Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 7

message: Removed most of the debate to the archive, and moved my own reply under this heading. In case the matter comes up again, I'll leave these statemens here.
Hey yall, maybe a third persepctive is needed. It seems to me there are two questions:
*Should there be boxes?
*What form should those boxes take and where should they be placed?
I find very enticing Snowspinner's arguments that boxes are just one of many ways to link to things. They would never be central to, but could be a part of, wikipedias pluralism. I think that they could be a quicker and more clear way of grouping articles than to do so in the text of the articles, which may then be given over to explaining how it differs from or partially falls outside of any groups.
I find very convincing AlexR's arguments that boxes easily interfere with understanding articles and how those articles connect to other subjects, and how they may POV an article or group of articles.
I would suggest to Snowspinner that you create clear guidelines for writing and placing boxes, in that way you can ensure their quality and at least partially meet the objections against them (by incorporating those objections in your guidelines). I would suggest to AlexR that, if not completely opposed to ALL boxes, you create guidelines yourself, or at least a description of which boxes, where and when, you find acceptable. Ideally, you would collaborate. Things to consider:
#What belongs in "see also"s?
#What belongs in boxes?
#Where should boxes be placed?
#What is the maximum size a box should be?
If this doesn't alleviate the tone of the dispute, it will at least bring more clarity. If this is already taking place, my apologizes, please point me to it.
Hyacinth 02:56, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boxes once again 

message: After much debate on the subject, Hyacinth suggested creating clear guidelines for writing and placing boxes in Talk:Heteronormativity, which is a good idea, in my opinion. Here, therefore, my attempt can be found: User:AlexR/Article series boxes -- AlexR 16:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  General proposal on Article Series Boxes 

message: Are transgender people the most expendable, or why is it that so much information about them has been removed, while most of the rest of the article has remained intact? Or is that what some here are willig to sacrifice to Sam Spade so he shuts up; or is it that nobody cares? Stuff will go in again as soon as the currend edit war is over, I won't be drawn into another. I am quite busy, and there is nothing to be gained by yet another one -- especially not one with a well known troll. -- AlexR 01:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It was more that I wasn't in a position to provide evidence to counter Sam's claims, and so wasn't really in a position to reinstate them. If you can provide counter-evidence, please do so. Otherwise, unfortunately, deletion on the grounds that the information is not verifiable is reasonable.  Snowspinner 01:43, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
Well, let's have a look at them:
* do not develop a gender identity that corresponds to their body, and may never develop a gender identity that is plainly male or female. changed to 
* do not develop a gender identity that corresponds to their body.
Where exactly is the thing that needs evidence? Even the most cursory glance of the results of a google search should give enough examples of that. I can actually offer myself as evidence, to shorten things.
* often do not behave according to the gender role assigned to them, even before transitioning. Many try, but most fail. changed to
* often do not behave according to the gender role assigned to them, even before transitioning.
Again, something that is affirmed by the mayority of reports of transgender people. The wording might be better, agree, but the fact remains.
* often identify as gay or lesbian after transitioning, and are often lumped together with homosexuals relative to their birth sex, although that is almost never correct.  changed to 
* often identify as gay or lesbian after transitioning, and are often lumped together with homosexuals relative to their birth sex.
The number of transpeople who pre-transitioning identified as gay or lesbian is small, once more, every piece of literature and every report on the matter says the same thing. This is speaking about self-identification, not the attribution of some self-styled "experts".
* Transgender has been pathologised so far that transgendered people routinely were locked away in psychiatric wards, or they were killed. These extremes can occur either overtly, for instance, by formally punishing transgender behavior by death (in Saudi Arabia, and many other non-western nations), or covertly, for instance, by refusing to track down and/or prosecute murderers of transgendered people or denying vital services to transgendered people (currently, in parts of North America and Europe).  changed to
* Transgender has been pathologised so far that transgendered people routinely were locked away in psychiatric wards, or they were killed. These extremes can occur either overtly, for instance, by formally punishing transgender behavior by death (in Saudi Arabia, and many other non-western nations).
The reference to murders had been taken out before, and I remember back then that I provided a link to "remembering our dead" and the SPLC report, which I have provided again above.
* A special case of incorporating transgendered people into a heteronormative system is the medical diagnosis and the treatment of transsexualism. When this happens, if transgender or transsexual feelings and behaviour in a person cannot be suppressed, people are left with two choices: they may either conform to the norms for their births sex, meaning that no medical treatment is given, and legal change of name and/or gender is not permitted, or they may comply with very strict rules for their "new" sex; any deviation from these is not permitted. Failure to select either of these choices can lead to refusal of necessary treatments for gender reassignment.   changed to 
* A special case of incorporating transgendered people into a heteronormative system is the medical diagnosis and the treatment of transsexualism. The surgical procedure involves complying with very strict rules for their "new" sex; any deviation from these is not permitted.
And what exactly are the "missing facts" here? Same with the following example:
*Gender reassignment is has been allowed at some times in some places, conditional on the person becoming entirely a member of "the other" sex, thus reinforcing the notion that there are only two sexes. Gender reassignment includes medical procedures to produce a body that is as unambigously male or female as possible, a gender identity that is clearly male or female, the adoption of a "proper" gender role, which include things like choice of jobs and hobbies and so on, and a heterosexual sexual orientation. People are refused when they do not comply to these expectations. From the early 1990s on, the rules about "proper" gender roles began to be relaxed in some places, but in many places they are still in effect.  changed to 
* Gender reassignment is allowed on the condition that the person becomes entirely a member of "the other" sex, so that s/he thereby reinforces the binary gender system. Gender reassignment includes medical procedures to produce a body that is as unambigously male or female as possible, a gender identity that is clearly male or female, the adoption of a "proper" gender role, which include things like choice of jobs and hobbies and so on, and a heterosexual sexual orientation. Even today, people are being refused treatment when they did not comply to these very stereotypical expectations. This practice is slowly changing. From the early 1990s on, the rules about "proper" gender roles began to be relaxed in some places, but in many places they are still in place. From the end of the 1990s or the beginning of the 2000s, in some places, transgendered peoples are given medical treatment as well, although their legal situation is still somewhat more difficult than that of people who can obtain a diagnosis of transsexualism.
Also, the  List of transgender-related topics has been removed again. I wonder what proof was missing here? It exists, just click the link.
Nope, sorry, but these are the facts, and there are many statements in this article, just as in every other article, that are not verified word for word, but verifiable. And I can only notice that the other people editing here are obviously perfectly happy to have the facts on transgendered people sacrificed to get get own points unvandalised by Mr. Spade. Sorry, but that is not going to happen, and before you ask vor my proof, how about citing anything that contradicts what I say? Those things go in again, and unless you can give me a sound reason for anything not to go back in again, this is the end of the debate for me. -- AlexR 03:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What bothers ME 

