Talk:Heterosociality

Original research
This article was filled with nonsensical original research. I deleted that.--124.189.8.183 06:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename
We should probably rename this Heterosociality to use the noun form and to be parallel with Homosociality. Aleta  (Sing)  15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. This article needs to be reworked heavily and should not be deleted. The terms came up way too often in the readings for my cinema and gender calls, and possibly my cinema and ideology class as well. They are clearly terms that are in active use in academic writing, and thus notable. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also agree with this. I believe at the time the article was created, the 'homosociality' article was called homosocial rather than homosociality. Since that is the more widely used term compared to this, it would explain why it would only be noticed for updating later. No objection at all. Tyciol (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
The reason for deletion I feel has not been fully clarified. The above two users and myself feel it has a place, and it obviously does, much as heterosexuality has a place in regards to being opposite of homosexuality. The orientation of one's social preference or social interactions has a descriptive factor, and to only have one without its counterpart is nonsense. Tyciol (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read the article, but I must ask myself if this really is a term used in scientific research. Is there any reference? A quick search in Google linked me on Women with Mustaches and Men without Beards: Gender and Sexual Anxieties of Iranian Modernity by Afsaneh Najmabadi who should be a good person to start. If there is no reference, this article will always be prone to deletion. --Yamavu (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Bisociality
As a compliment to both this article (at its proposed new name heterosociality and the homosociality article, a bisociality article would make sense. I believe this was created once (did I do it or someone else?) but deleted due to being considered a non-factor. If anything, bisociality is a more relevant article than heterosociality. As explained in this article, heterosociality cannot accurately describe a whole social group seeing as how with 3 members, you will have 2 of the same sex (with exceptions made for intersexed individuals) or gender (transgendered/genderqueer individuals excepted). Homosociality can describe large groups however, so long as they are the same sex. Bisociality can describe ANY group so long as there is at least one member of each sex in it. Essentially, it is the nature that an individual can interact with both sexes equally, rather than preferring their own or their opposite's. Tyciol (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it seems this was already made. I can't say I'm not a bit peeved seeing as how the original creation got deleted, eh well. Tyciol (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

LGBT studies?
It says in the article that this has nothing to do with homosexuality, so what's with that? Why's it in that category? 98.208.65.56 (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncategorized. -Zeus-u 02:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Individuals versus groups
An anon just added dubious and why? to this statement "Unlike homosociality, due to the nature, heterosociality can only be used to describe individuals or individual relations."

Let's look at this way: What would a heterosocial group of 3 or more people be?

Of course, a group of several people could be composed of heterosocial individuals. What the article seems to be saying is that the group as a whole can't be heterosocial – or at least, it wouldn't be much of a group as the boys/men would be interacting only with the girls/women and vice versa.

What do people think? Does the article need to be improved to clarify this? — Smjg (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If heterosociality is seen as a description of social practices, as well as of individual preferences, (as the sources seem to suggest it can), some of the (otherwise logical) contradiction may disappear.... Jacobisq (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is it now under the heading "Criticism"? The statement doesn't look to me anything like a criticism of heterosociality.
 * And the reference just added is just a dictionary definition: "relating to or denoting mixed-sex social relationships". This is in itself ambiguous - is a social relationship between two people or between several people?  But it does suggest that the applicability of the term to groups of people isn't clearly defined. — Smjg (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the section and relabelled it "Terminology" as this is what it's really about. But this does beg a question.  In a group of (say) three boys and one girl, the boys would be interacting with each other and with the girl, but the girl would be interacting only with boys.  So what would this arrangement be? — Smjg (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)