Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

"Often Linked"

The opening paragraph says "Heteronormativity is often linked to heterosexism and and homophobia." However, this is a highly opinionated claim that comes from citing only one highly opinionated book. I propose to remove this clause and only explain what the subject is according to WP:NPOV. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the sentence "Heteronormativity is often linked to heterosexism and homophobia." does not reflect a neutral point of view? I think it represents the overwhelming majority of opinion within the field and to argue the opposite would be a fringe theory. -- Irn (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Just because you think it represents the overwhelming majority, doesn't mean it does. Saying it's "often linked" is an opinion, and is unencyclopedic. To write nothing would make the article take neither side of the argument. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

How is "often linked" unencyclopedic? In any case, the sources in the article mostly discuss heteronormativity in connection with heterosexism and homophobia; that is a prime aspect of what heteronormativity is about. Well, it's more about heterosexism. Either way, we go by what the literature states with WP:Due weight; that is what being neutral means on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is that firstly, the majority of Evangelical Protestant churches, the entire Roman Catholic Church as well as Orthodox Jews and Muslims consider heterosexuality as the only rightful form of sexual relationships, therefore embracing heteronormative attitudes. (Know before I go on, that while I can't speak much for muslims, aside from knowing that they do not support homosexuality, I am very familiar with Catholics, and with most Protestants as well, so I can speak in terms of them). Secondly, the homophobia article itself says that: "It [homophobia] has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs." But embracing a heteronormative attitude will not always result in any of these things. To many of the aforementioned groups, it is more a discouragement of homosexual behavior, or a declaration that said behavior is sin. What separates this behavior from the definition of homophobia can be seen in the definitions of each aspect of real homophobia.

Contempt: "the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn." If a person has contemptuous homophobia, they would disregard the homosexual's lives, and mock them.

Prejudice: "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." That would mean to say that all homosexuals are a certain way, and that by not being around homosexuals, they may come to believe something narrow-minded. But most of the aforementioned groups would almost certainly believe that homosexuals are living in blatant sin, no matter how much they did reason or have experience.

Aversion: "a strong dislike or disinclination." This would mean that the homosexual would receive coldness and anger from others of these groups, but the aforementioned groups would likely attempt to show the said homosexuals love for their worth as people, and treat them equally to others, while still maintaining that they are sinning.

Hatred: "intense dislike or ill will." This is almost directly related to contempt and aversion, but stronger. Hatred would be entirely condemned by many in these groups.

Apathy: "lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern." While this is vague in terms of homophobia, in context, it seems to mean that the homosexuals are placed in a group that doesn't care about their welfare. However, most churches would attempt to love these individuals, and be very concerned about their welfare.

So what I'm basically saying, is that although sometimes embracing heternormativity is homophobic, in many cases, it isn't. Because it doesn't fall into any of homophobia's defining points.

In the case of being related to heterosexism, it seems half true, but I don't think that heteronormativity fits into the heterosexism aspects that are about discrimination. It might be in order to say that "heteronormativity is partially related to heterosexism." It's mainly important to not call it homophobia. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

What you've put forth here is original research. We go with what the sources say. And in this case, the sources link heteronormativity with heterosexism and homophobia, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find sources that argue the opposite. -- Irn (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

But do any of the sources say specifically that heteronormativity is directly connected to homophobia? Do they do it without first using hetersexism as a middleman? Because it seems that heteronormativity is a symptom of heterosexism, and sometimes homophobia is a symptom of heterosexism. To say that "heteronormativity is often linked to homophobia." Is like saying "runny noses are often linked to sore throats," when really, they either come from bad colds, or they're separate, in the same way, heteronormativity and homophobia are separate, but both might stem from heterosexism. I assume that the sources probably say that heteronormativity comes from heterosexism. There's likely no area that specifically says it comes from homophobia. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty of sources saying that heteronormativity is directly connected to homophobia.[1][2][3] But that's actually beside the point. The text doesn't say that they are "directly connected" much less that one comes from the other, rather that they are linked. -- Irn (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The wording seems fine as is, but yeah . . . 30 seconds on Google revealed scholarly articles asserting a direct link. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, to some extent, as 5 seconds on Goolge brought up Urban Dictionary, and they had a reasonable definition. CatGrass (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

___

References

Class assignment

Hello! I plan to contribute the media side of heteronormativity. I will talk about how the media portrays heteronormativity as the norm and how they do so. I will also talk about how 21st century shows depict non-heteronormativity as well.

