Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 2003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This article looks at heteronormativity as thought it was an out-dated idea that no civilized person believes in anymore. While I agree, it is not NPOV in the least. (I'm not singling out the recent anonymous contributions, as they aren't bad) Tuf-Kat

Well, the article just gives the usual description of Heteronormativity. (Minus some of the recent additions; at least I have never encountered them; and the "desires X partner, not a Y partner" is redundant).
It is most certainly not redundant; a woman who desires male partners falls outside the bounds of heteronormativity if she also desires female ones. - Montréalais 03:51, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It does not try to make it sound NPOV, but the problem is that some conceps don't sound to intelligent once you write them up. Therefore, the article is not NPOV, it's simply that the subject is one that challenges a very basic assumption. Would you consider the article NPOV if the very same thing were written about, say, race? I somehow don't think so ...
However, if you want to add something, well, that't the Wikipedia - just do so.
-- AlexR 11:15 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

mmm. Heteronormativity - what a hideously simplistic, bigoted idea. Would that no civilised person believed in it anymore. But too many do. While I would love that we didn't have to have such an article, the foibles of human bigotry and religious ignorance mean that such an idea does exist and if it exists we do have to cover it, even if it turns our stomachs. FearÉIREANN 06:57 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Does the section on asexuality really belong here? It seems to only address sexual orientation, and in that way, asexuals who are not also trangender or androgynous could be in sync with heteronormative standards, just not with heterosexuality, right? Would this section then be better under sexual orientation? Paige 14:40 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have my doubts about that, too. A seperate article about asexualitiy seems the best to me, because a) I have never encountered asexuality as being incompatible with heteronormativity, and b) it does not make sense to me, when I think it through, either.
I am under the impression that the person adding it wanted to make a point that was important to them, but choose a less than ideal subject for it. Maybe patriarchy was the system that was to be criticised, but even that does not quite fit.
But I did want to hear another comment or two before removing that bit again to it's own article. -- AlexR 15:52 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely, Alex, I'd like to see if there was a solid line of reasoning behind it (although I beleive it was added by an anon user, so who knows if they'll read this). I just think that because the gay and lesbian section is in there, heteronormativity is becoming confused with heterosexuality, you know? I think the comments are apropriate for either asexuality or sexual orientation though. And I think some overall clarification in all the realted articles of the difference between voluntary celibacy and naturally having no sexual attraction would help too! Hugs, Paige 16:53 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Thirded. A culture being heteronormative and being pro- or anti- asexuality seems to be orthogonal really. Martin 19:01 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Orthogonal? Really, Martin, why the desideratum for periphrastic obliqueness?  :) Paige 19:43 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Bah, I studied computer science: I spent hours learning what orthogonal meant - I ain't gonna waste that knowledge :-P
(I could have said "uncorrellated", but that's a weaker statement...) Martin 22:58 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, yours truly had to look up the word ;-)
Anyway, removed the bits about asexuality, and moved an NPOV version of them to asexuality. AlexR 19:51 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex! Good job too. Paige 19:52 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Very good entry! :) Dysprosia 12:36 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Question on Content

The beginning of this article says:

  1. Woman: female genitalia = female identity = female behavior = desires male partners, but not female ones
  2. Man: male genitalia = male identity = male behavior = desires female partners, but not male ones

This formulation is a little puzzling to me. It seems to be saying that when people who assumes the doctrine of heteronormativity see a what they take to be a woman they assume that this person has female genitalia and exhibits behavior that they take to be the appropriate to someone with female genitalia. So "female identity" is short for "female gender identity", right? And "female behavior" means about the same thing as "feminine gender role"? And one component of "female behavior" is what they take to be the only appropriate sexual appetites for people with female genitalia, right? Or have I just proven my own point about the formulation being puzzling by misinterpreting it?

Patrick0Moran 01:02, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Heteronormativity seems to be a word used only by its detractors. Is there anyone who calls themself "heteronormative" or "pro-heteronormativity"? —Ashley Y 20:16, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge; as far as I can tell, such people don't conceive of themselves as having any point of view at all other than a 'rational' or 'factual' or 'common-sense' one. - Montréalais

I think that many people hold the position that people who are born with male external genitalia must "act like a man," and that people who are born with female external genitalia must "act like a woman." I suppose that they would say that only by males doing things normal to males and females doing things normal to females can the laws of the universe be preserved unbroken. They might feel that "heteronormativity" sounds a little clinical, but I'm not sure what term they might prefer. Pro-Family?

Patrick0Moran 21:33, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)