Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 3

9. April 2004
Two things: I removed "transgender and intersexual people", because both are not "sexual orientations".
 * a non-reproductive sexual orientation&mdash;is 'unnatural' and unacceptable. That includes homosexuality, bisexuality, transgended and intersexual people.

The statement below is also not correct: The term is used outside of "queer studies" and "gender studies", because it is at least in many transgender debates used, too, and most of those are not necessarily part of the above. In fact, most of the time they are not, partly because they tend to rather practical debates, not theoretical ones. Also, saying that "heteronormativity can be seen to substitute for 'normal' or 'natural' implies a value judegement, namely, that heteronormativity is 'normal' or 'natural'. And that's not NPOV.
 * It should be noted that heteronormativity is not a term widely used outside of queer and gender studies; the concept can be seen to substitute for 'normal' or 'natural'.

-- AlexR 14:46, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree. P0M 14:58, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the edit n the last part because the basic gist of what the statement is trying to convey is the very point that those who defend heteronormativity in society do in fact see heteronormativity as "normal" or "natural". That is the very point of, and where the term and description "heteronormativity" was derived from. Re-wording it to make that point more explicit would be more productive than trying to dilute the very meaning of what the term is for, describing the widely held belief and concept that heterosexuality is the "norm" and "natural" state for human sexuality. Lestatdelc 15:25, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see your point here. Certainly, the article has undergone very substantial re-edits recently, because some people feel offended by the term. And it has not exactly improved the article in my opinion, but then again, this is the Wikipedia, we have to find a compromise. However, feel free to edit the article, if you think there is need. -- AlexR 22:44, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Defenders of a heteronormative society
BS. Nobody defends a "heteronormative" society, we defend normalicy against horrors. Heteronormative is an offensive concept/idea/attempt to garble and misdirect meaning thru doublethink, PC psycho-linguistic facism. That being said, the article isn't so very bad, except for the detracters section, which makes repeated false assumptions. I will keep editing it, but unless you are flexable enough to allow the truth, I am going to have to dispute the whole page, which would suck, because as I said the only area w a big factual accuracy/NPOV problem is the detractors part, and thats prob because you all clearly enjoy this concept so much you fail to comprehend what a ludicris, offensive bit of rhetoric it is. whichever, I will concentrate on fixing that portion, and ask you please to be reasonable, cooperative and compromising so that we can agree apon a proper wording. Sam Spade 20:32, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * "We"...? Who elected you as spokesperson for heterosexuality and/or society? Defend normalcy against "horrors"...? Wow... there certainly is no arrogant condescension and hypocritical bias in your words there Sam. That said, the fact is that presumptive heterosexuality and adherence to such is what heteronormativitiy, and your words are in fact the almost classic examples of such. Your presumption (bordering on arrogance mind you) that heterosexuality is the only and correct "norm" and all the rest are "horrors" to use your word. This is not an issue of Orwellian double-think, but as an analogy a classic case of someone saying that a term for Christian supremacy within a culture, say Christiannormativity, is an offensive term and nobody is defending  Christiannormativity we are just trying to stop the heathens from the anti-christian doublethink and attacking normalcy since Christianity is "normal". Whether you want to face up to it or not Sam, your words are at their core no different than the hypothetical analogy I just described. Lestatdelc 22:33, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, Mr. Spade, but the article was never meant to be offensive, and neither is the concept. Just as Mr. Johnson just a short time ago, the offense is in your eyes, not the article. Then again, obviously there is something significantly wrong with your eyed if you view LGBT people and intersexual people as "horrors" against which you have to "defend normalicy". If you want to start an edit war to push that decidedly NPOV view, you won't succeed. Neither is heteronormativity a term that is only used by "PC psycho-linguistic facism", another statement which is hardly NPOV. So there might be some reason and cooperation needed here, but you might start with showing some, because I already re-editied the article quite significantly to accomodate Mr. Johnson, but I flatout refuse to leave lies in it, just because a small group of oh so normal people feels offended by it. -- AlexR 22:44, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't drag me into this. I don't find the concept offensive at all; it's a useful analytical tool.  My problem has always been what I perceive to be the lack of NPOV in the article.  I don't agree with Sam.  However, the fact that Sam finds ready ammunition in the article's current state is indicative of what I was trying to fix.  Justin Johnson


