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 |
The article reads like a carefully crafted indictment by a cultural theorist who's bending over backwards not to caricature what is essentially a villian, from the author's perspective. I recognized nothing in the article as much as the targets that postmodernists put up to write about.
The problem in the topic, I think, is that there's no one directly advocating heteronormativity; instead, the word and the concept are drawn from those attacking it as an amalgamation of conservative, traditional, or modernist memes. Thus, the normal NPOV tactic of giving a charitable reading of a proponent's articulation, next to the opposite point of view, doesn't work.
I think that the article would be more honestly written by acknowledging that heteronormativity is a postmodernist concept that represents the deconstruction of a lot of things against which they're fighting. Fairness would then imply links to other wiki pages like Focus on the Family that sincerely advocate heteronormative views, in a line something like "heteronormativity is the name given to various viewpoints espoused by groups like..."
Justin Johnson 20:30, 18 Mar 2004 CST
[P0M:] What you say makes sense to me, although one of the contributors who has done a lot with related topics seemed to think that "heteronormativity" was an acceptable norm across the board. How about doing some research to find out where the term really came from?
P0M 02:41, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[JJ]: Funny: a google search on "heteronormative" brings up the Wikipedia entry as #1!
Here's some of the other results, in whole or part:
These were typical of what I found through the first ten pages of the search, almost all of which were academic pages or pages from sites about queer theory and the like. Note the words used to describe it: "punitive", "(de)constructing", "unproblematized", "falsely views". Assuming my search is fairly representative of the use of the term, it seems clear that 'heteronormativity' is a term of art from one of side of the debate.
I don't think there's anything wrong with having the article here; I just think that NPOV demands a clearer acknowledgement of the term's and the concept's roots.
One of the other things to notice about the article is that it devotes most of the words to describing that which heteronormativity condemns, rather than that which heteronormativity prescribes and the (subjective) justifications for those views.
Justin Johnson 21:03 CST 18 Mar 2004
[P0M:] Why not just fix the article then? If you want to be really cautious you could put your proposed change here first. P0M 03:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[JJ:] Honestly, I don't feel like I know enough about the topics involved. But I'll try.
Okay. How's this for a first pass:
I'm a bit uncomfortable using the term 'postmodernist' as a catch-all for the various groups that use the term, but I can't think of a better one.
Justin Johnson 22:15 CST 18 Mar 2004
Since no one disagreed with my proposed rewrite above, I've committed it with some changes, and incorporated a bit more material from the existing page.
If someone can suggest a better catch-all term for the group using heteronormativity than simply 'postmodernists', I'd appreciate it.
Justin Johnson 10:55 CST 20 Mar 2004
The current rewrite does not read well to me at all. To start off with "term of art"?!?! Huh? it's a social perspective, not something to do with paintings. The first sentence doesn't tell me anything about what heteronormativity is, it really reads like a research paper, not an encyclopedia entry. I'd make it more straight forward, like:
If others like that, stick it in the article. -- zandperl 18:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I changed the first sentence to:
"Term of art" means something like "jargon". I didn't realize it was obscure.
Great - right now the article sounds as if heteronormativity something only leftists imbellices use against proper family values. That's not exactly NPOV, either. Not to mention that the person who wrote this up seems to have an issue with everything he considers "postmodernist". The fact that the term, as artificial as it is, might actually have its uses outside of academical debates never seems to occur to him. But then, there is your typical straight cisgenderd male - all this freak stuff has to be derised as much as possible so nobody questions their inborn superioritiy. Disgusting. -- AlexR 19:03, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'll allow myself to leave this answer to "Justin Johnson 3:34 UTC 25 Mar 2004" un-indented for legibility.
The fact that heteronormativity is occasionaly used in a biased way does not make it a biased term. Unlike "nigger lovers" it neither contains a slur in the word itself, nor is there any feeling of superioritiy contained in either the word or its description. The bias in entirely in your eyes, or those of readers feeling offended by the term. Of course, the concept described (not derised) is a very basic one, and many people feel extremely uncomfortable when seing it described, because something very basic and unchallenged something suddenly does not look that unchallengable and basic any more. By evoking a lesser version of Goodwin's law, you have proven that point quite clearly. Sorry, but "applies to about 90%+ of people" is just not the same thing as a natural law like gravity.
Also, I find it rather strange that from the Google results you only quoted very biased uses of the word, most uses I have found were perfectly neutral. Pointing out only biased uses looks quite biased indeed - bias on your side, though, not the word's. I do agree though, that the term is quite academic - well, what do you expect with a relatively new word containing a Latin and a Greek root?
Also, Google is not always representative - much of the transgender debate does not take place on websites, and a lot of it never makes it to web pages. (Don't bother Google groups either, the transgender newsgroups are a often place of verbal fighting, not debate.) Much of that debate is not "postmodernist", either, and definitely not academic.
How academic is it when transgender people don't get letters of recommendation for name changes and medical procedures, because their hair is to long (transmen) or too short (transwomen). Not to mention lesbian transwomen and gay transmen. How academic is it if a girl's clitoris is cut, because it is "too big" and "she'll never get a boyfriend looking like that"? (See the double take in the last statement?) And just where is the bias when academics (and non-academics) desperately try to find "feminine" trails in gay men and "masculine" trails in lesbian women, because, well, they must be there somehow?
So sorry, but the word itself is not biased, if you see a bias, it might be in your eyes, not in the word. Also, since you brought up the race card, next time you want to put anything into this or similar articles, ask yourself: Would I put the same thing in an article about white supremacy? Like in "there's no reason to believe that such people aren't reflectively sincere". If you wouldn't, ask yourself why you feel it should be in here. -- AlexR
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 |
The article reads like a carefully crafted indictment by a cultural theorist who's bending over backwards not to caricature what is essentially a villian, from the author's perspective. I recognized nothing in the article as much as the targets that postmodernists put up to write about.
