Talk:Heteronormativity

The racial connection

The article does not make clear how Cathy J. Cohen draws the connection between heteronormativity and racism. I just altered part of that section, and read it several times. In each case it says the scholar "draws a link" or something, but does not explain exactly how this happened, or really, at all make itself understood to the non-initiated. Would anyone care to clarify this? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Her claim doesn't even make sense as written. If the way it is written is correct, she's claiming that heteronormativity is basically racist because white upper and middle class people have more power? How is that related to heteronormativity? This seems to be common at least in the United States regardless of whether anyone is taking a heteronormative position. Why is this even here? If it's going to stay, somebody really needs to rewrite the section to make sense. cargocontainer (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I'd favor removing it. - Haymaker (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

See the "link to racism" section below. Several editors, myself included, have argued that this 'argument' is so obviously a non sequitur that it should not be included. I stick by that view. Paul B (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Jewish and Marxist ? ? ?

This entry stresses the alleged "Jewish" and "Marxist" influence over the development of the critique of heteronormativity without immediately explaining how those supposed influences affected the analysis of heteronormativity. Which makes the references seem like a product of anti-Jewish, red-baiting, right-wing politics.Jnkatz1 (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"Transgressions" section weasel words

The weasel words tag has been there for a while, and I did some cleanup of it and the uncited material. Anyone see more that can be fixed to get rid of that tag? Bakkster Man (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Link to racism?

Perhaps I'm not quite grasping the concept, but how does the "racial lens" that 'typified Latina girls as "excessively reproductive" compared to their white counterparts' relate to heteronormativity? I fail to see how 'a set of lifestyle norms that hold that people fall into distinct and complementary genders (man and woman) with natural roles in life, ... heterosexuality is the normal sexual orientation, and states that sexual and marital relations are most (or only) fitting between a man and a woman' directly relates to the perceived condemning of stereotyped minorities' as "excessively reproductive" and "irretrievably libidinous" (the "sexually suspect" phrase is vague beyond comprehension). This relates to the societal opposition of lust, not heteronormativity. Furthermore, heteronormativity does not relate to excessive repreduction whatsoever. Heteronormativity relates solely to the normativity of heterosexuality, and any further connection is irrelevant to the article. The inference that minorities have a proclivity to non-heterosexual relations is unsubstantiated. The section holds no factual weight at all, and should be removed. En-AU Speaker _(T) (C) ^(E) 13:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The section attributes these views to Lorena García who clearly uses the term in the context that Latinos are (allegedly) "thus nonconforming to idealized heteronormative standards". You may consider her usage to be mistaken or nonsensical. That's your privilege. In this case I'd be inclined to agree. But she clearly does use the term, so it has a legitimate place here. Paul B (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that she uses the term does not merit the inclusion of said material. Our definition of the term, the accepted one, and her usage are clearly at odds. Either we modify our definition to include acts of lust, defying logic and the evident definition, or we rid the page of authors who are using the term to stereotype heteronormativity as opposing fornication, polygamy and associated acts, which it doesn't necessarily. While I'm sure there are heteronormative people who think that Latinos have too much sex, it doesn't follow to include it on this page because the author of a study into said topic misrepresents those concepts as not mutually exclusive. En-AU Speaker _(T) (C) ^(E) 15:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the definitions are at odds. She is writing about gender roles, which is part of the definition this article uses. -- Irn (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Because she is not writing about gender roles. Gender roles are "norms that are considered to be socially appropriate for individuals of a specific sex in the context of a specific culture". She is talking about Latinos, who are an ethnic group. Yes, she states that it was studied by girls, and makes reference of sexism, but the crux of her argument is that heteronormative people are racist, believing that Latinos are subject to condemnation from their "excessive [reproduction]". En-AU Speaker _(T) (C) ^(E) 15:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, she only ever refers to Latinas not Latinos, meaning Latina girls. It's Latinas that she characterizes as being seen as "excessively reproductive" which is not in line with their prescribed gender role and thus a problem from a heteronormative perspective. Also, I think you're misconstruing her argument. The crux is not that heternormative people are racist, but rather that heteronormative education constructs Latinas as "at risk" because of the way heteronormativity intersects with racism. -- Irn (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly why her usage is garbled. She's mixing up a norm (or rather "ideal") of restrained heterosexual behaviour with the idea that heterosexuality itself is a norm. Really she's talking about an ideal of chastity, which is probably a "Puritan" ideal, but only very tangentally linked to heteronormativity in its standard meaning. Indeed it is perfectly possible to have an opposition between "chastity" and "promiscuity" without heteronormativity. Such has historically been the case in many societies. See Foucault. Paul B (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think what you're referring to as "garbled" is actually just a more expanded understanding of heteronormativity. Because, as per the definition at the beginning of the article, heteronormativity is not merely "the idea that heterosexuality itself is a norm" but rather an extension of that to (among other things) include adherence to specific gender roles. Which is to say that heteronormativity privileges specific types of heterosexuality (in this case, those that are deemed appropriately reproductive). Thus being "excessively reproductive" can be said to violate heteronormative gender roles (just as would, say, a heterosexual man who wears dresses). -- Irn (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's expanded to the point of meaninglessness, since it is being used to mean any social norm or ideal of heterosexual behaviour. It just becomes a synonym for "social norms regarding sexuality", and that deprives the word of its function. Words can become expanded to the point of meaninglessness and this is just such a case. In expanding it, its original meaning is not only blurred, it becomes entirely lost since her usage is consistent with a society that is not heteronormative in the standard sense. In fact she is not really talking about "adherence to specific gender roles". She's talking about the regulation of sexual behaviour that is deemed problematic, for various social reasons. "Latinas" are vulnerable because they are deemed to be more likely to be promiscuous, with the various medical and social problems associated with that fact (leaving aside the question of whether it is or is not a fact about Latinas). The violation is simply a violation of models of self-policing sexual behaviour which is largely irrelevant to the concept of heterosexuality as a norm. Paul B (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not you think it is meaningless is irrelevant to the fact that a discussion of gender roles is, in fact, in line with the definition of heteronormativity put forth in this article. -- Irn (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You have been defending her argument, so I responded. The issue for inclusion is whether or not it ias relevant or fringe, not whether or not it is true. But your argument that "a discussion of gender roles is, in fact, in line with the definition of heteronormativity put forth in this article" is, IMO, false. If that were the case the article could discuss anythuing and everything about gender roles and "heteronormativity" would cease to be a distinct concept. The logic of your argument is that this whole article should be turned into a redirect to gender role. Paul B (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

