Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 2004 3

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.

Contents

Some quotes

  • "vanilla norms of heterosexual coupledom (or in queer theory's jargon, 'heteronormativity')" Against Love: A Polemic by Laura Kipnis, ISBN 0375421890
  • "Heteronormativity demands freeze-frame sexuality." this bridge we call home: radical visions for transformation by Gloria E. Anzaldúa (Editor), Analouise Keating (Editor), ISBN 0415936829
  • "Compulsory heterosexuality (or what some have called 'heteronormativity')" Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Text-Reader by Gail Dines (Editor), Jean M. Humez (Editor), ISBN 076192261X
  • "Queer social practices like sex and theory try to unsettle the garbled but powerful norms supporting that privilege - including the project of normalization that has made heterosexuality hegemonic - as well as those material practices that, though not explicitly sexual, are implicated in the hierarchies of property and propriety that we will describe as heteronormative. By heteronormativity we mean the institutions, structures of understanding, and practical orientations that make heterosexuality seem not only coherent - that is, organised as a sexuality - but also privileged. Its coherence is always provi- sional, and its privilege can take several (sometimes contradictory) forms: unmarked, as the basic idiom of the personal and the social; or marked as a natural state; or projected as an ideal or moral accomplishment." The Cultural Studies Reader by Simon Durin, ISBN 0415137543

I don't know who inserted these statements, but let's say, they sound like coming from one more "I feel discriminated against"-troll. -- AlexR 22:33, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wow, realizing you made the above comment before the sources were added, since when did putting quotes on a talk page become trolling. Hyacinth 22:47, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I retract my comment; however, given the history of the debate about these pages I apologise if my patience has become somewhat shorter than usual. On the other hand, I can probably collect quotes about everything that don't sound particularly nice, but does that mean that if we write an article about that something in the Wikipedia, that article is automatically "not nice" or NPOV, too? I don't think so. -- AlexR 23:01, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Benedict debate

[Bene:] Alex, it is uncorrect to say that a concept characterizes something. A label can characterize a belief. F. ex. the label Catholicism characterizes the Catholic belief. But it makes no sense to speak of a concept which characterizes a belief. What is it? A concept or a belief? The word label is correct for heteronormativity.

[Bene:] Regarding the bible quotation: Since Christian reservation about the multiple gender hypothesis is a major contribution to the belief which is labeled by heteronormativity a bible quotation makes much sense. It is more accurate and correct to speak of a concrete quotation than of a vague reference to a so-called Holy Book. You should note that some of the heteronormative religious beliefs like Buddhism don't have a Holy Book. --Benedikt 22:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello, I really don´t see any POV in the version of Alex using Heteronormativity is a concept used to characterize the belief, said to be behind many social institutions and social policies, that human beings can be categorized into exactly two disjunct, binary sexes, and the corollary belief that some behaviors are normal only to males and some are normal only to females. . I think, that using the term label isn´t correct in this place because it really isn´t a label.

On the other hand, it is o.k., to use a quote of the holy bible in that chapter of religious definitions. Greetings, de:Benutzer:Necrophorus

Thank you for your "intervention". I didn't mean that the former wording was NPOV but I think that the current wording makes the term more clear. What do you think about the new formulation: H. describes the belief...? I still have objection for the concept since a concept would require a clear construct of ideas which doesn't exist. H. rather describes a phenonem which appears in very different ways. The Catholic Theology of the Body f.ex. is a concept of H. but it is very different from islamic expression of H. --Benedikt 23:15, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Heteronormativity is not a belief. It is a concept. We do not describe gravity as a belief that there is a force that pulls particles towards each other. We ought not describe heteronormativity that way either.Snowspinner 16:04, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[AR] The word label is not the only change you made to the first paragraph. Label might be used for a believe, but actually that paragraph, like the whole article, is still messed up - and we should discuss whether it is a believe in the first place. However, given the recent edit wars, letting the article rest for a while is probably a good idea. In any case, Label is definitely not the proper word to describe Heteronormativity, because it's not a label, it is a concept.

[AR] Also, you completely deleted that some behaviors are normal only to males and some are normal only to females. which is an essential part of the definition. That does not look as if you were interested in anything but promoting your believe, that the basic heteronormative assumptions are correct. That however is just another believe, which does not belong into the Wikipeda any more than any other believes. We don't start writing about how "wrong" other religions are, just because you don't happen to belive in them, either, do we?

