Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Incomplete

There should be some discussion of how many LGBT individuals view monogamy and traditional ideas of 'true love' between two 'soul mates' as evil, and as "heteronormative"... while other LGBT individuals view the sexuality promoted in LGBT culture of endless promiscuity as a form of self-denial where people deprive themselves of meaningful relationships. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but where is the citation for such claims? I will follow up with you directly. If a relevant source has documented these concepts, of course they should be included! The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Heteronormativity in East Asia

I recently added this section and it was soon after deleted because it focused to much on marital customs. I removed the area specific discussion and detail of photography and made this more general about the topic of heteronormativity.Samhill39 (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The entire section is a bunch of original research, using weasel words. The citations do not support any of the relevant statements, they are just documenting wedding customs. None of them address hetronormativity at all. Several of them aren't about east asia at all, and are merely used for the editorial comparison which is completely unsourced.

I do not deny that there may be hetronormativity issues in asia. But why is asia singled out here compared to the exact same "wedding photography" customs that are in the west? This is WP:UNDUE as there is no reason to single out east asia, and as already stated, it is all original research. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely undue weight and synthesis/OR. Rivertorch (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I completely see your point here and understand that the topic of heteronormativity is rather broad and incorporating a minority view is not exactly necessary. However, could we possibly add a Heteronormative Tendencies in other Cultures section and include basic information from other cultures (such as Thailand or East Asia as I have begun discussing) to broaden the view of this topic and show readers different perspectives? I feel that this could enhance the article. Samhill39 (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Such a section could be valuable, but most importantly it must be reliably sourced. Unless you can find a book or article directly discussing the subject of hetronormativity in east asia, all of the edits you have created so far are pure WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2013 (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)

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]. Seems the origin of this term shows that it was from the point of promoting homosexuality, designed to 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)

More on Homonormativity?

Hello all! I am a current undergraduate in a gender/sexuality/women's studies program, and for one of my courses, we are expected (in small groups) to edit an article on Wikipedia. As the course focuses on current topics affecting LGBTQ communities globally and the concept of normativity, my group has proposed to edit the homonormativity section of this page. I will also share with you a working bibliography once it has been approved by my professor, but I first wanted to introduce myself and ask for any feedback that you may have, i.e. is the section even worth editing, are there any suggestions for a focus of these edits, etc.? Austingreitz (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is what my group is proposing to add to this article, along with working bibliographies:
More information on the theory of homonormativity, and how this concept appears in queer liberation movements today. Here are the articles we proposed to use as a bibliography:
Mulé, N. (2006, May 5). Equality's Limitations, Liberation's Challenges: Considerations for Queer Movement Strategizing. Canadian Online Journal of Queer Studies in Education [Online], 2(1). Available: http://jqstudies.oise.utoronto.ca/journal/viewarticle.php?id=26.
Gavin Brown (2012) Homonormativity: A Metropolitan Concept that Denigrates “Ordinary” Gay Lives, Journal of Homosexuality, 59:7, 1065-1072, DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2012.699851
João Manuel de Oliveira PhD , Carlos Gonçalves Costa MA & Conceição Nogueira PhD (2013) The Workings of Homonormativity: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Queer Discourses on Discrimination and Public Displays of Affections in Portugal, Journal of Homosexuality, 60:10, 1475-1493, DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2013.819221
Marcus Herz PhD & Thomas Johansson PhD (2015) The Normativity of the Concept of Heteronormativity, Journal of Homosexuality, 62:8, 1009-1020, DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2015.1021631

Information on homonormativity as it relates to the family and the structuring of family within society, with a focus on homonormative constructions of family within the United States. The following is a proposed bibliography for this section:
Alison R. Moss (2012) Alternative Families, Alternative Lives: Married Women Doing Bisexuality, Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 8:5, 405-427, DOI: 10.1080/1550428X.2012.729946
Gay Marriage and Pulp Fiction by Julian Carter from GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 2009, 15:4. DOI 10.1215/10642684-2009-003
Chiara Bertone & Maria Pallotta-Chiarolli (2014) Putting Families of Origin into the Queer Picture: Introducing This Special Issue, Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 10:1-2, 1-14, DOI: 10.1080/1550428X.2013.857494
The Selfish-Enough Father by Alison Shonkwiler from GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 2008, 14:4. DOI 10.1215/10642684-2008-004

And lastly, we would like to add some information on how homonormativity also interlocks with racial hegemonies, focusing on works that discuss race in the context of homonormativity as well as migration. The proposed bibliography for this section would be:
Samantha King (2009) Homonormativity and the Politics of Race: Reading Sheryl Swoopes, Journal of Lesbian Studies, 13:3, 272-290, DOI: 10.1080/10894160902876705
Queer-Migration by Eithne Luibheid from GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 2008, 14:2-3. DOI 10.1215/10642684-2007-029
Gust A. Yep PhD & John P. Elia PhD (2012) Racialized Masculinities and the New Homonormativity in LOGO's Noah's Arc , Journal of Homosexuality, 59:7, 890-911, DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2012.699827
Tammie M. Kennedy (2014) Sustaining White Homonormativity: The Kids Are All Right as Public Pedagogy, Journal of Lesbian Studies, 18:2, 118-132, DOI: 10.1080/10894160.2014.849162
Any thoughts?Austingreitz (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

What is Heteronormativity, exactly?

Is heteronormativity the belief that heterosexuality is the only moral sexuality, that it is the default sexuality, or the most common sexuality? In my mind, the third one is correct, by raw data alone, and the others are wrong, on principle. In my experience, it has been defined as the first two, but when argued against (such as, a YouTube video where someone lays out points in defense of heteronormativity) the third definition was used most often. If someone can tell me what heteronormativity is defined as in the context of this article, that would be great. Cheers. CatGrass (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)