Talk:Heterosexualization

General
This topic proves very hard to discuss because of its controversial nature, but the English104h group has tried hard to remain objective. Expansion is always welcome. English104h (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)English104h

Digital Media
A subsection for online gaming needs to be created. English104h (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)English104h

Print Media
Needs to be researched and created. English104h (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)English104h

Images
I removed the two images of the film poster and the Simpsons. They seemed just to illustrate the article, and being copyrighted images, they can not be used in this manner. I'm not sure the point of the intertwined male/female symbols on this page? The image needs a caption at least to indicate why it is there. Lady of  Shalott  20:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry. My group, who is responsible for creating this article, is just learning how to edit and format everything on wikipedia. I've just added captions for pictures in order to explain relevance. English104h (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)English104h

Heteronormativity
I'm having a hard time determining how this article about Heterosexualization is distinct from our article about Heteronormativity? Aren't they basically aspects of the same topic? Wouldn't it make sense to merge all of this into one article? ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Homosexualization
I've seen the term homosexualization being used by critics of the gay liberation movement. I'm not sure it's entirely relevant, but it exists anyway. ADM (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's so unfortunate that the issue of heterosexualization, has been 'homosexualized' by the western LGBT faction on Wikipedia. the article has completely lost its relevance and original context in which the term has been used by a minority but strong opponents of the homo-hetero divide of the industrialized world. 'Homosexuality' and 'homosexuals' are part and parcel of the heterosexualization process (not anti to it), which feminizes, marginalizes and 'homosexualizes' male-male intimacy/ love/ sexual desire. Heterosexualization is not an issue that affects those who define themselves as LGBT. It affects those who are in the mainstream and define themselves as straight. This article has converted the entire issue of heterosexualization into a 'homosexual' issue and a part of the 'queer studies'. Heterosexualization is not about heteronormativity or homophobia, that this article has reduced it to. The LGBT lobby that has been given the control over defining information on male gender and sexuality especially that involves sexuality between men, has managed to manipulate another important information about male gender and sexuality and the sexual politics that surround it. Very unfortunate. (Masculinity (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC))


 * It seems like all of your contributions are a weird mix of misogyny by way of shitting on "effeminacy", teach the controversy and orientalism. The writing is woeful. Also complaining about the powerful gay lobby makes you look not credible at all. Snapdragonfly (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Online
4chan ought to be included. Nothing pokes more fun at homosexuality than 4chan - infact, theye ven reference to all of their members as 'fags'. Newfag, Britfag, Amerifag, Oldfag, so on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.162.196 (talk)

Not only an LGBT issue
This article makes it seem as if Heterosexualization is primarily an LGBT issue. It is not. It affects most humans, although, not in similar way or to similar extent. Besides, men do not have the space to talk about it openly. This discussion is too much worded as an LGBT issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs)
 * Whatever your issues with the article are, that does not give you a license to make a mass deletion in the way that you did. You removed reliably sourced and relevant material all because you feel the article is too associated with LGBT issues. Because of this, I have restored the article prior to your changes. I will take this matter to WikiProject LGBT studies, where I hope to get other editors to weigh in here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Flyer, you for no reason removed properly sourced info because it is "too much worded as an LGBT issue" C T J F 8 3  11:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Flyer, the contents maybe referenced, but the content is entirely on 'homophobia,' which is a totally different issue, that does not warrant inclusion on this topic which is about the process of making heterosexuals of individuals. None of the references that I'd removed talk about heterosexualization, or even use the word, but only talk about homophobia. I have had material that I included removed on the basis that even though the matter was referenced it was only part of the topic being covered, and that no single part may cover more than a fixed percentage of the total volume of the article. The matter on Homophobia far exceeds the matter on heterosexualization. I would like you to rethink including such huge information and making it into another article on homophobia.(Masculinity (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC))

Heterosexulization is a process that primarily affects the non-LGBT, The proposition that LGBT individuals maybe heterosexualized is preposterous, since, had they been heterosexualized, they would not be LGBT anymore. LGBT are the people who have escaped heterosexualization, and so its a misrepresentation of the issue, when the entire article revolves around making it an issue that affects the LGBT, especially, when it is unreferenced (the references only talk about homophobia).