[AR] As far as the quote is concerned, I left it in. I don't really like the idea of putting every religious quote in there that happens to be used to defend heteronormativity (or any other concept, word or believe) because it would make the articles unreadable. And what makes you say there are not holy books in Buddhism? -- AlexR 23:18, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I really don´t think, label is the right word. label is somthing pressed on an idea, better is concept, because is resembles the nature of the idea. I also agree with Alex about the deleted art, because without this part the concept does´n make sense. Greeting again, de:Benutzr:Necrophorus
The new beginning doesn't make sense -- heteronormativity is not the concept that male and female gender roles are complementary, but the concept that explains that/why most societies see this as normal, whereas the person using the concept questions this. So I will change it a bit back. -- till we *) 00:31, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I like Tillwe's changes. I have tweaked a couple of things in ways that hopefully will not change the intended meaning.P0M 01:54, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks to those who intervened with regards to Benedict. I had a long conversation with him via IRC, we were trying to resolve the problems. However, while we did reach a compromise on the "bible" bit, the conversation became nasty while we were trying to sort out the problems with the first paragraph. Obviously I was not the only person who was not happy with his changes. -- AlexR 04:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Parts to be improved

I think the following (excerpted) passage needs to be improved. It includes some "weasel words" that encourage the belief that assertions are made without taking responsibility for them. I don't doubt the content, but I think it would be much better to include substantiation. [P0M]

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual behaviour..... If it cannot be suppressed so far as to at least disappear from the public view, then the notion is said to be encouraged that gay men are not really "men", but have a strong female component (and vice versa) and/or that in a lesbian or gay partnership there is always a "male" (active) and a "female" (passive) partner. This has in some cases gone so far that homosexuals were encouraged (in Europe and North America in the 1960s and 1970s) or even forced (in South Africa in the 1980s and 1990s) to undergo sexual reassignment procedures. As for bisexuals, the imposition of stereotypes often portrays them as confused as to their "true" sexual natures and desires, rather than on their gender roles, but bisexuality is still considered contrary to the standard of heteronormativity.

Ah, yes, another sentence that got messed up during the recent edit wars. Actually, before going into details, I'd like to suggest a break for about a week or two, because I'd rather not do anything that might provoke yet another edit war over this article. Three in a week, even if the last was was short, is quite sufficient for me.
Regarding this particular paragraph, I think you don't have to dig very deep to find the notion that gay man are "not really men" but "have a strong female component". (Same for lesbians, of course.) The vast majority of books and articles on the subject that were written prior to about 1980 will say so, and far too many that were written later as well. Simply asking the next person on the street will, more likely than not, tell you that this notion is still extremely common. So "the notion is often encouraged" should do perfectly well. And in the second case, I think that we can simply remove the bit you striked out; it does indeed not make any sense. Bisexual people are "portraied", or "assumed to be", but no stereotyping there. (Rest follows tomorrow, I am too tired now.) -- AlexR 04:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I struck out what seem to me the most problematical phrases, but if some proof were added other changes would likely follow. P0M 02:19, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here is another passage. I would suggest using "confound" instead of "violate". But the main problem is with the phrase that I struck out. I don't understand the intended meaning. P0M 02:52, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Transgender people always violate the assumption of an unambiguous male or female identity; many also seek to what is seen as violation of the assumption of unambiguous anatomy, and also many violate assumptions of gender roles and sexuality.

Another section that could use substantiation, citations,etc. [P0M]

I don't know of a single scientific work showing people's attitide towards transgender people. I can, however, provide you with tons of stories of people which tell how uncomfortable many people are with physical changes, particular surgery. However, that looks like one more sentence that got messed up in the edit wars. [AR]
You could also check the use of "she-male". While some use the word to define themselves, most of the time it is an insult, and meant as one. The way transgender slurs are used shows the problems some people have with them quite well. -- AlexR 11:05, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This behavior either has been pathologised so far that transgendered people routinely were locked away in psychiatric wards, or they were killed. This happens either by formally punishing transgender behavior by death (in Saudi Arabia, and many other non-western nations), or by refusing to track down and/or prosecute murderers of transgendered people (currently, in parts of North America and Europe).
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.)

These two paragraphs would be much more persuasive if somebody could come up with citations to substantiate these charges. Some criminology texts from the 1950s (e.g., Rhinehart) would probably do for the institutionalization of transgendered people. Any killings were probably extra-judicial. Are there famous cases? Perhaps somebody was discovered and killed as an adult? P0M 03:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that will do regarding dead people. I got depressed looking for them. Thanks God it is not that bad in every country. -- AlexR 11:05, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits by Sam Spade

