimes cutting an article is the best way for improving it and it shouldn't be looked down on as an option. I too have suggested steps for improving the article, and my action would be to ask for a consensus to be formed on whether the best option is cutting or rewording. I vote for cutting personally as I think the two subjects are not connected despite a handfull of writers who think otherwise. Badtoaster (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed we have gone from a couple to a dozen now yet still you wish to claim this as a fringe theory and demand deletion. Please back up your claims with reliable sources that the rest of us can judge if your assertion of fringe theory merits any further investigation otherwise it feels exactly like I don't like it so remove it which is not how knowledge is built. 01:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.39.160 (talk)

Yes I do. Most of your links Anonymous do not connect the issues of race and heteronormativity, the ones that do don't necessarily do so to the same results as the paragraph here (a lot of the article descriptions seem to point to how heteronormativity affects different races and not claiming that is the same as racial discrimination). Frankly, it is a fringe view because it is a fringe view, I guarantee that you cannot produce one article stating that it is the viewpoint of the majority because it is in fact only the musings of a few people in the minority, even if those musings are by credited writers. And again, by that logic it should be worded as a viewpoint of the minority or taken out altogether as being too fringe as to be able to advance the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badtoaster (talk • contribs) 03:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bingo. I read the anon's links and none of them appear to advance the idea that academia seriously contends that heteronormativity is racism.  It looks like the results of a google scholar search for the words "hetronormative" and "racism".  There are indeed papers that use both of those words, but few in the same sentence, and fewer that believe that one is a subset of the other.
 * To Luminum, I am all about including the minority viewpoint (in proper context) but if we're going to dump heteronormativity inside the category racism we really had better be pretty sure that the scholarly consensus is that it is racist. - Schrandit (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well since homosexuals are not a race, then clearly being against homosexuality cannot be called racist. At best, similarities can be drawn between the two subjects or statistics could be shown (were there any) about how much more likely a person might be inclined to be racist as well. In either case, I can't see how it fits very well into this article. And again, we're talking about a social norm here, the abstract musings of a few writers do not represent society as a whole. Badtoaster (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Read that section of the article again. The connection being made is not heteronormativity is the same as, or leads to and causes racism.  Instead, it is that certain racial minorities are stereotyped as non-heteronormative.  The example shown is with Latina women being stereotyped as 'fiery' and thus more likely to have sex outside of marriage.  In this instance, it would be a case of racial stereotypes feeding 'heteronormative' attitudes.  The article seems clearly written to make this point (which seems to be correct), but if it can be improved so that misinterpretation isn't made, by all means do so. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That just sounds strange. If racial minorities are seriotyped as poor does that make poverty racist?  If racists try to seriotype minorities are non-heteronormative that does not make heteronormativity racist. - Schrandit (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It really wouldn't surprise me if Badtoaster turned out to be puppet of Schrandit's, they seem to parrot each other with the same baseless assertions that are directly countered by reliable sources and reasoned explanations. Simply repeating fringe theory a hundred times and putting words in other users' mouths doesn't advance your position. Plenty of sources show that heteronormativity is at the intersection of race, gender and class as are many forms of discrimination. This is not fringe, it's rather typical line of thinking in sociology. 71.139.39.160 (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That's funny coming from someone without an account. The reason Schrandit and I agree is because it's obviously fringe, nothing you have contributed proves otherwise. You cannot infer that the majority of society is racist simply for not approving of homosexuality. Maybe your personal opinions on the matter are getting in the way of your journalistic abilities, because any sensible person knows that papers written for the sake of academia have no real bearing on how society actually functions.Badtoaster (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a straw-man argument. The position advanced in those papers is not "the majority of society is racist simply for not approving of homosexuality".  Rather, the position is that racial stereotypes exist before any heteronormative attitudes enter into it.  The argument you believe is being made does not exist, and is not the topic of discussion.  If the article text is somehow confusing that it has been misinterpreted that way, let's fix it.  However, it seems that there is a large body of work linking pre-existing stereotypes of minorities to heteronormative viewpoints. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the precise nature of that link? - Schrandit (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From our article:
 * She found that heteronormative sexual education often utilized a "racial lens" that typified Latina girls as "excessively reproductive" compared to their white counterparts and "thus nonconforming to idealized heteronormative standards" resulting in sexual education that constructed Latina girls as "at risk."