She may only refer to Latinas, but she refers to them in comparison to their white counterparts. Not white males, but white females. The definition of heteronormativity only encompasses normative heterosexuality and distinct gender roles. Frequency of sex is unrelated to gender! En-AU Speaker _(T) (C) ^(E)  02:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Frequency of sex may be unrelated to gender, but not gender roles. And we're talking about heteronormative gender roles. -- Irn (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

She means "a norm for appropriate heterosexual behaviour". The standard meaning is "heterosexuality as a norm of sexual behaviour". I agree with Enauspeaker that these are completely different meanings and that Garcia garbles the concept to the point of nonsensicality. But it is not for us to say that writers have got the concept wrong. My own view is that comparable sexological concepts are constantly garbled to the point that they become meaningless - homosocial being the most notorious case. But that's just my view. Paul B (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It may not be, but a cursory glance at a search with "heteronormativity definition" in it reveals that our meaning is the accepted one. It is the merging of the words 'heterosexual' and 'normativity', which are defined quite clearly by dictionaries. Surely because one academic uses a word incorrectly doesn't mean that the word has irrevocably changed? That's wrong by both prescriptive and descriptive views. I just don't see why this misuse cannot be excised when it is clearly errant. En-AU Speaker _(T) (C) ^(E)  15:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What it really comes down to is a question of WP:UNDUE. To quote the relevent litmus test:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Of note, only one of the three writers in the section on racial and other minorities (Cathy J. Cohen) has a wiki page, are the others non-notable? Are there more notable references, who perhaps have wiki pages, who would be better cited in support of this use of the term? Perhaps this indicates a minority viewpoint, and should be given less (or no) coverage in the article to give due weight in comparison to the 'standard' usage. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a case of someone picking up a "buzzword" and throwing it in since it makes her rather banal observations sound more profound than they are. Of course that's a value judgement, but I think you are right that we can reasonably dispense with something that's fringe, if we can show that to be the case. Paul B (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I would consider the onus to be on those in favor of keeping it to prove it is not fringe and/or to prove that it should be given nearly equal weight with what appears to be the 'standard' definition. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be hard to justify this as not fringe, as it attributes beliefs to heteronormativity that aren't mutually exclusive. The viewpoints aren't grounded in any factual base, with phrases used such as: "argues that heteronormativity does not equally distribute privilege" without providing any argument as to why this would be. García claims that Latina girls are criticised for their stereotyped sex drive in comparison to other females, but this provides no link to heteronormativity whatsoever. Finally, McReery restates what García does, and seems to imply that a large proportion more minorities aren't heterosexual, and argues that because of this, anti-gay sentiment is racist (quite illogical, I might add). It all amounts to three half-baked arguments that defy the very definition of the term. I don't see how this could be construed as a mainstream belief in any way, shape or form. En-AU Speaker _(T) (C) ^(E) 02:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have decided to be bold and comment out the section with the 'non-notable' scholars. Before this information gets added back in, it should either be shown that it is the general usage of the term by well-known scholars, or the sections above should be expanded so the uncommon usage of the term does not get the same amount of coverage as the common usage. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Speaker, this doesn't doesn't belong. - Haymaker (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this is UNDUE. All of my queer theory books are in storage far away from me at the moment, and it's been awhile since I last read Michael Warner's introduction to Fear of a Queer Planet or anything by Judith Butler, etc. Nor do I have access to any academic articles online. So I don't know how I could possibly prove that queer theory treats heteronormativity in a much broader light than simply the "normativity of heterosexuality". However, why does anyone think this is the case? The very definition put forth in this article does not restrict heteronormativity to merely this. Indeed, in all of my encounters with queer theory, I never found heteronormativity to be restricted to merely the normativity of heterosexuality, but rather with a focus on gender and gender roles. This is, again, the definition put forth in this article. Further, look at the section on homonormativity; that section wouldn't make any sense if heteronormativity didn't address gender roles. -- Irn (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Maggie Gallagher quote?

There is a Maggie Gallagher quote in here, which sounds like her view is scholarly (her organisation nom might be as a hate group as defined by the southern policy law centre, but rather than delete her view, maybe we can NPOV it?)Asking for consensus whether to delete/rephrase it, so it is known where she is coming from without expressing an opinion. EG, "Maggie Gallagher, a pro family / anti gay (should probably include both, for fairness)activist argues that ..." What do you think? 2.125.127.106 (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

To me, introducing her as a 'columnist' implies that her view is not a scholarly one, particularly in contrast with the preceding developmental psychologist. I'm alright with it as is, though if we find a link from a scholarly viewpoint I would be in favor of wholesale replacing this comment. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)