The danger of making heterosexualization into a 'gay' issue, is that then the people that it affects the most -- that is those who don't relate with the sexual identities (as in the case of the non-west) or those who take the heterosexual identity under pressure or conditioning (through heterosexualization) in order to escape the gay identity, then are excluded from its readership and even if they read it would not relate with it as something that affects them -- as this creates a big psychological barrier. It amounts to hijacking the issue by the LGBT community.

It is this reason for which I feel the inclusion of this article as "part of a series on issues that affect LGBT people is wrong." It is as much an issue that affects LGBT people, as 'heterosexuality' Is heterosexuality a part of this series? Homosexualization of this issue stigmatizes it for the people to which it affects the most, and serves no purpose. The LGBT people have several terms to discuss the issue of 'homophobia' and other LGBT issues, and its unreasonable for them to appropriate everything that challenges heterosexuality in its own fold. This is a politics that distorts the facts, especially of those that are affected negatively by the western concept of sexual orientation, especially, the non-westerners. (Masculinity (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC))
 * The content is not entirely on homophobia. And how do you know none of the references you removed talk about heterosexualization, considering that some of those references are not available online? I highly doubt you have those books and volumes. And this source and others do talk about heterosexualization. Just because it doesn't use the specific word "heterosexualization"...does not make it any less clear that it is talking about "heterosexualization." You often do this, remove reliable sources, asserting that they are only about one thing and with no valid reason at all. You then add your own text, usually original research (meaning, as you know, that it is attributed to no sources, reliable or otherwise). One example is your removal of these references from the Heterosexuality article. That definition is not defining "sexual orientation" in regards to homosexuality. It is defining "sexual orientation" period, which is why it is also used in the Sexual orientation article and others, and is why I reverted you (and tweaked the lead further). You need to learn how to really look at sources, and stop adding your own definitions to things. If heterosexualization is the process through which individuals are conditioned to adopt heterosexual practices, by ignoring and suppressing their sexual feelings toward the same sex and then using these suppressed emotions towards the opposite gender, I'm not seeing how you think this article is not going to be largely or mostly about LGBT issues. The "proposition" that LGBT individuals may be heterosexualized is NOT preposterous. Plenty of gay/lesbian/bisexual people initially take on a heterosexual identity, because they feel that being heterosexual is the right sexual orientation and or want to be heterosexual. There are even accounts of people not realizing they are gay/lesbian/otherwise until much later in life (their 30s or 40s). One of the things with you is that you don't believe in the "concept" of LGBT. To you, it is just a Western application. That's your belief, whatever. But I say whether you call it "gay" or "just a man engaging in sexual acts with another man (men who have sex with men)," the article is still discussing the conditioning of people automatically taking on the heterosexual label, making depictions of human sexuality largely or only about being heterosexual, and suppressing any sexual/romantic feelings they may have for the same sex, which is what heterosexualization is. And let me make clear again: That "only part of the topic being covered" does not give you the right to remove the material. You want the article to cover all these angles you state the term encompasses, then you expand the article in that way...with WP:Reliable sources. I am not going to sit here and have these long-winded debates with you about this. We both know you can write large texts to try and support your stance. I can as well. But this is not a debate I feel compelled to have. It's very simple, really: You don't go removing heaps of relevant, reliable text like that. You have a problem with the article mostly leaning in one direction, then you add the relevant tags (POV tags or whatever), and then expand the article in the way that you want...if compelled to do so...but with relevant text and reliable sources backing up that text (then remove the POV tags or whatever).