 * In other words, if there is a racial or other stereotype that a minority is likely to have sex or live outside a monogamous marriage, they will be thought differently of, particularly in sex education as referred to explicitly. There is no saying heteronormativity is racist, nor that racism is caused by or causes heteronormativity.  It only says that minority stereotypes in conjunction with heteronormativity can cause additional discrimination or differential treatment.  That sounds reasonable to me, not reflecting as harsh against "simply for not approving of homosexuality", and well documented.  I fail to see a compelling argument that this is fringe or otherwise in need of removal. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So can we then removed the category Racism? - Schrandit (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The category racism isn't necessarily for topics that are racist, only related to racism. I agree that it's confusing, but we would need to change the policy of the category, remove the section, or split the part on heteronormativity and race to its own article (or merge somewhere more appropriate).  I feel like moving the content to a more relevent article (sexuality and race, anything exist?) and then removing this category would be ideal, particularly if we could find other studies of similar intersections of race and sexuality. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the scope of the category but I still think we're outside it. If we're going to say that some folks steriotype minorities an non-hetronormative there are plenty of other things that some folks seriotype minorities as being outside of that are not included in the racism category.  Again, I understand the scope of the racism category but I see nothing being included in it due to a similar proximity.
 * Maybe an article on race and sexuality? - Schrandit (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Schrandit read the sources, we have a dozen so far and many of them helpfully include summaries. You and Badtoaster have lobbied to delete content you either don't like or approve. Those deletions were reverted same as much as your POV edit-warring on many articles related to gays and lesbians. Other Catholics don't come to Wikipedia to edit-war and remove content simply because they don't approve, they try to improve articles. You falsely remove categories and edit-warred to remove them even after multiple sources confirmed the categories were correct. You then slapped fact tag on numerous statements and now you're arguing against sources. If you can find reputable and reliable sources that racism has nothing to do with heteronormativity then please present those. Otherwise I think you've done everything you could to remove content here and given it a noble fight. Call it a day. 71.139.39.160 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After your blatent and failed attempt to misrepresent sources I'm done listening to anything you have to say on this matter. - Schrandit (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing me with someone else, I haven't attempted to edit any other page but this one. And you are the one loosing here, you just don't see it. There is no logical reason to try to merge these two separate topics and your links are bogus. You ask for proof that doesn't exist because you know the idea is so fringe that no one has cared to counter it. Kindly step aside and let unbiased editors cut the frill out, the paragraph is either getting reworded or cut but it is not staying as is because there is no justifiable reason for it being there. Badtoaster (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Bakkster, by your own reasoning the article is saying that heteronormativity combined with racism is potentially be a problem, but I could just as well say that racism and anger issues combined could be a problem. I don't see relevance for it here even as you put it, and I think it is not worded clear enough that the average reader would come to the same conclusions you did. If the majority felt that it should be kept and reworded so that the message is clearly that together those issues are problematic and not that one begits the other, then I would think that a fair solution. Otherwise, my vote stands for cutting it. Badtoaster (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Part of heteronormativity is the way it affects different people differently. The section in question discusses the disparate impact on people of color and other people who aren't necessarily queer. Why isn't this relevant? -- Irn (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't pick the topic to add, the authors who wrote about it did. See above where I suggest spinning off an article. