Talk:Non-heterosexual

I would consider this for deletion
It's gender-studies cruft. How can an article about this term be much more than a bare-bones stub? Feel free to prove me wrong...--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wierd template
rescue

Maybe I'm just hanging out in the wrong places, but that's an odd template. Every article listed for deletion is an article that needs ""ing and to have a second huge template on the article page is highly undesirable. - brenneman  04:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The rescue tag is for articles at AfD, which, by its nature is in place for only a few days and is seen as just as unwelcome as the AfD template by some editors. Disagree that "all" articles need rescuing - this tag is only for articles which an editor has tagged as probably being notable. In practice out of teh hundreds of articles in AfD this tag usually is only on 10-15 at a time. Banj e  b oi   18:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Add Non-homosexual and non-bisexual sections?
from AfD - "Non-homosexual" is a bit more borderline as is "non-bisexual" although both might be valid subheadings here. Of all the terms Non-heterosexual seems to have the most usage, I stopped at 30-40 books but there were dozens more that also addressed this material. Non-homosexual and non-bisexual both had mentions but they were definitely used far less although in similar contexts of explaning one group verses all others outside the group. Banj e b oi   22:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible sources
There's about 50-80 more to work through as possible sources. Banj e b oi   23:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

...and Non-nonheterosexual is an umbrella term, describing people who don't fall into the categories homosexual, bisexual, asexual, and Other.--Wetman (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sharp
Very sharply-written article. It will have to be carefully watched so it doesn't accumulate OP and POV. - House of Scandal (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, do you mean OR? Banj e  b oi   06:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Transgender people can't be heterosexual?
The article reads, 'Many LGBT people were born into cultures and religions that stigmatized, repressed or negatively judged any sexuality that differed from a heterosexual identity and orientation.' If there is no proof that transgender people generally or transsexuals in particular cannot be heterosexual, then this is a deeply misleading statement (even if it is not literally incorrect). Skoojal (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Deeply misleading"? How about just saying it could be more clear? And trans and intersex people can be both gender-identity and sexual-identity minorities. And the statement is that many LGBT were born into cultures and religions that .... and it's true. The artcle is about a sexuality focus and later it also clarifies that mistakenly gender minorities are also grouped together with sexual identity minorities. Banj e  b oi   09:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To be correct and clear, the sentence should probably say something like "cisgender heterosexual". There's a reason "cishet" has become a common slang abbreviation ...
 * Straight trans people are technically "queer", aren't they? (Although some people who have undergone a gender transition reject the label "trans" and at most describe themselves as having a "trans history".) They definitely defy heteronormativity. So it's a bad idea to erase them, just because they are technically heterosexual, because that doesn't mean that homophobic stereotypes aren't used against them. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

