Talk:Heteronormativity

Just criticism of Heteronormativity?

This article contains almost only criticism and nothing else, hence the title should be changed to "Heteronormativity Criticism". It is almost completely one-sided, whereas in actual fact by far the largest part of the world population live Heteronormatively. Lifeboy (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

New comments go at the bottom. If you want to quote defenders of "heteronormativity" please do so, but bear in mind that conservatives don't tend to use the term. Paul B (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing in this article that is *not* a criticism of "heteronormativity". Beginning with the first paragraph, it launches into an attack. This article has some serious NPOV problems. All of the cites are from one side. Smokeybehr (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to cite specific instances of perceived problems to justify your placing the NPOV and UNDUE templates? It's really hard to evaluate your concerns when you speak in such general terms. I see no "attack" in the first paragraph, and the citations aren't from any "side" but rather are from various reliable sources. Rivertorch (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The whole article, as an elaborate, angry condemnation of the author's opinion on what this terrible, awful, racist, heteronormativity is [OR]. A silly made-term designed slant that which is usual, typical, or common (i.e. "normal") as a polarized bias. Sort of like how "*phobic" is applied to anyone who doesn't agree with the PC lingo of SJWs. Xkit (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the main issue is the confusion between heteronormativity, that is, the normative practice of distinct gender roles and heterosexuality, with homophobia and heterosexism. Though both homophobia and heterosexism may be linked to heteronormativity, in that the practice and belief in heterosexuality is contradictory to the practices and beliefs of non-heterosexual relations, it does not necessarily mean that all who practice or believe in heteronormative relationships are against any sort of non-heteronormative relation: heteronormative means that it is defined that "heterosexuality" and "gender roles" are considered normal for those who believe in its practice. This article must separate itself into heteronormativity from a point of view completely uncritical, and have subsequent sections on both praise and cricism of its principles.Lenny (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Heteronormativity" is essentially a concept in so-called queer theory, which can be, and sometimes is, used more broadly. Like many concepts it's associated with a particular POV, as we might say, from its inception. The article should be about the concept and broader discursive constructs of which it forms a part. Paul B (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

But there's no reason why this concept should be limited to its understanding within queer theory, when the theory applies to reality. Its associated POV should be represented as a portion of queer theory but should not be the underlining theme of this particular concept as this concept exists with or without queer theory. If this article was to talk about "Heteronormativity" within queer theory alone, it would have to be introduced as a concept of queer theory and then still its associated praise and criticism should be contained therein.Lenny (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that "conservatives don't tend to use the term" has something to do with this implied notion that "heteronormativity" is an exclusive concept of queer theory? There is no good reason for ghettoizing this term. It serves a broadly useful descriptive purpose, including the unambiguously pejorative definition the article is based on. A neutral description and exposition of the concept of heteronormativity (and non-heternormativity), and the "broader discursive constructs of which it forms a part" would be a welcome addition to the project. poee (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that this article is highly unbalanced toward criticisms of heteronormativism, and I have tagged it as such. It would be greatly improved by including an exploration of heteronormative defenses. Importedleafsfan (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this article describes heteronormativity as it is. I mean right from the start "Heteronormativity is the body of lifestyle norms that holds that people fall into distinct and complementary genders (man and woman) with natural roles in life. It asserts that heterosexuality is the only sexual orientation or only norm, and states that sexual and marital relations are most (or only) fitting between people of opposite sexes." How is that non-NPOV? If you don't like it I'm sorry but that's what it is. This article (for the most part) only describe what heteronormativity does without judgement. I suggest you give very specific places where you feel NPOV is an issue so we can address it. I however don't think any part of the article comes right out and says heteronormativity is bad so what is the problem?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, this article does describe heteronormativity accurately, but the article does not limit itself to a mere description of heteronormativity. After this basic description and the word's origin, it continues to only address its negative impact on the LGBTT community and its irrelevance due to the breakdown of the nuclear family. This article is strong on arguments against heteronormativity, but lacks defenses for heteronormativity; for example: dimorphic sexual difference, biological essentialism, and mimetic sex/gender relationship. Importedleafsfan (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can find WP:RS that defend heteronormativity specifically, not just biological essentialism, then that should be added. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a lifestyle norm

Heteronormativity is not a "lifestyle" norm. It's a macro-level, cultural norm. It's not about how you live your life, it's about cultural understandings of gender, sexuality, etc. I propose remove the word "lifestyle" in the first sentence. If it helps any, I'm a PhD student in Sociology. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikiedpia Assignment about Heterosexualization

Hello everybody I'm in the process of editing this page to include a new section on Heterosexualization. These are a few of the resources I've located that I am finding to be useful. If anyone else has suggestions or feedback, do let me know. I hope to have my new content posted in the coming weeks!

1. Chan, P. (2013). The protection of sexual minorities. New York: Routledge.

Phil Chan, editor of this book, has stated about the protection of sexual minorities that is crucial for the society. Heterosexuality has been critically defined under this book in light of sexual minorities to bring gender equality. A thorough review of this book has provided good understanding of heterosexuality.

2. Cowling, M. and Reynolds, P. 2004. Making Sense of Sexual Consent. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Mark Cowling and Paul Reynolds, editors of the book, “Making Sense of Sexual Consent”; have stated general inequality in the sexual context. Critical assessment of feminist approaches to sexual consent has been discussed to reflect the effect of heterosexuality. Consent of women for heterosexuality in light of socio-cultural norms/obligations has been demonstrated by the author in this book.