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Both Schrandit and Badtoaster have demonstrated they have no interest in the subject area but to mitigate it's significance likely due to the connection to gays and lesbians (what they and the right-wingers call homosexuals). Instead of working to best represent what academic scholars have to say on the subject they argue to delete and remove that which they are woefully uninformed. When asked for sources I have listed reputable ones not affiliated with Catholic blogs. If you don't like what reliable sources state you likely should write your own blog where reasonable research doesn't have to be presented and anything you don't approve can be labelled as fringe or anything else you wish. 71.139.39.160 (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, you reasonably express that perhaps the content could be moved to a more appropriate article, this is the article about heteronormativity and its connection to racism is likely best dealt with here. The only reason this is even being discussed is that Schrandit failed at removing the category Discrimination against homosexuals and is now trying to remove the Racism category. I appreciate the willingness to suspend doubt but we have a POV edit-warring editor simply eager to remove content they don't like. I caught Schrandit targeting gay and lesbian categories but they seem to have a record of doing this same kind of deteriorating work on hundreds of articles. Let's get more people to look into this style of editing and edit-warring so Schrandit's work can be seen for the value it has. Routine vandalism clean-up is one thing but POV-edit-warring is ungodly at best. 71.139.39.160 (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * POV edit warring aside, if there is another article that already deals with this topic (sexuality and race), this link might be best handled there. While Schrandit is likely targeting the category for no reason, I do agree that it seems odd to have an article with minimal links to race tagged in the racism cat.  It might not be worth creating a whole new article, but if there's a better place it could be, let's throw it there. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gents, in my defense I am not the user who instigated this discussion. - Schrandit (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, whoever recently moved the second paragraph from the intro down to a new section "Criticisms" made a really nice move. For now, the opening describes the concept well enough and is much less POV-heavy. Thanks for doing that.Luminum (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Amen. - Schrandit (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That was me. I also read through the disscusion here and added a simple sentance pointing towards it being a scholoarly veiw, should apease everyone maybe. Feel free to reword or remove if you dissagree. Paperbeatsrock (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The popularity of said view also seems to be in contention. - Schrandit (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the genesis of the exact term heteronormativity was in relation to this exact criticism (see the secion, origin of the term), I think it's silly to debate the 'popularity' of the viewpoint. That seems to be a given. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasn't clear there, I was mentioning the conection with racism as being contentious. - Schrandit (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes. And sorry, maybe I'm slow this morning but I'm still not getting what you're saying Schrandit.

Though I get your point Bakkster, now that there is a criticism section maybe there should be "support" section as well? Just because the term was coined as a criticism doesn't mean that everyone is going to dislike the definition. It is a social norm so a lot of people are going to be supportive of the idea, I'm sure it would be easy to find sources that find heteronormativity a logical or moral stance (even if they don't specifically use that word). Comments on this? Badtoaster (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in finding some way to do this. The difficulty is, of course, that such articles or papers likely wouldn't use the term heteronormativity.  So, we need to be careful that papers we cite fit within the subject.  I have also linked to related terms and topics, such as Complementarianism.  However, there isn't any reason to prevent a 'support' section.  Perhaps in reference to 'proper' sexual relationships mirroring biological and reproductive processes?  We already have this present (though not in a unique section) with the Somerville and Gallagher references. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the criticism section should be banished and the content put into a logical place, at the very least a more neutral section title although several sentences don't seem to need their own section. In the same vein a support section is equally bad. This term comes from queer theory yet the first paragraphs dance around that this is about LGBT people being discriminated against and that it's a queer theory concept that has gained much acceptance in many fields. In this effort to de-gay this article we do a disservice to the subject and of course Wikipedia's reputation of not censoring content. That a POV-pusher wants to mitigate that this subject is all about gay people and it also encompasses racism topics should not stop reasonable and mature efforts to improve the article. 71.139.29.193 (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that we have moved on from the topic racism (I have anyway), and I like the new criticism section. It makes a lot more sense being there then in the opening. Your posts always make me think that you have an agenda other then removing pov Anoynomous. Anyway, I like the idea of putting a "support" section together if we could find the sources for it. Badtoaster (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, (CAVEAT! I think the section needs a sentence explaining that such a connection appears to only be advocated by a very small number of people.).