 * Since the debate is still in the archives, I encourage any reader to judge for themselfes. And maybe I am just stupid, but I can't for the world see any fundamental difference between Mr. Johnson and Mr. Spade. Both feel that simply defining "heteronormativity" terribly discriminates against them, and none of them has ever been able to point out what exactly is supposed to be so terribly discriminating. Also, both constantly try to shove the use of the word back into the academic ivory tower so they can derise it as being used only by an academic (and therefore irrelevant) minority. At least Mr. Johnson only insists on a "postmodernist" use only, which is, while not correct, at least more polite than "PC psycho-linguistic facism". Generally speaking, a word that gets so much opposition with so little argumentes must have hit a nerve somehow. -- AlexR 14:10, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not discriminated against by the concept. I am not offended by it.  Did it ever occur to you that I'm trying to help the article and the concept by immunizing it against Sam's attack?  A more balanced article would leave Sam no room to feel victimized.


 * I am, however, offended by you, Alex. Your 'defense' of heteronormativity has amounted to ad hominems against those who criticise the article.  When I argued that too much space was given to the consequences of heteronormativity, compared to the articulation of the concept and its origins, you responded by calling me a 'typical, straight, cisgendered male', and said my edits were 'disgusting'.  You could have instead argued that the consequences are where the concept finds most of its content, since it's a label for the deconstruction of a superficially benign term.  When I specifically distanced myself from someone who called LGBTs "horrors", a position I find absolutely repellent, you innocently shrugged your shoulders and said "I can't see any difference".  You could have instead recognized that the difference in terms that Sam and I use represents a fundamental difference in perspective, not a case of one being more polite than another.  Your comment about hitting nerves shows that your stance towards criticism is that you're doing something right if the "normals" are getting upset.


 * You'll get real arguments from me when you display the capability to understand them, something you've obstinately refused to do so far. Justin Johnson 15:10, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you, Mr. Johnson, really tried to improve the article and brought arguments, not only I missed them, but also two people I just know well enough to ask, who did not know what heteronormativity is before, and who are, afaik, perfectly "normal", cisgendered straight people. They too just couldn't figure out what you were (and are) talking about. You have to excuse me therefore from not knowing what you were talking about, because my cristal ball is in repair. As for you and Mr. Spade looking quite similar from here; well, all I can judge from is your "contributions" here, and they just don't look all that different. Maybe you could make yourself clear for once, it might change my opinion. Until that happens, for me, this is - again - the end of the debate. -- AlexR 18:41, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * While we are mentioning anonymous people, I have shown this article to a few wiki's over IM, and each of them had the same response "wow, thats a mess" and then advised me to get away from such wackyness as fast as possible. My wife said pretty much the same thing. To be honest, I prob should follow that unanimous advice, and leave you to your misleading article. BUT people are trying to put links to it in perfectly normal articles, and I can't imagine how misleading it would be to some 7th grader trying to do a human sexuality report. Anyways, if you expect anyone to give you a drop of respect, or pay attention to your opinions, you are going to have to learn to stop using the first, foremost, and most basic fallacy of logic and debate, the ad hominem. Sam Spade 00:18, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

