Talk:Heterosexism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 

Neutral Language[edit]

CJ, as you seem to be a major editor on this page, can you offer more neutral language for this section?

Creating parallel institutions to marriage, such civil unions, or opening them to gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals only as stopgap measures to avoid granting same-sex couples the privileges, protection, respect, and symbolism that only a legally and socially accepted marriage can confer.

Heterosexism vs. homophobia wording[edit]

[quote]Heterosexism, however, denotes the "system of ideological thought that makes heterosexuality the sole norm to follow for sexual practices[/quote]

So... heterosexism denotes fact? I don't understand. Heterosexuality is the sole norm to follow for sexual practices. From Merriam Webster, norm: "a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group." With ~80-90% of the human population subscribing to heterosexuality, heterosexuality is the sole norm to follow for sexual practices. That is a fact and can't be disputed.

Not to mention the fact that the link referenced is in French and therefore cannot be quoted in English without the original French plainly displayed.

If someone doesn't change this soon then I'll just remove the whole thing.

I agree that we should be citing an English language definition, rather than French. Can someone find a better reference. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I third that the wordiness of it is weird, and wish I could give a better definition of it. The best way to explain it is that Heterosexism is more broad that simply Homophobia. Homophobia is simply the idea of fearing Gay men and Lesbian women because the person is afraid of something that is different, Which is essentially the same as having a phobia of people of color. Both exist but in different contexts. However, Racism and the act of it is more systematic, and the same can be said for Heterosexism. Heterosexism manifests itself, as stated, in dialogue as well as internally in societal oppression, such as men being told they cannot be effeminate in anyway and women not being encouraged to act like men, and even when they do, they aren't embraced for defying gender roles but are lauded and laughed at for trying to have masculine traits. I would even go onto suggest that Heterosexism effects gay men and women as WELL as Straight people and that in fact, in having these rules in place in society, we are doing ourselves an even bigger injustice as no one really wins.
Anyway, that's the best way I can put it. --108.41.40.42 (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
When we call astigmatism a disability it is fine. Since when is merely stating that disability is disability some sort of discrimination? Ворот93 (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the lead wording to reflect that. Ворот93 (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
If you can find a single reliable source that supports such a preposterous idea, we can discuss it. Otherwise, please don't waste everyone's time. Rivertorch (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
[1] Oh, there you go. But it's OK, loud homosexual minority on Wikipedia and elsewhere is so loud. Ворот93 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I said reliable source, not op-ed piece. You're edit warring. Rivertorch (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
That is reliable source. And I am adding more now. Ворот93 (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The content that you have repeatedly added is poorly worded, non-neutral and the source that you shoehorned in is one person's non-notable opinion. It has no place in an encyclopedia article. - MrX 21:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course, your opinion is more valuable... or not? Define neutral by the way. Ворот93 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Neutral: "It can include the presumption...that opposite-sex attractions and relationships are the only norm." (specifically, the word presumption renders the sentence neutral.)

Non-neutral: "It can include the fact that opposite-sex attractions and relationships are the only norm." (no authority that has established this statement as fact; it remains in the realm of opinion, and a particularly non-neutral one.) - MrX 22:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"It can include the presumption that..." this one implies that it is not true and a myth. This formulation is faulty. Ворот93 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that Ворот93 has added some "sources". The problem is that sources don't support what he's trying to say. First source is opinion piece from Daily Telegraph and can't be used for statements of fact. The second source doesn't support his wording. It says that heterosexuality is a norm, but not *only* norm. I suggest that we end this charade and restore longstanding neutral wording. This is encyclopedia, not Russian regime's site.--В и к и T 22:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, both sources support my wording. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, not a homosexual recruitment centre. Ворот93 (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

First Known Use of the Term[edit]

The first paragraph reference to the Merriam Webster Dictionary will, if looked up, show that the Merriam Webster notes 1972 as the "First Known Use of Heterosexism." There is an earlier use by gay rights activist, Craig Rodwell, in a publication that he wrote editorials for several years during the early 1970's, QQ Magazine. In its January/February 1971 issue, he writes in the second graph of the edit on page 5:

"After a few years of this kind of 'liberated' existence such people become oblivious and completely unseeing of straight predjudice and - to coin a phrase - the 'hetero-sexism' surrounding them virtually 24 hours a day."--Stnwll (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
interesting 38.108.87.20 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"much lesser known terms"[sic][edit]

It seems to me that heterosexism is actually less known than heteronormativity. Not sure who is making these judgements, and on what basis... AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This word is debatable.[edit]

I would like to add that one cannot call it heterosexism without defining homosexism. I feel like the definitions have some issues and this is just a political word rather than some intellectually formed English word. Also, most states are STILL against homosexual marriage. One also needs to remember that the way the electoral college works, it doesn't go by population or otherwise the large states would always win. So, I still say this word is utterly useless and is just an attention seeker word from homosexuals 'playing the victim.' The term seems fairly closed-minded and pejorative. One cannot say one exists without the existence of another. Looks like more of a word of hatred of heterosexual couples in my opinion rather than a word. Just call it sexism for crying out loud. It is just as bad as the word 'heteronormativity' being pulled out of someones butt, in which it is unarguably true that heterosexuality is the norm, otherwise homosexuals would not be here. Oh, and to those who disagree, just remember we did not always have artificial insemination or possibly even sperm donations (Considering the cells die quickly)in the stone ages nor part of the middle ages. Also, one cannot artificial insemination that can cost up to $3000 dollars, which means that they would have to reproduce with the opposite sex to have this many people on the planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎DarkGuardianVII (talkcontribs) 07:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

What in the world are you on about? Do you have any suggestion for improving the article? Happy holidays, anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 08:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"...in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships"

That is not how the definitions from reliable sources such as Marriam Webster define it. This article is focused on demonizing rather than setting an unbiased view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII (talkcontribs) 21:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)