 * Per the anon, probably just better to ignore him/her.
 * Here are a few things that came up from google for a possible "support" section;
 * http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149918,00.html - Jada Pinkett's dust up at Harvard for defending the familiy as a positive institution.
 * http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/07/world/fg-briefs7.2 - The Vatican, this source isn't great, I'm sure more can be found. The Chuch has issued many statements reflecting on how the family is best for children and society as a whole.
 * http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/38239 - this Rabbi has covered the topic.
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258349/Same-sex-parents-bad-children-contact-adults-genders.html - Baroness Deech, the top UK family lawyer says that the family is the best for children/society and that the law should reflect this.
 * http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/09/The-Transatlantic-Divide-on-Marriagenbsp-Dutch-Data-and-the-US-Debate-on-Same-Sex-Unions - Heritage says Dutch homosexual marriage led to the collapse of the family there. - Schrandit (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good research. Write something up!
 * As per POV vs. NPOV, remember that this applies to the article text, not the topic. This topic is inherently a point-of-view, our challenge is to describe these POVs without giving an inherent bias to our writing.  In other words, the article will have criticisms and supporting texts, our writing just shouldn't assume it to be correct.  I will agree that having a section titled "Criticism" is generally less preferable than having both the support and critical sources (which there should be for each other section).  It should be fixed when possible, but I don't think we need to delete the content. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem I have with this (and with the idea of a support section in general) is that these sources are not actively advocating heteronormativity, but rather are making heteronormative arguments. So unless people actually start defending heteronormativity -- and not making heteronormative arguments in defense of nuclear families or whatever -- I think a support section constitutes WP:OR because they rely on the editors' interpretation to "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". -- Irn (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * True that, true that. Again, this was just a simple search but how do you about the daily mail article by the top family lawyer saying that the family was better than any thing else and that the state should preserve it to the exlcusion of any thing else.  A lof of these articles talk about heteronormative concepts with out ever using the term heteronormative.  Maybe we could just quote a few sources without much summarizing so as to avoid an potental OR problems? - Schrandit (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel like, on any given subject, there's a heteronormative argument to be made and one critical of heteronormativity. Making the heteronormative argument doesn't necessarily make one a supporter of heteronormativity so we could only include it in some sort of "support for x aspect of heteronormativity" section. I think the real problem here is that heteronormativity as a concept carries a negative connotation intentionally – like racism or chauvinism. What matters most in understanding it isn't to see what people think about it (i.e. criticism versus support) but rather to understand how it affects people. If people have different opinions on its effects, then maybe we can go from there. -- Irn (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sold on the idea that heteronormativity as a concept is evil like racism (I suppose practice, can an idea be evil?). You are right that there are wavering definitions of the subject (thought - has an authoritative source made a succinct definition?) and this will make things very difficult but there are scholars out there who have said that the family is the building block of society and that as such society should cater to the family to the exclusion of other relationship and incentivise the family to the exclusion of other relationships.  Would you see that as broad support for heteronormativity? - Schrandit (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need to think that heteronormativity is evil; my point was just that heteronormativity was created with a negative connotation. Thus, people don't come out and support it explicitly – like with racism or chauvinism – but rather support aspects of it. That could change, but from what I see right now, the word's use is restricted to criticism. As for the example you give, yes, I would consider that evincing support for heteronormativity. However, that's just my opinion, which is where the problem lies. -- Irn (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, and I suppose evil is a strong word for an encyclopedia. I suppose we'll just have to try all the harder to provide contrary opinions without hitting the synth trip-wire.  Let me know what you think. - Schrandit (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you "suppose we'll just have to try all the harder to provide contrary opinions"? Honestly, I think that the use of the word and concept is pretty much restricted to queer theory as I don't see either as having really gained traction beyond that. Given that, I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to be searching out support where there is none. I don't doubt that there are people who would in theory support heteronormativity if they were familiar with it. But until they become familiar with it and start actually supporting it in reliable sources, I don't see the point of searching out contrary opinions. If we have to try harder to find and include them, it seems we're heading into WP:UNDUE territory. -- Irn (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * UNDUE concerns are not illogical, I think we can find sources who understand they are dealing with heteronormative concepts and supporting them, I also think there is no shortage of significant sources.