message: Mr. Spade removed much information about transgender people again, although he has (what a surprise) not given a reason for the removal. I don't care what exactly he does not like about transgender people, removing information without bothering to give a reason to do so is inacceptable. Unless Mr. Spade can state clearly why a particular piece of information should not be here, it stays -- particularly since I stated for each of these pieces last week why it is correct. I'd appreciate if this would not end in another edit war, but as Mr. Spade ought to know now, if there has to be one, I am not running away from it, either. Although I certainly won't bother to get into any debates until he comes up with something substantially more solid than a wish to "defend society against these horrors". In fact, how about mediation, Sam? Might save a lot of time and effort. -- AlexR 04:47, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried edit summaries? Who placed you in charge of this article? I find your grandstanding and pomposity laughably futile. The information had no evidence backing it up. Cite it and it stays, fail to do so and it goes. Your cowardly threats of edit wars scare me not, young grasshopper. The group editing process err's today, and perfects tomorrow. I understand that you can't be bothered to debate (possesed of neither the skill nor the resources), but you will have to prove yourself to be far worse before I will be willing to spend the time and effort necessary to correct you (i.e. mediation). Sam [Spade] 04:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Leave it alone, Sam

message: *Wikipedia:Cite your sources
*Wikipedia:Verifiability
*NPOV
Sam [Spade] 04:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: while the edit summary was acid, the contribution of citations is appreciated. Sam [Spade] 04:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you

message: The semantics at the beginning of the "Groups that challenge traditional gender structure" section were weird, so let me clarify my thinking. I think that when I write "against heteronormativity", I say that it exists and that it's bad.  When I write "against the concept of heteronormativity", I am either saying it doesn't exist, or that the underlying assumption or notion itself is flawed.  Whatever language is used in the article should clearly disambiguated between these two things, which the language I am now changing did not.  Feel free to re-clarify if need be. -- Beland 10:23, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semantics 

message: Regarding User:Ambivalenthysteria's 3 July 2004 edit, I'm keen to hear just how that paragraph is nonsensical enough that it warranted removal. The way I understood it is that people of a heteronormative view do not tend to accept gender identity choice as legitimate, and people outside that view tend to be the opposite.
Perhaps more citations for such an assertion would be in order, but simple removal without discussion is, in my view, over the top. —cky 14:59, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The point that last brief paragraph was making is already made by the rest of the article. That brief point, particularly without any context, was at best badly worded and unnecessary anyway, and at worst nonsensical. I don't disagree with the first assertion (it is obvious, so feel free to put it back). However, talking about "a right to alter one's gender identity"? Eh? Perhaps it may be in order to change identity to role, in which case that may make some more sense. Otherwise, IMHO, it needs considerable rewording/expansion/clarification to actually make sense in that context - but why bother, considering that the issue has already been handled elsewhere in the article. That's why I removed the statement. Ambivalenthysteria 04:05, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical?