Jump to content

Talk:Heteronormativity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 23:13, 21 August 2018 (→‎The link to heterosexism and homophobia: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 1, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
June 24, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KennyMcLean22 (article contribs).

Media Representation

This section, especially the first paragraph, is too biased as the words 'white' and 'cisgender' are used pejoratively. In my opinion, this style of writing is unproductive and especially unfit for Wikipedia. I suggest rewriting it, but would like to hear other editors' thoughts first.

Qu1lt (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the words you noted are being used descriptively, not pejoratively. The overall tone of that paragraph seems a little "off", however. Why don't you propose some different wording and see what others think? You can do that here on the talk page if you'd prefer to reach consensus first or edit the article directly if you don't mind risking a revert. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the invitation, article edited. I added some more positive news and removed the following sentences:
  • "...and 73% of LGBT characters being white."
The U.S. is a white-majority (77%) country, so as long as the race distribution is somewhat representative, I don't see a reason to note this.
  • "Cisgender white directors are being hired to tell LGBT stories, like Roland Emmerich who was given $17 million to tell the story of the Stonewall riots."
It is implied here that Roland Emmerich's homosexuality is 'not good enough' for him to be allowed as a director and producer of Stonewall. Skin color is again not relevant. Furthermore, the source is an opinion piece and the writer here has generalized this one case (by using plural) without justification. Qu1lt (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think your changes improve the article. RivertorchFIREWATER 18:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sentences

The belief that people fall into distinct and complementary genders doesn't necessarily have anything to do with assuming that heterosexuality is the only sexual orientation. --2.245.172.69 (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're closely related but not the same. You can't assume that heterosexuality is the only sexual orientation without also believing that people fall into distinct and complementary genders, but you can believe that people fall into distinct and complementary genders without assuming heterosexuality is the only sexual orientation. -- Irn (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence does seem at least misleading or imprecise to me, I think it could use improving. I have looked through both Michael Warner's original article (in which he coined the phrase) and a couple of gender studies textbooks but I have not been able to find a clear, authoritative definition of the term that would clarify this issue. Can anyone else find a suitable reference?Cloudspert (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What issue do you have with the wording? What wording do you think would be better? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with the wording of the lead sentence is that it does not seem right as the definition of heteronormativity, based on how the word is used in my experience and also on dictionary definitions; though I would like a more authoritative source to be sure. My understanding is that heteronormativity is (as the word itself seems to imply) about the normality of heterosexuiality, rather than about gender roles. Of course such a belief implies distinct sexual roles for the sexes, but the current wording I think implies something more broad than that and does not capture the core of what heteronormativity is.
The second sentence in the lead seems closer to an accurate definition. The mentions of gender roles and so forth in the next sentence seems like beliefs that are associated with but distinct from heteronormativity, or implications of heteronormativity.
So I think the lead would be improved if it read something like: "Heteronormativity is a view of the world in which heterosexuality is considered to be the only normal sexual orientation. It can also refer to a set of norms which presume or privilege heterosexuality. It is often associated with a belief in distinct genders, gender roles, and an alignment of these with sexuality and biological sex. Heterosexism and homophobia are often linked to heteronormativity." Cloudspert (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Heteronormativity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Incorporated into the gender and transgender debate"

I tried to reword a part of the article that said that heteronormativity began as a way to explain discrimination against non-heterosexuals and then became "incorporated into the gender and transgender debate." I felt this was ahistoric because prior to queer theory there was no serious academic support for the rights of transgender people; there was very little debate at all. And certainly there was very little serious public debate. Most of what existed at the time was negative. I find it anti-intellectual because it assumes that academics just arbitrarily get involved in controversies and make theories to fit them. An initial investigation of sexuality naturally led to theories about gender; it did not become politicized by some imaginary powerful early-1990s pro-trans lobby. Ligata (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ligata, regarding this edit you made, as long as you are sticking to what the source states, the rewording is not a problem. I haven't yet read the source, but WP:Synthesis is not allowed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I respect the claim regarding academics arbitrarily get involved in controversies regarding gender debates, I do not see why it is 100% necessary to include that in this particular article. Heteronormativity does involve discrimination regarding non-heterosexuals, but I don't think it is an 'absolute must' to incorporate transgender people in the conversation, considering it's a whole different topic in my opinion. Heteronormativity is more discrimination against homosexuals than anything, and I believe transgender people have a category of their own regarding this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennyMcLean22 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Heteronormativity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Heteronormativity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudspert, regarding this and this, you speak of edit warring. You also speak of two different editors. For one, for all I know, you are that IP. This article is not heavily edited. In fact, it is sparingly edited. As for edit warring, you just removed a valid edit for no reason at all. The IP objected, in part, to the material being unsourced. I sourced it. Then you came along with some argument about the material still being unsourced. I sourced it with two valid references, and now you've opted to remove it again, with some weak argument about two editors objecting. Huh? You gave no indication that you objected for any reason other than the material being unsourced. So, given what the sources state, and that the article indeed deals with heterosexism and homophobia, what valid argument do you have for us not explicitly mentioning heterosexism and homophobia (their link to heteronormativity), including in the lead, in this article? Also take note that you undid me tweaking and sourcing a part of the second sentence.

Note: I will go ahead and alert WP:LGBT to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heteronormativity&oldid=855953743"