The problem in the topic, I think, is that there's no one directly advocating heteronormativity; instead, the word and the concept are drawn from those attacking it as an amalgamation of conservative, traditional, or modernist memes. Thus, the normal NPOV tactic of giving a charitable reading of a proponent's articulation, next to the opposite point of view, doesn't work.
I think that the article would be more honestly written by acknowledging that heteronormativity is a postmodernist concept that represents the deconstruction of a lot of things against which they're fighting. Fairness would then imply links to other wiki pages like Focus on the Family that sincerely advocate heteronormative views, in a line something like "heteronormativity is the name given to various viewpoints espoused by groups like..."
Justin Johnson 20:30, 18 Mar 2004 CST
[P0M:] What you say makes sense to me, although one of the contributors who has done a lot with related topics seemed to think that "heteronormativity" was an acceptable norm across the board. How about doing some research to find out where the term really came from?
P0M 02:41, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[JJ]: Funny: a google search on "heteronormative" brings up the Wikipedia entry as #1!
Here's some of the other results, in whole or part:
These were typical of what I found through the first ten pages of the search, almost all of which were academic pages or pages from sites about queer theory and the like. Note the words used to describe it: "punitive", "(de)constructing", "unproblematized", "falsely views". Assuming my search is fairly representative of the use of the term, it seems clear that 'heteronormativity' is a term of art from one of side of the debate.
I don't think there's anything wrong with having the article here; I just think that NPOV demands a clearer acknowledgement of the term's and the concept's roots.
One of the other things to notice about the article is that it devotes most of the words to describing that which heteronormativity condemns, rather than that which heteronormativity prescribes and the (subjective) justifications for those views.
Justin Johnson 21:03 CST 18 Mar 2004
[P0M:] Why not just fix the article then? If you want to be really cautious you could put your proposed change here first. P0M 03:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[JJ:] Honestly, I don't feel like I know enough about the topics involved. But I'll try.
Okay. How's this for a first pass:
I'm a bit uncomfortable using the term 'postmodernist' as a catch-all for the various groups that use the term, but I can't think of a better one.
Justin Johnson 22:15 CST 18 Mar 2004
Since no one disagreed with my proposed rewrite above, I've committed it with some changes, and incorporated a bit more material from the existing page.
If someone can suggest a better catch-all term for the group using heteronormativity than simply 'postmodernists', I'd appreciate it.
Justin Johnson 10:55 CST 20 Mar 2004
The current rewrite does not read well to me at all. To start off with "term of art"?!?! Huh? it's a social perspective, not something to do with paintings. The first sentence doesn't tell me anything about what heteronormativity is, it really reads like a research paper, not an encyclopedia entry. I'd make it more straight forward, like:
If others like that, stick it in the article. -- zandperl 18:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I changed the first sentence to:
"Term of art" means something like "jargon". I didn't realize it was obscure.
Great - right now the article sounds as if heteronormativity something only leftists imbellices use against proper family values. That's not exactly NPOV, either. Not to mention that the person who wrote this up seems to have an issue with everything he considers "postmodernist". The fact that the term, as artificial as it is, might actually have its uses outside of academical debates never seems to occur to him. But then, there is your typical straight cisgenderd male - all this freak stuff has to be derised as much as possible so nobody questions their inborn superioritiy. Disgusting. -- AlexR 19:03, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'll allow myself to leave this answer to "Justin Johnson 3:34 UTC 25 Mar 2004" un-indented for legibility.
The fact that heteronormativity is occasionaly used in a biased way does not make it a biased term. Unlike "nigger lovers" it neither contains a slur in the word itself, nor is there any feeling of superioritiy contained in either the word or its description. The bias in entirely in your eyes, or those of readers feeling offended by the term. Of course, the concept described (not derised) is a very basic one, and many people feel extremely uncomfortable when seing it described, because something very basic and unchallenged something suddenly does not look that unchallengable and basic any more. By evoking a lesser version of Goodwin's law, you have proven that point quite clearly. Sorry, but "applies to about 90%+ of people" is just not the same thing as a natural law like gravity.
Also, I find it rather strange that from the Google results you only quoted very biased uses of the word, most uses I have found were perfectly neutral. Pointing out only biased uses looks quite biased indeed - bias on your side, though, not the word's. I do agree though, that the term is quite academic - well, what do you expect with a relatively new word containing a Latin and a Greek root?
Also, Google is not always representative - much of the transgender debate does not take place on websites, and a lot of it never makes it to web pages. (Don't bother Google groups either, the transgender newsgroups are a often place of verbal fighting, not debate.) Much of that debate is not "postmodernist", either, and definitely not academic.
How academic is it when transgender people don't get letters of recommendation for name changes and medical procedures, because their hair is to long (transmen) or too short (transwomen). Not to mention lesbian transwomen and gay transmen. How academic is it if a girl's clitoris is cut, because it is "too big" and "she'll never get a boyfriend looking like that"? (See the double take in the last statement?) And just where is the bias when academics (and non-academics) desperately try to find "feminine" trails in gay men and "masculine" trails in lesbian women, because, well, they must be there somehow?
So sorry, but the word itself is not biased, if you see a bias, it might be in your eyes, not in the word. Also, since you brought up the race card, next time you want to put anything into this or similar articles, ask yourself: Would I put the same thing in an article about white supremacy? Like in "there's no reason to believe that such people aren't reflectively sincere". If you wouldn't, ask yourself why you feel it should be in here. -- AlexR