Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 2

The article reads like a carefully crafted indictment by a cultural theorist who's bending over backwards not to caricature what is essentially a villian, from the author's perspective. I recognized nothing in the article as much as the targets that postmodernists put up to write about.

The problem in the topic, I think, is that there's no one directly advocating heteronormativity; instead, the word and the concept are drawn from those attacking it as an amalgamation of conservative, traditional, or modernist memes. Thus, the normal NPOV tactic of giving a charitable reading of a proponent's articulation, next to the opposite point of view, doesn't work.

I think that the article would be more honestly written by acknowledging that heteronormativity is a postmodernist concept that represents the deconstruction of a lot of things against which they're fighting. Fairness would then imply links to other wiki pages like Focus on the Family that sincerely advocate heteronormative views, in a line something like "heteronormativity is the name given to various viewpoints espoused by groups like..."

Justin Johnson 20:30, 18 Mar 2004 CST

[P0M:] What you say makes sense to me, although one of the contributors who has done a lot with related topics seemed to think that "heteronormativity" was an acceptable norm across the board. How about doing some research to find out where the term really came from? P0M 02:41, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[JJ]: Funny: a google search on "heteronormative" brings up the Wikipedia entry as #1!

Here's some of the other results, in whole or part:


 * "HETERONORMATIVITY (heteronormative): Those punitive rules (social, familial, and legal) that force us to conform to hegemonic, heterosexual standards for identity. The term is a short version of 'normative heterosexuality.' "(http://www.sla.purdue.edu/academic/engl/theory/genderandsex/terms/heteronormativity.html)


 * "(De)Constructing Heteronormative Discourse: Pan sexuality as Naturalized Narrative in E. M. Forster's Maurice and 'Little Imber'"(http://www2.sfu.ca/english/HonEssays/thesis110.html)


 * "Heteronormativity is the unproblematized assumption that erotic desire for members of the opposite sex, as well as its perceived by-products (such as the nuclear family), are fundamental to the human psyche" (http://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9405c&L=victoria&T=0&F=&S=&P=23267)


 * "Heteronormative - The prevailing culture that falsely views heterosexuality as 'normal' behaviour and alternative sexuality or gender identity as deviant." (http://www.bi.org.au/art/read/dictionary.htm)

These were typical of what I found through the first ten pages of the search, almost all of which were academic pages or pages from sites about queer theory and the like. Note the words used to describe it: "punitive", "(de)constructing", "unproblematized", "falsely views". Assuming my search is fairly representative of the use of the term, it seems clear that 'heteronormativity' is a term of art from one of side of the debate.

I don't think there's anything wrong with having the article here; I just think that NPOV demands a clearer acknowledgement of the term's and the concept's roots.

One of the other things to notice about the article is that it devotes most of the words to describing that which heteronormativity condemns, rather than that which heteronormativity prescribes and the (subjective) justifications for those views.

Justin Johnson 21:03 CST 18 Mar 2004

[P0M:] Why not just fix the article then? If you want to be really cautious you could put your proposed change here first. P0M 03:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[JJ:] Honestly, I don't feel like I know enough about the topics involved. But I'll try.

Okay. How's this for a first pass:


 * Heteronormativity is a term of art and critical concept used by postmodernists generally to denote traditional or modernist normative conceptions of gender and sexuality, and the social implications of those ideas. The traditional nuclear family, with a father in charge of a mother and 2.4 children, is a heteronormative idea.  It describes a binary organization of sex and gender roles in which biology is congruent with social identity, the two sides tied together by heterosexuality.


 * Since the binary organization starts with biology, the progression of concepts goes something like this:


 * male genitals->male identity->masculine lifestyle
 * female genitals->female identity->feminine lifestyle


 * This 'naturally occuring' dialectic is resolved by heterosexuality: male and female are natural complements, as further dictated by the biology of reproduction. Male and female are necessary for procreation, therefore male/female coupling is the norm, and is normative.


 * Implicit in heteronormativity is that deviation is 'unnatural' and unacceptable. Homosexuality, trans-genderism, sex change operations, asexuality--anything leading away from, or not contributing to, the further coupling of males and females in their traditional roles--is non-normative, and worthy of condemnation.  Heteronormativity is enforced through things like male-only schools and professions, laws against homosexual behaviour, and social pressure upon women to submit to their husbands and to prefer raising children to having a fulfilling career.