3. Baumeister, R.F. & Vohs, K.D. (2004). Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions. :Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8 (4), 339–363. In this journal article, the authors have studied the relationship between men and women as a seller and buyer of sex. The article states that men seek to acquire sex from women by offering other resources in exchange. 4. Denmark, F. & Paludi, M.A. (2008). Psychology of Women: A Handbook of Issues and Theories. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.

The book is a rich source of understanding female psychology so that desired image of men can be created. This image must be consistent with relative position of man and woman in any social construct.

5. Halsall, P. (2013). A History of Heterosexuality? Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/hethist.asp

Paul Halsall indicates in this article that heterosexuality is not new as it has its own history, just like homosexuality. He has described the invention of heterosexuality and difference between hetero and homo sexualities. The main theme or point of argument of this article is to reflect ‘how heterosexual normativities came out after people’s rejection to the rigid social obligations or rules for sexual need.

6. Meyer, E.J. (2008). A Feminist Reframing of Bullying and Harassment: Transforming schools through critical pedagogy. McGill Journal of Education, 43(1), 33-48.

Elizabeth J. Meyer, author of “A Feminist Reframing of Bullying and Harassment” has emphasized transformation of culture of schools in oppressive way. Heterosexuality is indicated in context of male and female under this article. Negative effects of heterosexuality on educational opportunities have been discussed in this book.

7. Mohr, J.J. (2008). Heterosexual Identity and the Heterosexual Therapist: An Identity Perspective on Sexual Orientation Dynamics in Psychotherapy. Retrieved October 23, 2013 from http://www.sagepub.com/thomas2e/study/articles/section6/Article99.pdf

The aim of this study is to introduce a model of heterosexual identity, which fosters the perception of identity development, value of social development, and attitude formation. The paper demonstrates social value and associated benefits of heterosexualization.

8. Ratele, K., & Duncanm N. (2003). Social Psychology: Identities and Relationships. NY: Juta and Company Ltd.

In this book, the authors have shed light on the role of media in promoting heterosexuality, as the best way to follow the natural process of love making and ensuring the balance of society. The book provides theoretical and empirical evidences for understanding complex relations of individuals with a group or society.

9. Ripper, M. (2009). Lesbian parenting through donor insemination: Implications for the hetero-normative family. Gay & Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, 5(2), 81-93.

Margie Ripper (2009) has argued about implications of heterosexuality and normative family. The main focus of this article is on family construction. For exploring relevant aspects, qualitative methodology has been used by Ripper. Semi-Structured interviews have been preferred for data collection for indicating sexual identities and privileges of heterosexual families.

10. Worthington, R. L., Savoy, H.B., & Dillon F.R. (2008). Heterosexual Identity Development: A Multidimensional Model of Individual and Social Identity. Retrieved October 23, 2013 from http://www.sagepub.com/thomas2e/study/articles/section6/Article98.pdf

The paper develops strong arguments regarding image of heterosexual people in society, and associates their social identity with love and natural way of showing affection. While arguing this, the authors cite some examples, such as marriage and reproduction, to maintain the balance of society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid20078 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds awesome. This article is on my list to improve. I think CJ Pascoe's "Dude, You're a Fag" would be a good source to use too. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

See this discussion for the previous time that a school project focused on the heterosexualization topic, which resulted in WP:Consensus to redirect the Heterosexualization article to this one (the Heteronormativity article). I never got around to merging anything that was in that article to this one. Hopefully, the heterosexualization topic is covered better this time around. But like the previous time, I don't see a need for a Heterosexualization article; therefore, I like that the student will be creating a section on it in this article instead. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Heteronormativity is part of a series on LGBT?

Fully understood that heteronormativity can be most clearly seen from outside of it (like from a LGBTI perspective), how, outside academia, does the entire topic actually become part of LGBTI discourse? Should it not be part of a series about sociology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karien1972 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I do think it should be part of sociology as well. However it is must clearly most relevant to the discussion of the Cisgender Heterosexual to Queer power dynamic much in the same way a discussion on misogyny would be relevant to women's studies.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposing new lead

This lead just isn't standard. It needs to globalize. I can see how advocacy groups want to coin a word that strengthens their point, but this word can't be taken seriously if it is shown as if it were an insult to be "heteronormative" (considering it normal but not mandatory to be hetero). The problem is that the word is practically unknown to most points of view, and mainly used by advocacy groups. That gives it a lot of undue weight. In my country, for example (and I know it's also in others), there are no two distinct words for "sex" and "gender." The loose use here of gender will undoubtedly confuse people unfamiliar with the subject. I'm proposing a new lead that focuses less on a LGBT point of view and more on a global world of view. WP:LEAD says "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view;" and "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview."

Heteronormativity is the mainstream belief that, in a normal situation, people should be seen as and treated like their original sexes determined, regardless of gender identity. This does not necessarily equal an intolerance towards those who feel, think, or behave differently; it is simply expected by a heteronormative person that the average communication partner is also a heterosexual. Because heterosexuality has played a central role in mankind's struggle for millions of years, some have had trouble adapting to the rapid progressive developments in some of the historically more traditional countries. Aggressive and/or extreme cases of heteronormativity have linked to heterosexism and homophobia.

Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing promising about this lead that you added; that's why I reverted you on it. And people will know what context we are talking about as far as "sex" and "gender" go when they click on those articles. Furthermore, your Template:Globalize and WP:Lead assertions are inaccurate. But I know from having studied your edit history that you commonly misapply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, signing your username with an entirely different name is bad form. Flyer22 (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22. This proposed "new lede" is essentially a defense of heternormativity, not a description of it.Scott Illini (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)