 * And try to keep this discussion in one place. We don't need two different sections on it. If the discussion becomes too long (which I will not be a part of), that is when a subsection (often titled a section break) is added...for easier replying. This is why I combined your sections right now. Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * After discussing this with other editors, I feel it might be best to redirect this article to Heterosexism or Heteronormativity. Those articles are better put together and are covering the same thing, though still a little distinct from each other. Now, I know you, Masculinity, say heterosexualization is not just a LGBT issue and will probably object to the term being redirected to an article that is largely about LGBT issues, but the editors I talked to, who also deal with LGBT topics, either have never heard of this word or have heard of it rarely. And the fact remains...the Heterosexism and Heteronormativity articles are covering the same thing that is currently in this article. If this article cannot be expanded in the way you suggest, it should be redirected to Heterosexism or Heteronormativity. And Heteronormativity would be the better choice. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing to do would be not to delete content, but to find the sourced academic content that supposes not only an LGBT issue. That's clearly quite a fascinating and perhaps contentious point, but nevertheless an ancillary one. Clearly worthy of discussion, but the very frame of such a discussion emerges from an acknowledging the extent to which it is an LGBT issue. So please, Google Scholar and your local library, and come back. Or as Flyer suggested, a merging/re-organisation of the articles. A very long but competent article which discusses the issues in relation to one another might be very impressive, but then an encylcopedia might also owe it readers to clearly distinguish fine, essentially academic concepts, and explore each of them fully (to the extent sources allow).

The main issue with this article is it seems to read like a paraphrase of a single journal article discussing "Heterosexualiization in popular media". It doesn't draw from a significant wealth of research or theory. It either should be compressed into a chunky section in Heteronormativity, or opened up considerably; attending to ways in which it is "not solely an LGBT issue" is one way of doing that, but that should be done by adding new content, not taking away.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in, Zythe. Yes, redirecting/merging the article/material to Heteronormativity has been discussed here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's my two cents. The article is disjointed, to put it mildly. There is the lede, which defines heterosexualization and posits certain things about it; this is effectively unsourced (the first source isn't reliable, the second one doesn't even mention the word "heterosexualization"). And then there's the rest of the article, which contains some reasonably good content that is adequately sourced but only tenuously connected to the lede. In terms of policy, this is a rather blatant case of original research, and I suspect the article wouldn't survive an AfD except perhaps as a severely pared-down stub. I have no idea whether heterosexualization is deserving of its own article. If it is, then it needs much better sources for the lede (which should be rewritten—especially the jargon-laden, tldr second paragraph) and any subsequent sections should have sources that actually use the word (otherwise it's probably synthesis). If this cannot be done, I'd recommend salvaging bits and pieces where possible and using them to fill in gaps in various articles (e.g., Homophobia and Bullying), then add a short section (or maybe just a sentence) on heterosexualization to Heteronormativity and redirect this to there. (Not sure what to do about the bizarrely-titled "Digital media" section, which reads like a rather inept college term paper. There might be articles where some of that could go.) Fwiw, I just found this, which confirms that the article was created as a school project. Rivertorch (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * An hour or two ago, I looked to see who created the article as well, but I didn't think to read that user's page (main page or talk page). What I saw in the early development of this article, though, was that it was viewed as problematic from the very beginning. The "multiple issues" tag is from 2009, the same year the article was created. If there are no valid objections, I will be redirecting this article to Heteronormativity in a week. I suppose I will also try to save any solid material this article has and merge it to one or more of the suggested articles. Flyer22 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Zythe's comments above are great. a) Content could be found that better says that this isn't just an LGBT issue, or b) merge the article to more common words/articles that explain better.  For the record, "heterosexualization" has roughly 20,000 ghits, "heteronormative" has 140,000 ghits, and "heterosexism" 300,000 ghits. That says something right there. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 13:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The school-project thing gives me pause, and Zythe does make good points... all in all, would it not be better to just make this a redirect? I'm thinking that that would be the best. Otherwise I'd be concerned that nothing will be actually done to the article and we'll all move on and the article will just hang around in its present state forever. Herostratus (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but let's see if anything is salvageable first. Flyer22, I don't want to duplicate your efforts, but I'll take a look now and see if I see anything obvious that can be saved. Rivertorch (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. It's best to go ahead and get this done now, before, as Herostratus stated, we all essentially forget about the article. I doubt I wouldn't remember to redirect it, though. Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I finally redirected it to Heteronormativity. As for saving some of the content, given concerns that some of the sources don't even use the word "heterosexualization," I can't be sure whether or not most of the content -- which is attributed to offline sources -- is using the word "heterosexualization." To me, "heteronormativity" and "heterosexualization" are the same, and I wouldn't mind trading out one word for the other when putting this information into the Heteronormativity article, but I just don't know what the sources are saying. I may save the content later, though. Flyer22 (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)