This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
[Bene:] Alex, it is uncorrect to say that a concept characterizes something. A label can characterize a belief. F. ex. the label Catholicism characterizes the Catholic belief. But it makes no sense to speak of a concept which characterizes a belief. What is it? A concept or a belief? The word label is correct for heteronormativity.
[Bene:] Regarding the bible quotation: Since Christian reservation about the multiple gender hypothesis is a major contribution to the belief which is labeled by heteronormativity a bible quotation makes much sense. It is more accurate and correct to speak of a concrete quotation than of a vague reference to a so-called Holy Book. You should note that some of the heteronormative religious beliefs like Buddhism don't have a Holy Book. -- Benedikt 22:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hello, I really don´t see any POV in the version of Alex using Heteronormativity is a concept used to characterize the belief, said to be behind many social institutions and social policies, that human beings can be categorized into exactly two disjunct, binary sexes, and the corollary belief that some behaviors are normal only to males and some are normal only to females. . I think, that using the term label isn´t correct in this place because it really isn´t a label.
On the other hand, it is o.k., to use a quote of the holy bible in that chapter of religious definitions. Greetings, de:Benutzer:Necrophorus
[AR] The word label is not the only change you made to the first paragraph. Label might be used for a believe, but actually that paragraph, like the whole article, is still messed up - and we should discuss whether it is a believe in the first place. However, given the recent edit wars, letting the article rest for a while is probably a good idea. In any case, Label is definitely not the proper word to describe Heteronormativity, because it's not a label, it is a concept.
[AR] Also, you completely deleted that some behaviors are normal only to males and some are normal only to females. which is an essential part of the definition. That does not look as if you were interested in anything but promoting your believe, that the basic heteronormative assumptions are correct. That however is just another believe, which does not belong into the Wikipeda any more than any other believes. We don't start writing about how "wrong" other religions are, just because you don't happen to belive in them, either, do we?
[AR] As far as the quote is concerned, I left it in. I don't really like the idea of putting every religious quote in there that happens to be used to defend heteronormativity (or any other concept, word or believe) because it would make the articles unreadable. And what makes you say there are not holy books in Buddhism? -- AlexR 23:18, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thanks to those who intervened with regards to Benedict. I had a long conversation with him via IRC, we were trying to resolve the problems. However, while we did reach a compromise on the "bible" bit, the conversation became nasty while we were trying to sort out the problems with the first paragraph. Obviously I was not the only person who was not happy with his changes. -- AlexR 04:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think the following (excerpted) passage needs to be improved. It includes some "weasel words" that encourage the belief that assertions are made without taking responsibility for them. I don't doubt the content, but I think it would be much better to include substantiation. [P0M]
Ah, yes, another sentence that got messed up during the recent edit wars. Actually, before going into details, I'd like to suggest a break for about a week or two, because I'd rather not do anything that might provoke yet another edit war over this article. Three in a week, even if the last was was short, is quite sufficient for me.
Regarding this particular paragraph, I think you don't have to dig very deep to find the notion that gay man are "not really men" but "have a strong female component". (Same for lesbians, of course.) The vast majority of books and articles on the subject that were written prior to about 1980 will say so, and far too many that were written later as well. Simply asking the next person on the street will, more likely than not, tell you that this notion is still extremely common. So "the notion is often encouraged" should do perfectly well. And in the second case, I think that we can simply remove the bit you striked out; it does indeed not make any sense. Bisexual people are "portraied", or "assumed to be", but no stereotyping there. (Rest follows tomorrow, I am too tired now.) --
AlexR 04:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I struck out what seem to me the most problematical phrases, but if some proof were added other changes would likely follow. P0M 02:19, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Here is another passage. I would suggest using "confound" instead of "violate". But the main problem is with the phrase that I struck out. I don't understand the intended meaning. P0M 02:52, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Another section that could use substantiation, citations,etc. [P0M]
These two paragraphs would be much more persuasive if somebody could come up with citations to substantiate these charges. Some criminology texts from the 1950s (e.g., Rhinehart) would probably do for the institutionalization of transgendered people. Any killings were probably extra-judicial. Are there famous cases? Perhaps somebody was discovered and killed as an adult? P0M 03:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think that will do regarding dead people. I got depressed looking for them. Thanks God it is not that bad in every country. -- AlexR 11:05, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
[Bene:] Alex, it is uncorrect to say that a concept characterizes something. A label can characterize a belief. F. ex. the label Catholicism characterizes the Catholic belief. But it makes no sense to speak of a concept which characterizes a belief. What is it? A concept or a belief? The word label is correct for heteronormativity.