Sam, I really don't see the point in your edits. "Heteronormativity" is a technical term used (a) in gender studies/queer studies, and (b) in transgender/homosexual/intersexual/... politics. In both groups, the term is in no way controversial (maybe some academics prefer other terms for the same concept, maybe some activists for queer rights think the concept is not strong enough -- but there is no real controversy). Whereas I understand that some people don't like it if their lifestyle, their normality and their norms are discussed by the groups (a) and (b) in terms of heteronormativity, I'm not so sure these people want to discuss about the usefulness of the concept. Instead, they want to discuss the rights of what they see as "normal" and "rightful" way of living, i.e. heterosexuality, complementary gender roles, and the wrongs of other ways of living. But this is in no way related to the academic and political concept of heteronormativity. My last changes tried to reflect this: You won't find opponents to the concept "heteronormativity", but you will find proponets for a specific type of society, which in the terms of gender studies, queer studies or gender politics could be named a "heteronormative society". With your last edits you are blurring this distinction, until the article reaches a point that is more or less POV again (and really needs the "controversial content" msg at the top). So, I want to ask you what the reason for your changes is, and I want to ask you if you can show us some references (possible inside the groups (a) and (b) mentioned before) that the term and concept "heteronormativity" is discussed controversially. To make my point clear: I agree that it is discussed hotly and controversly if a society should accept "non-normal" sexual behavior and identity. That is not the question. The question is, if this discussion is related to the academic and political concept of heteronormativity in ways other than you connecting both. -- till we *) 12:03, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't mean to sugest that the term is controvercial within "(a) in gender studies/queer studies, and (b) in transgender/homosexual/intersexual/... politics". How would I know? I certainly don't plan to look into it. If you want to point out that it is uncontrovercial within those extremely atypical communities, go right ahead. I am speaking to what the "regs" think. That is where the opponents of this theory lie. The fact that you can't comprehend how shockingly offensive this concept is, or how angry it would make the general public were they made aware of it, is distressing to say the least. I am going to place a link to heterosexism, and maybe that will help you see another end to the spectrum, if nothing else. I suggest you rephrase this "The question is, if this discussion is related to the academic and political concept of heteronormativity in ways other than you connecting both" because I have no idea what you are getting at. Maybe this will help? Sam Spade 18:41, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If you neither know nor care where the word is used, because whever uses it can be only part of an "atypical community", then what makes you think you can add anything relevant to an article about it?
Also, your assumption that the "general public" would be shocked if they were made aware of the concept is wrong. I have spoken to members of the "general public" often enough, and beliefe it or not, nobody was ever shocked. If you feel there is a need to say something about that assumption, write a paragraph -- but don't mess around in an article that tries nothing more than explaining what the word means; because that is a definite violation of the NPOV.
Besides, you still have never answered the question what is so particluar shocking about simply formulating a description? The fact that it is not always used in a manner friendly to your way of living does not make the description or the concept itself "shocking" or "discriminating". After all, communist analysis of things uses words like "money" or "society" quite often, but that hardly makes people who use these words communists, does it? -- AlexR 19:51, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I know, and care, how (you are correct that I am largely unconcerned with the goings-on in soft "science" academia amongst amoral intelligentsia) the word is used. It is being used here, on the wikipedia, and in the numerous encyclopedias which make use of our content. We are the #1 google hit for this ideosyncratic term, which you have largely written the definition of personally. I am the counter-balance, and in no way intend to imbalance the POV, but rather to right the tragic mess you have tried to make out of the views of detractors. Stick to what you know, and I'll do the same :) Sam Spade 20:32, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
On the use of the words "amoral" and "extremely atypical communities" -- "Don't label or personally attack people or their edits. Terms like "racist," "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively." (from Wikiquette section 2.2). I'd like to request that we keep the level of discourse here above judgemental insults. Thanks, Paige 05:39, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I apologize, you make a good point. Sometimes I express more than is entirely necessary, and I will continue to strive not to tell people things they don't need to hear. :) Sam Spade 05:43, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The bulk of the objection does come outside of the field, and from fields that are making no effort to have a dialogue with the field of the humanities. Furthermore, many of Sam's objections fall flagrantly outside the domain of discourse for the humanities - they are simply not relevent to an article on a technical term within a field of study - anymore than those who disbelieve the existence of causality have any place commenting on technical terms in the hard sciences. Snowspinner 04:18, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You clearly fail to understand where I have been focusing my attentions, which is on the "opponents of the concept" section of the article, and basic NPOV thruout. I have made all of the changes I have seen fit to, and don't intend rewriting the article, or otherwise getting in anybodys way, outside of insisting on NPOV and a small section devoted to expressing objections, both within the field and without. I am not a humanities major/prof, etc..., certainly not a "gender studies" or whatever expert, and never claimed that. But the reason for the wikis sucess (as opposed to say, nupedia) is average readers like me stepping in. Anyways, I already said I don't see much more for me to do here, and I would be fine w someone removing the dispute header which I put up, assuming that unreasonable/innaccurate edits are not promptly made. Sam Spade 04:33, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but I fail to see the "value" in having people who have not studied the concept in any depth, and who do not understand the basic standards of evidence and discussion in a field altering entries on technical terms to contain mentions of their personal agendas, especially when those agendas are wholly unrelated to the goals of the field of study in question. Snowspinner 04:39, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)