straightness is pushed onto everyone, even cishets, and especially on lgbt people. so no, it wouldn't be wrong to say it's pushed on straight trans people too - even though they're straight, they're still taught that this is the norm. and even though they're trans, they're still straight. they don't defy heteronormativity, they defy cissexism. homophobia may be used against them but it's misdirected, just like if misogyny is directed at trans men Irealm (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Non-heterosexual. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014103045/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3752/is_200505/ai_n13640713 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3752/is_200505/ai_n13640713
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3WTT3VDa_IQJ:eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/757/2/Queering_Religious_Texts.pdf+%22non-heterosexual%22+term+-%22long-term%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20140513223006/http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/757/2/Queering_Religious_Texts.pdf on http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/757/2/Queering_Religious_Texts.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014154033/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_41/ai_n6112879/pg_2 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_41/ai_n6112879/pg_2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing some difficulties
Resolving those issues should make this a moderately decent article. Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I fetched up here hoping to find a concise-and-clear differentiation of bisexuality and pansexuality, something woefully lacking in the respective articles (and seen as entirely unimportant by those editors who guard them jealously). Apparently, I'm still SOL. If anyone can point me to a Wikipedia page that properly clarifies all these overlapping and commonly conflated terms, I would be relieved.
 * Though Non-heterosexual clearly has strayed into original research and editorial synthesis, it's not terrible. However, it (well, the editors hereabouts, anyway) needs to maintain "narrative focus" so as not to baffle W'pedia's "write for the general reader" standard. For instance, we have an underlying thread of the term non-heterosexual as employed by researchers attempting to maximize their objectivity freely intermingled with the term non-heterosexual employed as a self-descriptor and probably the term non-heterosexual as possibly misapplied by 'outsiders' of questionable objectivity . The article frequently shifts between these modes, often sentence-to-sentence. I'm a longtime student of sociology so I'm generally able to navigate the shifts, but it's even making me a bit dizzy so is certainly inappropriate for "the general reader." Clarify or simplify, and likely dollops of both.
 * The place of transpersons in "nonheterosexuality" seems to be left ambiguous. In some sections, care has been taken to refer to the observed universe as "LGB" (omitting the "T") yet this suddenly pivots to "LGBT" and "LGBTQ" and "LGBT+" etc., then back again. Unlike the other letters, trans is more a matter of gender identity rather than sexual expression, and being trans (or intersex) does not instantly make one non-het; as I've been told, "I've been a woman all my life. I merely happen to have been born with a penis." Either a single clear standard should be selected for the article (with briefer discussion of variant usages) or the conflict spelled out more overtly and in detail.
 * The term "non-heterosexual" is itself problematic. In some cultures, a male-presenting male having sex with a female-presenting male is considered (for the former) standard heterosexual behavior; suggesting otherwise is mortally insulting and that's where people get stabbed to death, literally. Hence, the somewhat more circumspect "men having sex with males" (MSM). So: is "non-heterosexual" something of itself, or is it nothing more than a catch-all of overlapping-but-distinctly-disparate concepts?
 * A not-uncommon criticism of the term non-monogamy is that it sets up all non-normative relational forms as not only deviant but (possibly worse) somehow equivalent or interchangeable. "LGBTQ" is problematic enough as it's often claimed to be a singular "community" when it's actually an agglomeration of disparate communities lumped together merely by being nonnormative, i.e. non-het. They have overlapping strengths and problems, but they are not in any way "the same" except for being cast as somehow abnormal, as non-heterosexual indicates.
 * The extensive Critique section (making up the bulk of the article) is a muddled mess. First, the title seems to indicate it's more an annotated essay than it is an overview of "criticisms of application of the term 'non-heterosexuality.'" Second, thoughts seem to be lumped together at random, changing directions repeatedly within the large blocks that don't deserve to be called "paragraphs." Much work needs to be done to separate these and sort them properly, perhaps grouped thematically into appropriate subsections.


 * Regarding your first paragraph above, you just couldn't help yourself, could you? Oh well, it's just more evidence to add to the existing evidence. And to reiterate, Wikipedia is not the place for your personal opinions, such as "the term 'non-heterosexual' is itself problematic." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Glad you're here. Plenty to be done. No contribution too small. Go for it.


 * I'm mulling through Critique, and the recurrence of the bisexual erasure meme stands out. Though the term is melodramatic, the concept is highly relevant in this context, and ties to my doubts about the "one big happy community" tendency. But it's strewn throughout the page, and needs to be grouped. I'll get around to it if nobody else sees fit. Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weeb Dingle, I largely disagree with your criticism. We defined bisexuality and pansexuality perfectly correctly. This article here is far from perfect, but complaining at length, in the midst of a bunch of other dubious points, won't do you any good. Better to show some respect to what exists and make concise suggestions based on Wikipedia policy and reliable sources. You seem to take offense to the terms non-heterosexual, non-monogamy, etc., but these are the terms used by reliable sources. We even have criticism of the terms here. Also you state, "In some cultures, a male-presenting male having sex with a female-presenting male is considered (for the former) standard heterosexual behavior; suggesting otherwise is mortally insulting and that's where people get stabbed to death, literally." This is not correct; in such cultures, they socially categorize male sexuality by masculine and feminine more than by gay and straight (though the Western system is spreading). What you described is considered there to be compatible with masculinity, not heterosexuality. It doesn't matter that such men get mad because they think it's only gay if you're the bottom; scientists care not one bit about that. Worldwide, about 3-16% of men have sex with men. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yet, "correctly" according to what actual standard? It does no good pilfering from the best dictionary in the Universe if it's not understood in context. Hence my initial doubts, particularly the
 * a concise-and-clear differentiation of bisexuality and pansexuality
 * part. The target "general readers" of Wikipedia actually NEED to be directed efficiently to exactly ONE point where they can receive a quick-and-accurate answer to "w.t.f. are they talking about?" Instead, readers are waved off to two (or three, or more) other articles to figure it out as best they are able, and are quickly overwhelmed by not only Bisexuality and Pansexuality but now Non-heterosexual and Same-gender loving and Questioning (sexuality and gender) and MSM/MWM and Bi-curious and Heteroflexibility, among others.