 * Heteronormativity is often seen as one of the pillars of a patriarchal society: The traditional role of men is reinforced and perpetuated through heteronormative mores, rules and even laws that distinguish between individuals based upon their apparent gender, or their refusal to identify with traditional roles.  Thus, feminism is often directly concerned with fighting heteronormativity and its prescriptions for women.


 * Defenders of heteronormativity draw their justification for it from several sources. Many Christian denominations cite the Bible for its verses putting the man in charge of the family and ordering women to submit graciously to their husbands.  Others simply argue that, since men have dominated society since recorded history began (an arguable matter for historians), that heteronormativity is the natural order of things (c.f., the naturalistic fallacy).  Still others argue against homosexuality and non-traditional families as a danger to the survival of the human race since non-normative behaviour is counter to apparent survival instincts.


 * It should be noted that heteronormativity is not a concept or term used by defenders of the notions that postmodernists find in it. In postmodernist literature, heteronormativity is an almost universally negative term, except insofar as its used analytically.  Biblical defenders of heteronormative mores believe that heteronormativity is commanded by God; social conservatives see real danger to their lifestyle in non-normative behaviour, but describe the danger in terms of risks to children and to civilization.  Notwithstanding postmodernist analyses of defender's motivations, there's no reason to believe that such people aren't reflectively sincere.

I'm a bit uncomfortable using the term 'postmodernist' as a catch-all for the various groups that use the term, but I can't think of a better one.

Justin Johnson 22:15 CST 18 Mar 2004

Since no one disagreed with my proposed rewrite above, I've committed it with some changes, and incorporated a bit more material from the existing page.

If someone can suggest a better catch-all term for the group using heteronormativity than simply 'postmodernists', I'd appreciate it.

Justin Johnson 10:55 CST 20 Mar 2004

The current rewrite does not read well to me at all. To start off with "term of art"?!?! Huh? it's a social perspective, not something to do with paintings. The first sentence doesn't tell me anything about what heteronormativity is, it really reads like a research paper, not an encyclopedia entry. I'd make it more straight forward, like:
 * Heteronormativity is a term used by postmodernists to describe the belief that a heterosexual lifestyle should be the norm. For example, the nuclear family, with a father in charge of a mother and 2.4 children, is a heteronormative idea.  This can be further clarified as ...

If others like that, stick it in the article. --zandperl 18:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I changed the first sentence to:


 * Heteronormativity is a critical concept used by postmodernists to denote traditional or modernist norms of gender and sexuality, and the social implications of those ideas.

"Term of art" means something like "jargon". I didn't realize it was obscure.

Justin Johnson

Great - right now the article sounds as if heteronormativity something only leftists imbellices use against proper family values. That's not exactly NPOV, either. Not to mention that the person who wrote this up seems to have an issue with everything he considers "postmodernist". The fact that the term, as artificial as it is, might actually have its uses outside of academical debates never seems to occur to him. But then, there is your typical straight cisgenderd male - all this freak stuff has to be derised as much as possible so nobody questions their inborn superioritiy. Disgusting. -- AlexR 19:03, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Pardon me?


 * I don't have any issues with what I consider postmodernist; I'm generally sympathetic to it, and I agree with the person at the top who said that heteronormativity is something we'd all be better off without. I was trying to correct a fundamental dishonesty I saw with the article, insofar as it wasn't acknowledging that it's an essentially slanted term.


 * Oh well. I have no intention of starting an edit war.  My comments remain, and I hope someone will bother to read them and take their point.


 * Thanks for the personal abuse, AlexR: You've raised the level of debate so much.  Anyone else catch the irony of dismissing someone's perspective on this issue as that of a typical X Y Z?


 * Justin Johnson 1:47 UTC 25 Mar 2004


 * Well, what you made of the article did sound very typical, however, I might just as well have left it out. Still, replacing something you see as a dishonesty with something that is more than just a bit biased isn't exactly an ideal solution, either. The original version of the article was not biased, it was just short, because I needed the word for another article. Several people edited it over time. Then you came around and decided that it was a postmodernism-term only (with a bit of feminism thrown in for good measure) and edited a lot of stuff out, too, that just happens to be relevant, whether you are interested in it or not. What do you expect, that people are grateful for being kicked out of an article because you consider them irrelevant? Sorry, but the whole point of "Heteronormativity" is about those people that don't fit in, otherwise the word would have never been coined. And I don't think that the world needed to be informed that "there's no reason to believe that such people aren't reflectively sincere", especially since nobody ever claimed otherwise, either. I may have been somewhat less than polite, but you are certainly less than interested in a NPOV. -- AlexR 02:52, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem with the term is that it is a biased term--look at the google results I put up above. The original article was biased for that reason: a neutral treatment of it yields a very distinct POV, just as an article titled "nigger lovers", written by white supremacist, would no matter how much the author qualified it, if he didn't acknowledge that he's a white supremacist and give reasonable treatment to the fact that others disagree with him, and why.  The only way to NPOV a biased term is to acknowledge the bias and describe the source and perspective of it.  That context includes disagreement with it.