As usual Schrandit has shown their cards again. The research in families and well-being of children shows that children are best served by having loving and supportive parents regardless of sexuality or gender. This s of course inconvenient for those wishing to push their POV that gay parenting is inferior. Irn is indeed correct that this is novel research not supported by sources. Those are not peer-reviewed studies comparing heterosexual compared to gay couples. 71.139.29.193 (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No, bad research, again. Treat the subject neutrally and use the best sourcing possible. Of the sources Schrandit offers above only one even has the word heteronormative and is from Bill O'Reilly blustering about Jada Pinkett Smith. This is a good example why sources need to be of a high caliber and actually speak of the subject. Jada Pinkett Smith is no expert but an incidental line could be potentially added somewhere if her incident seems notable. Meanwhile don't fix a POV-pushing problem by shoveling on more POV-pushing. Use the best sources and perhaps insist they actually are about this subject directly. Though the Vatican I'm sure is regarded as the ultimate authority by certain editors we can actually look to those who are experts on the subject. 71.139.29.193 (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as we have sources which deal with the subject directly, we should include them. Both sides should be covered, and if one side happens to have more reliable sources the reader can make their own inferences from that.  For some additional references, I've found the following:
 * Potential Impact of Homosexual Parenting on Children, The; Wardle, Lynn D.
 * Division of labor among lesbian and heterosexual parents: Associations with children's adjustment., although I think it would be a stretch to consider the heterosexual couples as heteronormative, with the husbands reporting less than half of all work types, including decision making.
 * Again, just because the research isn't as 'good' doesn't mean we should leave it out. If the best that can be found are pundits and other non-researchers, then the article will be NPOV, even if the weight of the evidence tips a certain way. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No doubt, I in no way believe that the principle of airing both sides means we have to treat both arguments as equally valid. At the end of the day, only one of these is right, it makes sense to put up as many legitimate sourced statements as we can and to let the reader decide.  If there are more statements favoring one side then so be it. - Schrandit (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that using the word "heteronormativity" is necessary as long as the research deals with the same subject and definition. It should be fairly easy to find papers on heterosexual couples being more beneficial for children, or how a traditional family unit provides a stronger base for a society. There is even one scholar (who I can't remember their name at the moment) who wrote a paper crediting the fall of Rome to the fact that they were moving away from traditional marriage. Seems to me that papers like that could be used to form a scholarly veiwpoint suporting the idea. I think as Bakkster said, merging the criticism section into a criticism/support section would probably make the most sense. I can help with the research if someone wants to whip something up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badtoaster (talk • contribs) 16:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If I've got time later tonight I'll try to put a small "positive" or "support" section together. Let me know what ya'll think and please chip in anything you have.  I'm mostly worried about avoiding OR and Synth as most of the positive sources don't use the word "heteronormativity" directly. - Schrandit (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you think the word “heteronormativity” needs to be used? Heteronormativity is an incredibly broad subject area, and just because someone makes heteronormative arguments does not mean that that person is arguing in favor of heteronormativity (rather, said individual would be arguing in favor of but one aspect of heteronormativity). Therefore, I think to focus only on “research that deals with the same subject and definition” is incredibly tricky territory because it needs to be the 'exact' same subject and definition, which I imagine will be rather difficult to find without encountering the word “heteronormativity”. Further, as with any concept, different people have different ideas of what “heteronormativity” means, so I don't even know what the same subject and definition would be. As I said above, if the individual does not explicitly support heteronormativity, by including it in a support section, we are violating WP:SYNTH by reaching a conclusion not explicitly stated by the author. -- Irn (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Different groups of people use different terms to describe similar things. I think I can avoid synth by just directly quoting or describing what the author wrote bereft of my own input I should be good to go. - Schrandit (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true, but how would you contextualize it? In a section called “support”? Or simply opposite whatever claim is being opposed? Because the latter is what how the article was already structured, and the former would be adding your opinion of the quoted material. -- Irn (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