straw man
Allow me kindly to dismiss your assumptions. I am none of the things you choose to lable me as, nor I defending the things you think I am, nor am I saying/thinking/believing what you push my way. Heteronormativity is a lable, a poorly thought out straw man for those some one disagreed with. As such it only has value to those who believe in it, which includes no one it is used against, to my knowledge. I reject it out of hand, and insist that nearly no-one holds the views which it encompasses. But whatever. This is all about the article (and the article is not offensive btw, the concept is). I, unlike the above, do not assume bad faith on your part. I didn't get the impression from reading the article that you intended falseness, I simply noticed how large your blind side was when it came to the detractors of the theory. Theories like this are exactly why their are so many hearty laughs at the expense of soft (read pseudo)-science. Anyways the last thing I am looking to do is to place misinformation anywhere, what I am going to do is continue to edit the detractors section until it is acceptable, and then get the heck out of here. If you feel a need to cast dispersions upon my motives, character, or maybe even debate the particulars, please ring me up elsewhere, despite my confortational tone (which I felt necessary and don't appologise for, this theory is provocative) I am meerely looking to do what I do and run away, and have no intention of engaging in flame wars or non-article related debates here in the talk page. Cheers, Sam Spade 01:20, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could enlighten us as to why exactly you see the term as offensive? Because while you have certainly written much, other than derising it as "pseudo-science" and "PC psycho-linguistic facism" you never once stated what you think is wrong with it. Also, kindly explain why you constantly remove the "or debates about gender or transgender people" from the sentence: "Heteronormativity as a term is not widely used outside of queer and gender studies academia or debates about gender or transgender people." It is widely used when talking about transgender, and those are, most of the time, very practical and not academic debates. -- AlexR 11:06, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The term attempts a straw man, by labling the opposition, incorrectly tallying up their opinions, and then (in this case not so) easilly knocking them aside. Ask any redneck, fruitloops exist. Nobody is trying to deny that. We have all seen The Jerry Springer Show. The general opinion that I have noticed people having is don't ask, don't tell, and even that is fading these days, just watch Sex in the City. Pop culture clearly thinks gay people and alternative lifestyles are great, maybe even superior; I wouldn't know, I only see that commercial television mess when I'm flipping from c-span to PBS. Anyways, this sums up my opinion pretty well. I think most of the assumptions the concept of heteronormativity makes are inverse of the truth. Society today is shoving non-traditional values down our throats, the modern economy forces your average woman to work, like it or no, and the lack of insistance on responsible fathers is making single parant tragedies the standard. Spousal abuse is grotesque, and has nothing to do with me acting like a man, testecles or no. I agree w the article that transsexualism is bad (better to be as gay as you like than to crave on your genitals... :S, and would clarify that the 'horrors' are us (normal folks) being made aware of transsexualism, male homosexuality, and really any paraphilias in general. I actually got mad at my co-workers when they told me the new guy was gay, I was much happier assuming he was just nerdy or something. It certainly didn't make me feel negative towards him, he wasn't the one telling me lewd details about his personal life, it was them (my hetero-coworkers) who felt some abnormal need to clue me in about what he does in his bedroom. Maybe the human is evolving towards a genderless, technologically replicating organism, but not in my lifetime ;) Anyhow, as I have said all along, the article isn't all that bad, it's the concept thats BS, and so long as we are civil I am sure we'll have little trouble in NPOVing the detractors section. I would assume that you, alex, have very little concept of who would detract and why, so I advise you focus yourself on explaining the theory in more detail, rather than stereotyping, or attempting to put words in the mouths of those who object to it. Sam Spade 00:39, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

recent additions
I want to highly compliment the recent additions of supporting evidence. The material on in-vitro fertilization, and freemartins, for example. Very intruiging stuff. Sam Spade 04:16, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Objections section
For easier development of the page, I have copied the two versions of the objections section on this page. I don't like the way Sam is undoing substantial changes by many minor deletions, so maybe we could work in a less annoying way together to find a version that stands on common ground? -- till we *) 15:43, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The below is very difficult to follow, but I appreciate the thought. I have to go to work, but I'll attempt to muddle my way thru it later on. Once again I am glad to see a co-operative spirit, and it doesn't look like we'll have much trouble soirting things out w this type of politeness. Sam Spade 19:52, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Sams version"

 * Heteronormativity as a term is not widely used outside of queer studies and gender studies academia. The critique of society, however, has spread much farther. There are substantial objections to the very concept of heteronormativity, coming from all sides.


 * Most opponents of the concept of heteronormativity see it as a "politically correct" attempt to replace the words and concepts 'normal' and/or 'natural' with a concept that can be seen as offensive, unacceptable and misinformative/factually innacurate.


 * Some objectors receive their ammunition from several sources. Some proponents of biblical mores believe that heterosexuality is intended by God; social conservatives can be said to see danger in non-normative behaviour, and might describe danger in terms of risks to children and to civilization. Most religions cite their Holy Book's condemnation of various activities that they categorize as unnatural acts. Still others argue against public homosexuality, forms of paraphilia, or other intensely "non-normative behaviours" as a danger to mankind since they see them to be counter to survival instincts, reproduction, human dignity, and/or are an offense against God so great as to cause plagues and other instances of what they see as the wrath of God.