[Bene:] Regarding the bible quotation: Since Christian reservation about the multiple gender hypothesis is a major contribution to the belief which is labeled by heteronormativity a bible quotation makes much sense. It is more accurate and correct to speak of a concrete quotation than of a vague reference to a so-called Holy Book. You should note that some of the heteronormative religious beliefs like Buddhism don't have a Holy Book. -- Benedikt 22:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hello, I really don´t see any POV in the version of Alex using Heteronormativity is a concept used to characterize the belief, said to be behind many social institutions and social policies, that human beings can be categorized into exactly two disjunct, binary sexes, and the corollary belief that some behaviors are normal only to males and some are normal only to females. . I think, that using the term label isn´t correct in this place because it really isn´t a label.
On the other hand, it is o.k., to use a quote of the holy bible in that chapter of religious definitions. Greetings, de:Benutzer:Necrophorus
[AR] The word label is not the only change you made to the first paragraph. Label might be used for a believe, but actually that paragraph, like the whole article, is still messed up - and we should discuss whether it is a believe in the first place. However, given the recent edit wars, letting the article rest for a while is probably a good idea. In any case, Label is definitely not the proper word to describe Heteronormativity, because it's not a label, it is a concept.
[AR] Also, you completely deleted that some behaviors are normal only to males and some are normal only to females. which is an essential part of the definition. That does not look as if you were interested in anything but promoting your believe, that the basic heteronormative assumptions are correct. That however is just another believe, which does not belong into the Wikipeda any more than any other believes. We don't start writing about how "wrong" other religions are, just because you don't happen to belive in them, either, do we?
[AR] As far as the quote is concerned, I left it in. I don't really like the idea of putting every religious quote in there that happens to be used to defend heteronormativity (or any other concept, word or believe) because it would make the articles unreadable. And what makes you say there are not holy books in Buddhism? -- AlexR 23:18, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thanks to those who intervened with regards to Benedict. I had a long conversation with him via IRC, we were trying to resolve the problems. However, while we did reach a compromise on the "bible" bit, the conversation became nasty while we were trying to sort out the problems with the first paragraph. Obviously I was not the only person who was not happy with his changes. -- AlexR 04:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think the following (excerpted) passage needs to be improved. It includes some "weasel words" that encourage the belief that assertions are made without taking responsibility for them. I don't doubt the content, but I think it would be much better to include substantiation. [P0M]
Ah, yes, another sentence that got messed up during the recent edit wars. Actually, before going into details, I'd like to suggest a break for about a week or two, because I'd rather not do anything that might provoke yet another edit war over this article. Three in a week, even if the last was was short, is quite sufficient for me.
Regarding this particular paragraph, I think you don't have to dig very deep to find the notion that gay man are "not really men" but "have a strong female component". (Same for lesbians, of course.) The vast majority of books and articles on the subject that were written prior to about 1980 will say so, and far too many that were written later as well. Simply asking the next person on the street will, more likely than not, tell you that this notion is still extremely common. So "the notion is often encouraged" should do perfectly well. And in the second case, I think that we can simply remove the bit you striked out; it does indeed not make any sense. Bisexual people are "portraied", or "assumed to be", but no stereotyping there. (Rest follows tomorrow, I am too tired now.) --
AlexR 04:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I struck out what seem to me the most problematical phrases, but if some proof were added other changes would likely follow. P0M 02:19, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Here is another passage. I would suggest using "confound" instead of "violate". But the main problem is with the phrase that I struck out. I don't understand the intended meaning. P0M 02:52, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Another section that could use substantiation, citations,etc. [P0M]
These two paragraphs would be much more persuasive if somebody could come up with citations to substantiate these charges. Some criminology texts from the 1950s (e.g., Rhinehart) would probably do for the institutionalization of transgendered people. Any killings were probably extra-judicial. Are there famous cases? Perhaps somebody was discovered and killed as an adult? P0M 03:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think that will do regarding dead people. I got depressed looking for them. Thanks God it is not that bad in every country. -- AlexR 11:05, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
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)