 * Unless you can immediately point me to that one differentiation point, I win, and further resistance argument is futile. If there can't somehow be such a sort-of disambiguation page, the alternative is that ALL the overlapping articles MUST display identical wordage, right from the beginning, and thus ensure consistency across the encyclopedia.


 * And I stand by my assessment that there are at least three inherent "definitions" of non-heterosexual in this article that conflict, yet the article constantly flipflops between them, which is a disservice not only to the reader but to the cited authorities who are thus being cast as biased and/or stupid. This is beyond intellectually dishonest, as it lends credence to "it's all the same thing" nonsense — which if true would greatly support merging all these articles, then eliminating the significant redundancy. In short, either it's all the same (and should be one article) or it's not (and care must be taken at every step, particularly by the gatekeepers).


 * (Before a Guardian Angel swoops in to denounce me YET AGAIN for "always wanting to merge everything," I am making a rhetorical point, namely that such a rolllup would be absurd, though implicit in "all the same" thinking.)


 * And Critique really is an utter mess. I don't say that with any sense of triumph: I was really hoping to see some record of intellectual give-and-take on an interesting topic. A "thank you" for taking a whack at it.


 * While I understand the instinct of editors to "rally around" their pet articles and defend them as "perfect enough for us regulars," it's not an attitude I find consonant with Wikipedia's apparent mission. For example, the (intentional?) ambiguousness of transpeople in this article has not yet been addressed, even in discussion. Is there a reason for this? I'm casually certain that if I attempt to make any revisions, they will quickly be reverted by the aforementioned self-appointed guardians, so I now explicitly ask those worthies to get cracking. Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Without repeating exactly what I stated to you at Talk:Bisexuality, I'm going to point to it and add on to it here. Some topics should have their own Wikipedia articles, even if there is overlap. That is what the WP:Notability guideline is about; it also has a WP:No page section advising editors on when a topic may not need its own Wikipedia article. Pansexuality has received enough attention to warrant its own Wikipedia article even with it often being considered a subset of bisexuality. Various topics on Wikipedia rightfully have subtopics. Some articles, like this one (Talk:Non-heterosexual), is about the term. The Same-gender loving article is about the term/sexual identity. We have articles on terms. "Non-heterosexual" obviously does not automatically equate to "bisexual." And the Bisexuality article is about the concept of bisexuality, even though it obviously addresses definitions of bisexuality (as it should). If a term or topic has more than one definition, as many terms and topics do, we cover that with due weight. It doesn't matter if you find the definitions contradictory. They are the definitions. The very short Bi-curious article should be merged, and, as I've stated on that article's talk page, I think that the best merge candidate for that merge is the Questioning (sexuality and gender) article. Men who have sex with men is obviously a notable topic that should be its own Wikipedia article. That article is clear why that category is used by researchers. I very much doubt that anyone is going to confuse it with the topic of bisexuality, pansexuality, non-heterosexual, same-gender loving, questioning, bi-curious, or heteroflexibility. Or that they will be overwhelmed by its existence. Even if readers were overwhelmed by all of these articles, it wouldn't mean that all of these articles should be one article or mentioned on some disambiguation page. What would the disambiguation page even be called? There has been talk of merging the Heteroflexibility article with the Bisexuality article, but the whole point of that topic is that most or all of these people don't view themselves as bisexual. Furthermore, the "mostly straight" topic (heteroflexibility) has received more and more research over the years.


 * As for your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, such as "Unless you can immediately point me to that one differentiation point, I win, and further resistance argument is futile.", "pet articles", and "self-appointed guardians", and " get cracking.", I recently warned you about this on your talk page. I will not be warning you again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

This article, while valid for subject, is characterized by a distinct bias
This article lacks an encyclopedic tone, with too much reliance on unconfirmed and unfalsifiable gender studies axioms. In essence, the article needs to edited for objectivity. 2A02:14F:170:4164:0:0:5677:9D75 (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)