"Tillwes version"

 * Heteronormativity as a term is not widely used outside of queer and gender studies academia or debates about gender or transgender people. The critique of heteronormative society, however, has spread much farther. Nevertheless, there are objections to the concept of heteronormativity. In discussing these objections, one has to distinguish between objectors who don't like the word, objectors who don't like the idea that society could be anything other than hetero-normal, and objectors in the academia who prefer other theories. Here the arguments of the first two groups will be discussed.


 * The first kind of opponents of the concept of heteronormativity see it as a "politically correct" attempt to replace the words and concepts 'normal' and/or 'natural' with a concept that can be seen as offensive and unacceptable. To some degree this is exactly the reason why heteronormativity is named heteronormativity -- it helps to question the normality of heterosexual behavior.


 * The second group of objectors receive their ammunition from several sources. Proponents of biblical morés believe that heterosexuality, and thus heteronormativity, is intended by God; social conservatives can be said to see danger to their lifestyle in non-normative behaviour, but might themselves describe danger in terms of risks to children and to civilization. Most religions cite their Holy Book's condemnation of various activities that they categorize as unnatural acts. Still others argue against public homosexuality, forms of paraphilia, or other intensely "non-normative behaviours" as a danger to the survival of the human race since they believe them to be counter to survival instincts, reproduction, human dignity, and/or to be an offense against God so great as to cause "Gay diseases" (cf. homophobic hate speech) and other such instances of what they claim to be the wrath of God.''

Mayor differences, to be solved here
((Uups, sorry, I did forget the most important thing: please voice your concers/reasons here, so that we can discuss them -- till we *) 16:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)))

(((I merged the comments ... till we *) 19:00, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC))))'

1
"or debates about gender or transgender people" (phrase deleted by SS)

[P0M:] Point 1. Since gender differences (which many authorities such as Milton Diamond believe involve prenatal factors) throw heteronormative social constructs into question, this element should remain. Since transgender people are probably motivated by intense perception of differences between their external genitalia and their "brain sex", this point should remain. It should be substantiated by Colapinto's study of the XY individual who was surgically reassigned to be female, was socialized as a girl/woman, but who stubbornly lived out his "brain sex" despite nobody telling him that he had been born a boy. It should be expanded by mentioning intersexual individuals.


 * You are right, that term should probably read "or debates about gender or transgender or intersexual people", or maybe "about gender roles and identity or transgender ..."  -- AlexR 18:41, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can't respond to the above, its too bizarre and confusing. What needs to be clear is that detractors don't use the word. Sam Spade 00:56, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * [P0M:] If "they" don't use the word, how are they known to be detractors? Do they speak of "the 'H' word" or something?

2
"Nevertheless, there are objections to the concept of heteronormativity. In discussing these objections, one has to distinguish between objectors who don't like the word, objectors who don't like the idea that society could be anything other than hetero-normal, and objectors in the academia who prefer other theories. Here the arguments of the first two groups will be discussed." reduced to "There are substantial objections to the very concept of heteronormativity, coming from all sides."

[P0M:] Reducing point 2 to the mere assertion that there are "substantial objections to the very concept of heteronormativity, coming from all sides" implies that the analysis is refuted on substantial grounds by authoritative figures. That prejudices the issue and so does not maintain a NPOV. The Tille version should remain as it is (except "the" should be deleted in "the academia").


 * Actually, I don't think that there is much gained from seperating those three groups, because we have few, if any, arguments from the first "group" (see next point), and also none of the third. That is the reason I left it out when I removed Mr. Spades latest rants. I therefore propose once again what I wrote: "The critique of heteronormativity itself, however, has spread much farther. Nevertheless, there are objections to the very concept of heteronormativity." -- AlexR 18:41, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I included the distinction of separate groups of objections/objectors, even if most of the things named in the article fall in group 2, because I would expect a paragraph titled "Objections to the concept" to list not only "people are pissed off because they don't want to be disturbed in their view what is normal", but also other kinds of objections. -- till we *) 19:00, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * [AR] But isn't it pointless to include objections we have no examples for? I don't even know anybody who just wishes to substitite another word for "heteronormativity", and if we'd mention the third group, we should have an example, too. As long as we have not, I see no point in mentioning it, because afaik those academics who use a different nomenclatura are not necessarily opposed to the concept, they just don't use it. -- AlexR 20:15, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

easy answer. Cite your sources Verifiability. Sam Spade 00:58, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

3
"To some degree this is exactly the reason why heteronormativity is named heteronormativity -- it helps to question the normality of heterosexual behavior." reduced to "and misinformative/factually innacurate."