Bibliography

Bond, Bradley. "Portrayals Of Sex And Sexuality In Gay- And Lesbian-Oriented Media: A Quantitative Content Analysis." Sexuality & Culture 19.1 (2015): 37-56. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.

Bradley, Kym. "(Re)Presentations Of (Hetero)Sexualized Gender In Two And A Half Men : A Content Analysis." Journal Of Gender Studies 22.2 (2013): 221-226. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.

Dhaenens, Frederik. "Teenage Queerness: Negotiating Heteronormativity In The Representation Of Gay Teenagers In Glee." Journal Of Youth Studies 16.3 (2013): 304-317. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.

JAGOSE, ANNAMARIE. "The Trouble With Antinormativity." Differences: A Journal Of Feminist Cultural Studies 26.1 (2015): 26-47. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.

Kerry, Stephen. "Representation Of Intersex In News Media: The Case Of Kathleen Worrall." Journal Of Gender Studies 20.3 (2011): 263-277. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Nov. 2016. Adrianaa2016 (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianaa2016 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC) 

What about QIA+?

Critique: First off, I think the pages picture should be updated, the rainbow flag is very aimed at just gay men and that brings up my next thing, when reading this article the typical hetero family is brought up a lot and I don't see a lot about diversity that should be shown. Also the affects of seeing only hetero relationships and family should be discussed. I also noticed LGBT was brought up but what about the rest? Heteronormativity affects all of the LGBTQIA+ community and more should be written about them, especially intersexuality and how it affects intersexual individuals with the male/female dynamic of intersexuality.

• When I clicked on every link I was brought to a wiki page, what's up with that?
• I might possibly be adding this info as my contribution for my media class.

Adrianaa2016 (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Media Representation

Hello! For my class we have to add two paragraphs and I've left some stuff here before on sources and things that could be improved. I have two rough draft paragraphs I'm going to be posting below, I'd love for some feedback!

LGBTQIA+ representation in movies and tv matters and in five different studies has even shown that gay characters appearing on tv decreases the prejudice among viewers. (1) Broadcasters are falling behind though while cable and streaming services are more inclusive with characters that are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. (2) Cable and streaming services are falling behind in diversity though, with out of all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender characters, most are gay men and 73% are white. (2) Cisgender white directors are being hired to tell all types of LGBTQIA+ stories, like when Roland Emmerich was given $17 million to tell the story of the Stonewall riots. (3)

Intersex people are excluded almost completely, they are at a loss, they are isolated and eager to find others like themselves but when turning to the media they aren’t met with a positive image. Intersex also isn’t as rare as it seems, about 1% of the population has some form of intersex status. (4) News media outline what it means to be male or female, which leaves a gap for anyone that doesn’t fall into those two categories. (4) This has even lead to newspaper bringing up issues like intersexuality in athletes since sports are usually gendered, leaving the big question to everyone on what exactly is intersexuality. This was brought to worldwide attention when the case of Caster Semenya rose and news spread on sporting officials having to determine whether she is considered female or male. (5)

(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/business/media/gay-on-tv-its-all-in-the-family.html (2) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/arts/television/more-gay-and-transgender-characters-are-on-tv-report-shows.html?_r=0 (3) http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/opinion/women-who-love-women-arent-tragic.html (4) Kerry, Stephen. "Representation Of Intersex In News Media: The Case Of Kathleen Worrall." Journal Of Gender Studies 20.3 (2011): 263-277. Academic Search Premier. Web. 12 Nov. 2016. (5) http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/20/gender.athlete.intersex/

Adrianaa2016 (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Adrianaa2016. I see no one has responded to any of the earlier sections you added to this talk page. That happens sometimes. I'll try to get back here and respond in the next couple of days, if no one else does first. I'm curious, though: where exactly in the article do you propose sticking your two paragraphs? It probably would be a good idea to copy them to your sandbox and go through them very carefully, sentence by sentence and word by word, to make sure they're grammatically sound. As things stands now, there are issues of spelling, punctuation, comma splices, nonstandard usage, and so on that make them a little hard to read. When you have a more polished draft, please come back here to this talk page and say so, and someone will take a look. (You can ask people to look at them in your sandbox instead of posting the next version here, if you'd like.) Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review on Media Representation section