How about instead of calling it "criticism/support" we just call it "arguments" or "arguments for/against", and quote sources that argue that heterosexual relationships are superior or moral and sources that criticize that way of thinking. Badtoaster (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds solid to me, I'm going to give it a go, let me know what you think. - Schrandit (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how changing the name to "arguments" makes it better. As the article stands, support for heteronormative institutions is already integrated into the text. Why is this method not sufficient? -- Irn (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In the entire text, there is very little support mentioned while there are several sources of criticism, the article has a definitive negative slant to it. Integrating an "arguments for/against" section would allow the reader to come to their own conclusions without leading them to one. It may be sufficient as is, but a little balancing would improve the article's neutrality. Lets see how the article reads with this section edited and then we can debate if it's improved or diminished Badtoaster (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand that you don't think there is enough support for heteronormativity in the article, but you're not answering the question: why do you think a new section is necessary to deal with this? Why can't whatever support you have simply be incorporated into the current sections – like it is already. If you think more support needs to be added, why can't that be done given the current structure of the article? -- Irn (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Just seemed easier to make a new arguments section, though adding support sources throughout the article to go along-side the criticism would have the same affect. Now that I think about it, that probably is a better way of going about evening the article. Does anyone else have an opinion as to which option would be more cohesive? Badtoaster (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A separate section would be easier (also, I don't think any one has ever written an argument that heteronormativity is not racist, or countered a few of the other more unique writings) but I could go either way. - Schrandit (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be easier to lump support in with with the criticism section, but I'm thinking Irn has a point. It might make more sense to add a few sources through-out and leave the criticism section alone. I could be wrong though, I leave it to the consensus.

And your right, I don't think you could find that word used in a positive light as it seems to only be used by those criticizing the definition, but I think support for several points of the definition could be easily sourced. There are several papers on how traditional marriage makes for a stronger society for example which lends some credence to the idea. I think it's important to note that there are possibly moral or intellectual reasons behind why someone might fit into this category that aren't well represented in the article. I'm sure there are other ways of going about it as well if anyone else has some ideas. Badtoaster (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, the issue that the term is only used by one side of the debate practically necessitates there not be an "arguments for/against" section. Even if not, these types of sections are best used when there is well documented and structured debate, since this type of section can much more easily drift into POV.  For example, we could end up with arguments over 'who gets the last word', and warring over who is the 'critic' and who is 'in support' because the term can involve a tacit endorsement.
 * On this note, I have removed the reference to 'criticism' in the Discrimination section, since I think that was a confusing term (criticism of what? Heteronormativity as a concept?  Heteronormative attitudes?).  Wouldn't criticism be saying heteronormativity isn't discrimination?
 * So, I think we should find dissenting opinions where we can, and add them to the article where appropriate. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I changed "some writers" to "critics of heteronormativity." I'll try to look for some sources to add this afternoon if I have time. If anyone else wants to do some research that's cool too. Badtoaster (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is that 'critics of heteronormativity' doesn't seem specific. It could mean either of the following:
 * 1) People critical of heteronormative attitudes (the correct one)
 * 2) Critics of the theory of heteronormativity (critics who say it doesn't cause discrimination or isn't 'bad')
 * I'm sure there's a less ambiguous term. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, added "attitudes" to it, looks good to me but if someone can come up with something better feel free. Badtoaster (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)