[P0M:] Point 3, in the Tillwe version, is problematical because it implies that heterosexual behavior is not normal. That was presumably not the intention of the author of that sentence, and the text should be corrected. But, with corrections, point 3 in the Tillwe version is substantially more informative than the truncated text provided by SS.


 * Again, I don't think there is much use in that wording. The complete paragraph reads: "The first kind of opponents of the concept of heteronormativity see it as a "politically correct" attempt to replace the words and concepts 'normal' and/or 'natural' with a concept that can be seen as offensive and unacceptable. To some degree this is exactly the reason why heteronormativity is named heteronormativity -- it helps to question the normality of heterosexual behavior." I don't think that this is an objection against the word itself, because "normal" and/or "natural" have a far wider use than as a synonym for heteronormativity. People who use that argumente clearly belong not in the group that criticises the word, but into the group that criticise anything that does not fit into the heteronormative concept, which is the second group. Once again, therefore, I want to propose my words: " Many opponents of the concept of heteronormativity see it as a "politically correct" attempt to replace the words and concepts 'normal' and/or 'natural' with a concept they see as offensive, unacceptable and misinformative or factually innacurate." I also left the sentence abouve out, because it does not make too much sense. It is not just and not even primarily the "normality" that is critisised, but the "normativity"; the word is heteronormativity, not heteronormality. After all, something that applies to 90%+ of people usually fits the description of "normal" quite well; the question is how those people are dealt with who don't fit in. -- AlexR 18:41, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, the "normality" used above is a bit colloquial; but doesn't a concept "heteronormativity" questions the "fact" that "heterosexuality is normal and thus normative"? I think the wording "Many opponents of the concept of heteronormativity see it as a "politically correct" attempt to replace the words and concepts 'normal' and/or 'natural' with a concept they see as offensive, unacceptable and misinformative or factually innacurate." is quite good, but I don't see why some words shouldn't be added about possible reasons for this reaction? -- till we *) 19:00, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * [AR] "Normal", simply because of numbers, is not the same as "normative". Most people who object to heteronormative rules object to the normative part, not the normal one. Also, the sentence is just false. "Heteronormativity" is not just about heterosexual behaviour, it's much more about a binary gender system. As far as the motivations of opponents is concerned, I think we have to be very carefull when speculating about their motives. We list their arguments, but speculating about motives very quickly becomes NPOV, and only delivered ammunition to them. Have some faith in the reader being able to make those speculations themselfes. -- AlexR 20:15, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

4
"Gay diseases" (cf. homophobic hate speech) and other such instances of what they claim to be the wrath of God." reduced to "plagues and other instances of what they see as the wrath of God."

[P0M:] Point 4. Nobody that I know of has posed ebola or SARS as "the wrath of God," and the reason would appear to be that neither of those diseases is associated with sexual transmission. The hateful intent and propagandistic function of calling a sexually transmitted disease "gay plague" is clearly relevant to a discussion of the consequences of the homophobia that is intellectually bolstered by a heteronormative ideology. It not only blames the individual for the disease, it also implies that innocent people are made to suffer for the sins of gays -- giving people one more instigation to hate them. This entire dialectic needs to be understood, not to be covered up. P0M 16:59, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but we should be carefull to stick with "heteronormativity" here, and not expand the article to incorporate each and every concept that is more or less related. That's what links are for. -- AlexR 18:41, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The reason I changed it to the wording above was the link plagues, which I found disgusting: either these religious and/or conservative groups believe in gay disease, or they just see a medical problem in non-hetereo-sex. Both are quite different, and a text shouldn't read one way and mean the other via link. -- till we *) 19:00, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * [AR] Yes, I said I agree that far. We simply should take care not to expand these matters too much. The link to "homophobic hate speech" should be enough, unless Mr. Spade brings up some other issues. -- AlexR 20:15, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am currently looking to have homophobic hate speech deleted due to the very concept of hate speech being objectionable and POV. Its a controvercial new law/concept that is being tested, and IMO is clearly a violation of intellectual freedom. If you insist on linking to it, I am going to have to include at least a sentance of objection to the concept. I have a better idea, see below. Sam Spade 01:06, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] I've expanded Tillwe's notes above. I hope I didn't mis-copy anything. It was hard to follow.

