Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 4

message: *"vanilla norms of heterosexual coupledom (or in queer theory's jargon, 'heteronormativity')" Against Love: A Polemic by Laura Kipnis, 
*"Heteronormativity demands freeze-frame sexuality." this bridge we call home: radical visions for transformation by Gloria E. Anzaldúa (Editor), Analouise Keating (Editor), 
*"Compulsory heterosexuality (or what some have called 'heteronormativity')" Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Text-Reader by Gail Dines (Editor), Jean M. Humez (Editor), 
*"Queer social practices like sex and theory try to unsettle the garbled but powerful norms supporting that privilege - including the project of normalization that has made heterosexuality hegemonic - as well as those material practices that, though not explicitly sexual, are implicated in the hierarchies of property and propriety that we will describe as heteronormative. By heteronormativity we mean the institutions, structures of understanding, and practical orientations that make heterosexuality seem not only coherent - that is, organised as a sexuality - but also privileged. Its coherence is always provi- sional, and its privilege can take several (sometimes contradictory) forms: unmarked, as the basic idiom of the personal and the social; or marked as a natural state; or projected as an ideal or moral accomplishment." The Cultural Studies Reader by Simon Durin, 
I don't know who inserted these statements, but let's say, they sound like coming from one more "I feel discriminated against"-troll. -- AlexR 22:33, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, realizing you made the above comment before the sources were added, since when did putting quotes on a talk page become trolling. Hyacinth 22:47, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I retract my comment; however, given the history of the debate about these pages I apologise if my patience has become somewhat shorter than usual. On the other hand, I can probably collect quotes about everything that don't sound particularly nice, but does that mean that if we write an article about that something in the Wikipedia, that article is automatically "not nice" or NPOV, too? I don't think so. -- AlexR 23:01, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some quotes 

message: Sam, I really don't see the point in your edits. "Heteronormativity" is a technical term used (a) in gender studies/queer studies, and (b) in transgender/homosexual/intersexual/... politics. In both groups, the term is in no way controversial (maybe some academics prefer other terms for the same concept, maybe some activists for queer rights think the concept is not strong enough -- but there is no real controversy). Whereas I understand that some people don't like it if their lifestyle, their normality and their norms are discussed by the groups (a) and (b) in terms of heteronormativity, I'm not so sure these people want to discuss about the usefulness of the concept. Instead, they want to discuss the rights of what they see as "normal" and "rightful" way of living, i.e. heterosexuality, complementary gender roles, and the wrongs of other ways of living. But this is in no way related to the academic and political concept of heteronormativity. My last changes tried to reflect this: You won't find opponents to the concept "heteronormativity", but you will find proponets for a specific type of society, which in the terms of gender studies, queer studies or gender politics could be named a "heteronormative society". With your last edits you are blurring this distinction, until the article reaches a point that is more or less POV again (and really needs the "controversial content" msg at the top). So, I want to ask you what the reason for your changes is, and I want to ask you if you can show us some references (possible inside the groups (a) and (b) mentioned before) that the term and concept "heteronormativity" is discussed controversially. To make my point clear: I agree that it is discussed hotly and controversly if a society should accept "non-normal" sexual behavior and identity. That is not the question. The question is, if this discussion is related to the academic and political concept of heteronormativity in ways other than you connecting both. -- till we *) 12:03, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to sugest that the term is controvercial within "(a) in gender studies/queer studies, and (b) in transgender/homosexual/intersexual/... politics". How would I know? I certainly don't plan to look into it. If you want to point out that it is uncontrovercial within those extremely atypical communities, go right ahead. I am speaking to what the "regs" think. That is where the opponents of this theory lie. The fact that you can't comprehend how shockingly offensive this concept is, or how angry it would make the general public were they made aware of it, is distressing to say the least. I am going to place a link to heterosexism, and maybe that will help you see another end to the spectrum, if nothing else. I suggest you rephrase this "The question is, if this discussion is related to the academic and political concept of heteronormativity in ways other than you connecting both"  because I have no idea what you are getting at. Maybe this will help? Sam Spade 18:41, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you neither know nor care where the word is used, because whever uses it can be only part of an "atypical community", then what makes you think you can add anything relevant to an article about it?  Also, your assumption that the "general public" would be shocked if they were made aware of the concept is wrong. I have spoken to members of the "general public" often enough, and beliefe it or not, nobody was ever shocked. If you feel there is a need to say something about that assumption, write a paragraph -- but don't mess around in an article that tries nothing more than explaining what the word means; because that is a definite violation of the NPOV.  Besides, you still have never answered the question what is so particluar shocking about simply formulating a description? The fact that it is not always used in a manner friendly to your way of living does not make the description or the concept itself "shocking" or "discriminating". After all, communist analysis of things uses words like "money" or "society" quite often, but that hardly makes people who use these words communists, does it? -- AlexR 19:51, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, and care, how (you are correct that I am largely unconcerned with the goings-on in soft "science" academia amongst amoral intelligentsia) the word is used. It is being used here, on the wikipedia, and in the numerous encyclopedias which make use of our content. We are the #1 google hit for this ideosyncratic term, which you have largely written the definition of personally. I am the counter-balance, and in no way intend to imbalance the POV, but rather to right the tragic mess you have tried to make out of the views of detractors. Stick to what you know, and I'll do the same :) Sam Spade 20:32, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: On the use of the words "amoral" and "extremely atypical communities" -- "Don't label or personally attack people or their edits. Terms like "racist," "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively." (from Wikiquette section 2.2).  I'd like to request that we keep the level of discourse here above judgemental insults.  Thanks, Paige 05:39, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize, you make a good point. Sometimes I express more than is entirely necessary, and I will continue to strive not to tell people things they don't need to hear. :) Sam Spade 05:43, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: The bulk of the objection does come outside of the field, and from fields that are making no effort to have a dialogue with the field of the humanities. Furthermore, many of Sam's objections fall flagrantly outside the domain of discourse for the humanities - they are simply not relevent to an article on a technical term within a field of study - anymore than those who disbelieve the existence of causality have any place commenting on technical terms in the hard sciences. Snowspinner 04:18, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You clearly fail to understand where I have been focusing my attentions, which is on the "opponents of the concept" section of the article, and basic NPOV thruout. I have made all of the changes I have seen fit to, and don't intend rewriting the article, or otherwise getting in anybodys way, outside of insisting on NPOV and a small section devoted to expressing objections, both within the field and without. I am not a humanities major/prof, etc..., certainly not a "gender studies" or whatever expert, and never claimed that. But the reason for the wikis sucess (as opposed to say, nupedia) is average readers like me stepping in. Anyways, I already said I don't see much more for me to do here, and I would be fine w someone removing the dispute header which I put up, assuming that unreasonable/innaccurate edits are not promptly made. Sam Spade 04:33, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I fail to see the "value" in having people who have not studied the concept in any depth, and who do not understand the basic standards of evidence and discussion in a field altering entries on technical terms to contain mentions of their personal agendas, especially when those agendas are wholly unrelated to the goals of the field of study in question. Snowspinner 04:39, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits by Sam Spade