Adrianaa2016, there are many strengths to the previous section you have added. First of all, all these sources are reliable stating facts that don't contain a bias to them. Also, you have a strong lead section that gives a clear summary of what the rest of your section was going to be about. You didn't leave statements uncited making it clear the section becomes more credible now. Not many weaknesses in this section except for some grammatical errors. Also, try to limit the amount of commas as it makes it hard to read smoothly without having to pause. This section is overall very well done and credible. Vincostantino (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Media Representation

This section, especially the first paragraph, is too biased as the words 'white' and 'cisgender' are used pejoratively. In my opinion, this style of writing is unproductive and especially unfit for Wikipedia. I suggest rewriting it, but would like to hear other editors' thoughts first.

Qu1lt (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the words you noted are being used descriptively, not pejoratively. The overall tone of that paragraph seems a little "off", however. Why don't you propose some different wording and see what others think? You can do that here on the talk page if you'd prefer to reach consensus first or edit the article directly if you don't mind risking a revert. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, article edited. I added some more positive news and removed the following sentences:

• "...and 73% of LGBT characters being white."

The U.S. is a white-majority (77%) country, so as long as the race distribution is somewhat representative, I don't see a reason to note this.

• "Cisgender white directors are being hired to tell LGBT stories, like Roland Emmerich who was given $17 million to tell the story of the Stonewall riots."

It is implied here that Roland Emmerich's homosexuality is 'not good enough' for him to be allowed as a director and producer of Stonewall. Skin color is again not relevant. Furthermore, the source is an opinion piece and the writer here has generalized this one case (by using plural) without justification. Qu1lt (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I think your changes improve the article. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Heteronormativity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227114158/http://www.stroud.gov.uk/info/gender_equality_scheme.pdf to http://www.stroud.gov.uk/info/gender_equality_scheme.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usilgbt.org/index.php?categoryid=35
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150702182226/http://web.uvic.ca/psn/resources/terminology/homonormativity/ to http://web.uvic.ca/psn/resources/terminology/homonormativity/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Heteronormativity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205100541/http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawkecentre/events/2007events/MSomerville_InConversation.asp to http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawkecentre/events/2007events/MSomerville_InConversation.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090901020647/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/turing_a%2C2.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/turing_a%2C2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Heteronormativity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080522052539/http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2001/06/07/family_values/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2001/06/07/family_values/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100602192314/http://www.amnestyusa.org/outfront/jamaica_report.html to http://www.amnestyusa.org/outfront/jamaica_report.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080522052539/http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2001/06/07/family_values/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2001/06/07/family_values/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The first two sentences

The belief that people fall into distinct and complementary genders doesn't necessarily have anything to do with assuming that heterosexuality is the only sexual orientation. --2.245.172.69 (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

They're closely related but not the same. You can't assume that heterosexuality is the only sexual orientation without also believing that people fall into distinct and complementary genders, but you can believe that people fall into distinct and complementary genders without assuming heterosexuality is the only sexual orientation. -- Irn (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The lead sentence does seem at least misleading or imprecise to me, I think it could use improving. I have looked through both Michael Warner's original article (in which he coined the phrase) and a couple of gender studies textbooks but I have not been able to find a clear, authoritative definition of the term that would clarify this issue. Can anyone else find a suitable reference?Cloudspert (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

What issue do you have with the wording? What wording do you think would be better? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

My issue with the wording of the lead sentence is that it does not seem right as the definition of heteronormativity, based on how the word is used in my experience and also on dictionary definitions; though I would like a more authoritative source to be sure. My understanding is that heteronormativity is (as the word itself seems to imply) about the normality of heterosexuiality, rather than about gender roles. Of course such a belief implies distinct sexual roles for the sexes, but the current wording I think implies something more broad than that and does not capture the core of what heteronormativity is.

The second sentence in the lead seems closer to an accurate definition. The mentions of gender roles and so forth in the next sentence seems like beliefs that are associated with but distinct from heteronormativity, or implications of heteronormativity.