complete rewrite of detractors section
I honestly apreciate all the above attention to detail, but I wasn't really all that happy w my version of the detractors section either, and as many people have noted above, there are substantial problems on both sides. My sugestions is to scrap both mine and tillwe's versions, and focus on writing a new, NPOV, factually accurate section ASAP. Sam Spade 01:06, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite of "opponents" section
I rewrote that part, because whenever it got edited, it became more and more anti-religious. The last statement that was added, "Adherents to some denominations of their Bible in the Abrahamic religions present their belief that heterosexuality, and thus heteronormativity, is intended by God." is so patently false as to be nothing but an embarassement. The main Abrahamitc religions are the Jewish religion, Christian faith and Islam. Of these three, only one has the Bible, the other two use the Thora and the Quran, respectively. And people don't belong denominations of their holy books, but to denominations of their faith. Not to mention that a lot of Jews, Christians and Muslims don't believe that heteronormativity is intended by God. And in almost all other religions you find the same pattern; some believe that, some don't. No need therefore to list religious opponents more than once, and certainly no need to become anti-religous.

Please remember that the part about the opponents of the term, or those that try to enforce heteronormativity, (which are not necessarily the same persons) has to be just as NPOV as the parts above it! -- AlexR 02:23, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)]

removed from article
A special case of incorporating transgendered people into a heteronormative system is transsexualism. If transgender behaviour in a person cannot be suppressed, it is allowed on the condition that the person becomes entirely a member of the other sex, so that his or her behavior thereby confirms the binary gender system. (Please note: This is a description of the heteronormative treatment of transsexual people, not a description of a course freely chosen by transsexual or transgendered people.)

Sam Spade 02:44, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * If someone wants to go back in the previous versions of this article and change the wording that referred to certain "points", which do not exist in current versions, I'd be grateful, otherwise when I come back I'll do it then :) Dysprosia 02:15, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * (I meant this request/comment to stand alone. There is wording here that refers to &quot;violates the first, second points&quot; or there abouts that needs to be reworded.) Dysprosia 03:34, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * This section clearly needs rewritten. Sam Spade 02:26, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * What exactly is wrong with this section, it is changed somewhat every time I see this page. Although I am not quite willing to go through x pages of history to find out who changed what, I will replace the old paragraph, which is more accurate and had a rather important note added to it; which is probably what Dysprosia is referring to. Kindly debate any questions or suggestions here before you change it again. -- AlexR 02:31, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * [P0M:] I think that is an excellent suggestion. P0M 03:18, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This makes no sense. Its an unintellegible sentance describing hypothetical opinions of hypothetical peoples opinions of other hypothetical people. It needs rewritten. Sam Spade 02:45, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

'If transgender behaviour in a person cannot be suppressed, it is allowed on the condition that the person becomes entirely a member of the other sex, so that his or her behavior thereby confirms the binary gender system.'

who (objectionable speech removed) thinks this? Sam Spade 02:46, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * :-) Thanks.

[P0M:] When SS says "This makes no sense," his words would appear at first to refer to the contents of the previous paragraph, but then he calls "this" "an unintelligible sentence...". I see no sentence that is truly unintelligible, but it looks more like he is referring to the sentence he quotes further on, since he follows that sentence with: "who the hell thinks this?" (We could do without angry words, profanity, and attempts to demean the intelligence or contributions of others, by the way.)

[P0M:] I wondered about that sentence myself. If it means that legal sanctions are sought against transvestities (the usual legalese, I believe), i.e., if legal sanctions are sought against people with one kind of external genitalia who dress or otherwise represent themselves as members of the "opposite sex," then that is one kind of social phenomenon and it needs evidence of one kind (court cases, sentencing decisions, etc.). If it means that social pressure, disapprobation, etc., is applied to cross-dressers and people whose gender identity and gender_role are at odds with their external genitalia, and that those social pressures disappear if the non-conforming individuals secure sexual reassignment, then that is another kind of social phenomenon and needs evidence of another kind (surveys, anecdotal accounts, biographies, etc.)