 * In 10 pages of google results, I found only academic critical theorists using the term. It's obviously part of the jargon from those fields.  I'm not railing against it.  I thought I made a stronger case for it than existed before by acknowledging that. Justin Johnson 3:34 UTC 25 Mar 2004

I'll allow myself to leave this answer to "Justin Johnson 3:34 UTC 25 Mar 2004" un-indented for legibility. The fact that heteronormativity is occasionaly used in a biased way does not make it a biased term. Unlike "nigger lovers" it neither contains a slur in the word itself, nor is there any feeling of superioritiy contained in either the word or its description. The bias in entirely in your eyes, or those of readers feeling offended by the term. Of course, the concept described (not derised) is a very basic one, and many people feel extremely uncomfortable when seing it described, because something very basic and unchallenged something suddenly does not look that unchallengable and basic any more. By evoking a lesser version of Goodwin's law, you have proven that point quite clearly. Sorry, but "applies to about 90%+ of people" is just not the same thing as a natural law like gravity.

Also, I find it rather strange that from the Google results you only quoted very biased uses of the word, most uses I have found were perfectly neutral. Pointing out only biased uses looks quite biased indeed - bias on your side, though, not the word's. I do agree though, that the term is quite academic - well, what do you expect with a relatively new word containing a Latin and a Greek root?

Also, Google is not always representative - much of the transgender debate does not take place on websites, and a lot of it never makes it to web pages. (Don't bother Google groups either, the transgender newsgroups are a often place of verbal fighting, not debate.) Much of that debate is not "postmodernist", either, and definitely not academic. How academic is it when transgender people don't get letters of recommendation for name changes and medical procedures, because their hair is to long (transmen) or too short (transwomen). Not to mention lesbian transwomen and gay transmen. How academic is it if a girl's clitoris is cut, because it is "too big" and "she'll never get a boyfriend looking like that"? (See the double take in the last statement?) And just where is the bias when academics (and non-academics) desperately try to find "feminine" trails in gay men and "masculine" trails in lesbian women, because, well, they must be there somehow?

So sorry, but the word itself is not biased, if you see a bias, it might be in your eyes, not in the word. Also, since you brought up the race card, next time you want to put anything into this or similar articles, ask yourself: Would I put the same thing in an article about white supremacy? Like in "there's no reason to believe that such people aren't reflectively sincere". If you wouldn't, ask yourself why you feel it should be in here. -- AlexR


 * The word is biased because it's an analytic bucket into which is thrown all the negative consequences of a heterosexist culture. Good.  It's a very useful word for that and a necessary and useful analysis to carry out.  I'm not disputing anything that's been asserted about heteronormativity here.  But when the perspective of the article is "let's take a calm and reasoned look at how destructive X is", you need to qualify X as an analytic effort of one side of the debate, and separate it from the other.


 * And please stop treating me like some sort of stealth reactionary. You're acting like you can't believe that someone might agree with the analysis and disagree with the writeup here. You seem to think that anything less than unqualified support for the term is derisive. Justin Johnson 12:52 UTC 25 Mar 2004


 * The word is not just an analytic bucket for negative consequences, I just mentionened them because I wanted to show the need for such a word. Your attempt to define "the one side" of the debate was even more biased than the carefully chosen examples you brought into the debate. (And probably "the other side", too; you don't have to be a bible thumper or reactionary to assume that the heteronormative concept is pretty much correct.) As to why you feel treated as a "stealth reactionary" I don't know, maybe you do?
 * Anyway, you seem to be either unwilling or unable to enter into any meaningfull debate; all you do is repeating again and again that it is such a biased word, you go even so far as to compare its users with white supremacists, and generally you are unwilling to accept or even debate any arguments that are put forward. Therefore I can only conclude that you are not interested in any meaningfull debate, which is the reason why I consinder our conversation (which does on your side certainly not merrit the word debate) as finished.
 * Any other readers should of course not be discurraged from debating the matter any further and/or improving the article where necessary. -- AlexR 15:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)