[P0M:] Regarding the discussion between Alex and Tillwe, it seems that the two of you are pretty much on the same wavelength and that you both are familiar with the treatment of "nonconforming" individuals, the attitudes toward them, etc. I agree with Alex and Sam that evidence is needed. If Dysprosia or someone else "resets" the article to some point before the recent spate of edits and reverts or reverts by edits, maybe it will be easier to see what evidence needs to be assembled. P0M 03:29, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * (I meant this request/comment to stand alone. There is wording here that refers to &quot;violates the first, second points&quot; or there abouts that needs to be reworded.) Dysprosia 03:34, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? I am not sure what you mean. Thanks, AlexR
 * I've done it, never mind :) Check my recent diffs to the article, if you're still curious. Dysprosia 03:42, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Dysprosia, I see your point. There used to be four points, somebody put them into sentences, so the "points" got lost. Far too many people are editing the article far to fast. -- AlexR 03:52, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[AR ]The sentence means exactly what it says: If a transgendered person cannot be convinced into conforming to heteronormative rules, in that case, live in the gender that was assigned to them at birth, they are allowed to "change sex", but only if they are expected to conform to the set of rules that applie to "the other" gender. In other words, they are left with the choice of not getting any treatment, neither medical nor legal, or or getting "the whole lot", whether they need it all or not. That is still very common. An example: A "female-to-male" transgendered person feels he cannot live in a female gender role any more. Any medical treatment he might need to appear non-female is however only given if he can be expected to live as a "real man", with "appropriate" behaviour, an "appropriate" job and of course a female partner. (No partner is usually OK, too.) Also, often legal options like changing name or legal gender are withheld, too. It is often impossible or at least very difficult for a transgender person to get access to medical or legal help if they do not with to confirm to those stereotypes. I know a transwomen who almost did not get a letter of recommendation because she was wearing trousers - mind you, women's trouser! "Real women" don't wear trousers, ever! Gay transmen have also difficulties, because "real men" are not gay, period. People have gotten into serious problems for the lenght of their hair, once guy was thrown out of a doctor's office because he dared to use his old bike, which happened to be a women's bike. I could go on for quite a while with this list, but I think you get the point. Changing from a completely inappropriate gender role is allowed only if people switch completely into another one that is not their choice, but just as rigid. It might fit somewhat better, but it is not a free choice. -- AlexR 03:39, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that in most cases when sex-reassignment is being sought, most regulatory guidelines from the APA require a "testing" phase where the trans person is required to live as a person of their target gender. This often introduces numerous catch-22s under the law, since many governments and corporate policies require a person conform to their birth sex, or their legal gender. Since such transitioning of legal gender is often predicated on completion of sex-reassignment, this leaves trans people often in a legal catch-22. This was one aspect of the very problematic trans non-discrimination ordinances passed here in Portland, which actually codified into law areas were trans people can be thrown into this very sort of catch-22, and in conflict with issues surrounding gender dysphoria and ADA laws. It was not the intent of the ordinance but one of the unforseen problems in how it was worded with comrpomise langauge to buisness groups who wanted to have exceptions where a person could in essence, not go into treatment for transisiotning becauuse of the way the law was written about "intiail gender presentation at the time of employment"Lestatdelc 22:45, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Introduction
I reverted again, because the sentence below Mr. Spade keeps quoting is not only a rather biased view (this time from the other site), it is also flatout "quoted" from. The rest of his edits are not exactly in the spirit of cooperation, to put it mildly. He sure likes to talk about it, but he sure does not act as if he'd care, either.
 * "Heteronormativity is a controversial term, newly coined. The theories involve punitive rules (social, familial, and legal) that are seen to force us to conform to hegemonic, heterosexual standards for identity. The term is a short version of "normative heterosexuality" and is in no way widely accepted in its usage and definition."

It's also false - heteronormativity is not just normative heterosexuality, because it tries to set up norms about physical sex and gender roles and gender identiy. And of course that definition would be somewhat NPOV. -- AlexR 03:52, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Look, there is almost no documentation on this term, and I am doing the best that I can with what I have. I only have a chance to co-operate when you communicate Sam Spade 03:56, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Errr, communicating - good idea. Just who keeps editing the text without communicating?

Heteronormativity is a controversial term, newly coined. The theories involve punitive rules (social, familial, and legal) that are seen to force us to conform to hegemonic, heterosexual standards for identity. The term is a combination of "normative heterosexuality" and is in no way widely accepted in its usage and definition.
 * afaik it is at least 10 years old
 * punitive is POV
 * who is "us"? Every user of the Wikipedia?
 * "hegemonic" is POV
 * it is not just about heterosexuality, as I have explained several times already.
 * no, it is not, see above. It is combinded from "hetero", different, not heterosexuality.
 * Depends whom you ask. The definition is clear, but it is a technical term, which is proably the reason, as with all technical terms, that it is not a houshold word.

Kindly refrain from putting that sentence - large parts of which you just stole - oh, sorry, quoted - anyway; it's a rather one-sided and not remotely appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- AlexR 04:07, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"idiosyncratic" and "random jargon"
This term is ideosyncratic, not technical. Its random jargon, unworthy of an article, as it would seem from these sources of verifiability

.

Sorry, but the term is neither idiosyncratic nor random jargon, and what is worthy or unworthy of an article in the WP is not for you to decide. Several articles link to this one, so obviously it makes some sense to have it. Google lists 3,340 links for the article, so it is obviously in use outside of the WP, too. You have so far not delivered a single argument as to why you are so much opposed to the word and/or concept. All you have done is rant and vandalise; maybe the neutrality warning will bring some unbiased people here who will probably tell you to bring arguments the next time you intend to start an edit war, too. It would certainly be useful. -- AlexR 04:35, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] Google does show "... 3,400 for Heteronormativity." "Random jargon" does not convey any clear idea. It probably is "jargon" if, by that, you mean "technical vocabulary understood by a group of people with special interests or expertise in a subject." The word "prion" might have been considered "jargon" before its discoverer received the Nobel Prize. P0M 04:37, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam, just do a count of how many of the google articles are hosted on educational sites -- or do a google search for "heteronormativity university". You'll see that there are lots of actual queer and gender studies people using this term -- maybe as jargon in a technical sense. But I'd rather say, they are using it as technical term. If the Encyclopedia Britannica isn't quite up to date in this realm of studies constituted only in the last few decades, we should! -- till we *) 09:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * IMHO a Google-test is not appropriate: it only indexes (part of) the internet. I have a few books using the term. Britannica and dictionaries are always slow to take up such developments...


 * On another note, I think, the article is too difficult to understand for ordinary people. There isn't a short and easy definition at the beginning of the article. Also, afaik, the term isn't that contraversial as the article seems to convey; maybe the use of the concept? Kokiri 15:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How confusing has the article become?

 * I agree that the article by now has become somewhat confusing. After March 19th first Mr. Johnson and then Mr. Spade voiced various complaints which were never very clear, and much editing, reverting and reediting followed. Compare the last version from March 19th to todays if you can't believe that this once was a short, clear article, which did not, despite some people's claim to the contrary, discriminate against anybody, either. -- AlexR 16:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Quote from the out-of-date-version: Heteronormativity describes a binary gender system, in which only two sexes are accepted. Just this introduction sentence is clearly POV because it suggests that there are more than two sexes. And such wording is clearly a point of view since only a very small minority of the minority would answer that there are in fact two sexes when asked about the amount of sexes. More people would just laugh about such a question. ;-) --Benedikt 21:42, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, to say that there are only two genders is also a point of view, and a neutral pov would simply acknowledge that most people may think so.Hyacinth 22:12, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that there are several societies that either had or still have more than two genders OR sexes, so whoever states that there are only two (or three, or umpteen) will have to prove their point. Besides, the statement Benedict criticised states the believe behind heteronormativity, but it does not say anything about right or wrong. So where exactly is the POV here? -- AlexR 22:33, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To Benedikt: The statement that there are more than two sexes is not simply a matter of point of view. There are various ways to define sex, so you might want to start with that article. If males produce the smaller sex cell and females produce the larger sex cell (sperm and egg), then what are humans that can produce neither? What are humans that can produce both? If humans who are chromosomally XX are females and humans who are XY are males, then what are individuals who are X, XYY, XXY, and mosaics of XX and XY cells? What is the sex of a freemartin? If a male has a penis and testicles, what does that make a "male" spider? The assertion that most people are ignorant regarding the facts of human (and other) sexual biologies does not provide a good rationale for rejecting information that would help inform them. P0M 01:39, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)