So I think the lead would be improved if it read something like: "Heteronormativity is a view of the world in which heterosexuality is considered to be the only normal sexual orientation. It can also refer to a set of norms which presume or privilege heterosexuality. It is often associated with a belief in distinct genders, gender roles, and an alignment of these with sexuality and biological sex. Heterosexism and homophobia are often linked to heteronormativity." Cloudspert (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"Incorporated into the gender and transgender debate"

I tried to reword a part of the article that said that heteronormativity began as a way to explain discrimination against non-heterosexuals and then became "incorporated into the gender and transgender debate." I felt this was ahistoric because prior to queer theory there was no serious academic support for the rights of transgender people; there was very little debate at all. And certainly there was very little serious public debate. Most of what existed at the time was negative. I find it anti-intellectual because it assumes that academics just arbitrarily get involved in controversies and make theories to fit them. An initial investigation of sexuality naturally led to theories about gender; it did not become politicized by some imaginary powerful early-1990s pro-trans lobby. Ligata (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ligata, regarding this edit you made, as long as you are sticking to what the source states, the rewording is not a problem. I haven't yet read the source, but WP:Synthesis is not allowed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Although I respect the claim regarding academics arbitrarily get involved in controversies regarding gender debates, I do not see why it is 100% necessary to include that in this particular article. Heteronormativity does involve discrimination regarding non-heterosexuals, but I don't think it is an 'absolute must' to incorporate transgender people in the conversation, considering it's a whole different topic in my opinion. Heteronormativity is more discrimination against homosexuals than anything, and I believe transgender people have a category of their own regarding this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennyMcLean22 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The link to heterosexism and homophobia

Cloudspert, regarding this and this, you speak of edit warring. You also speak of two different editors. For one, for all I know, you are that IP. This article is not heavily edited. In fact, it is sparingly edited. As for edit warring, you just removed a valid edit for no reason at all. The IP objected, in part, to the material being unsourced. I sourced it. Then you came along with some argument about the material still being unsourced. I sourced it with two valid references, and now you've opted to remove it again, with some weak argument about two editors objecting. Huh? You gave no indication that you objected for any reason other than the material being unsourced. So, given what the sources state, and that the article indeed deals with heterosexism and homophobia, what valid argument do you have for us not explicitly mentioning heterosexism and homophobia (their link to heteronormativity), including in the lead, in this article? Also take note that you undid me tweaking and sourcing a part of the second sentence.

Note: I will go ahead and alert WP:LGBT to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

In the absence of consensus to the contrary, I have restored the stable version. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 02:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that this is a better version, though heterosexism and homophobia should be discussed in more detail in the body of the article as well. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 03:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Merge Queer erasure here

I'm not seeing that this topic needs its own Wikipedia article. It is currently a very small stub article covering a topic that can easily be covered here and/or at the new Straightwashing article. Editors can see WP:Spinout, WP:No page and WP:No split for my mindset on tiny stubs like this one. I'll alert WP:LGBT to this merge proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• There's not really anything to merge, is there? I'd just redirect it to here (heteronormativity). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but given the editor who created it -- that the editor is very passionate about the queer topic and is likely to revert the redirect -- I felt that it's best to discuss. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Umm... isn't merging Queer erasure into Heteronormativity a form of Queer erasure!!--Theredproject (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Theredproject: no. It would only be queer erasure if the heteronormativity article refused to address queer erasure. But if the content of the other article is merged here, or alternatively, if an editor adds content here about it, then it would not be queer erasure. Mathglot (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Bluerasberry and Another Believer: for subject area expertise.--Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Arguing that a merge is a form of queer erasure is something the creator of the Queer erasure article would argue. So I expected that from a newbie editor who is passionate about using the term queer as much as possible, but not from someone who has had a Wikipedia account since 2008 and is regularly active on Wikipedia. Read WP:No page and WP:Stub. Stubs are not ideal, especially one-sentence stubs. And articles should demonstrate WP:Notability anyway. The Queer erasure article has not demonstrated notability. But because I know that the topic is broached in some academic sources, I opted against nominating that article for deletion and chose the merge route instead. Queer is an umbrella term for "for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or cisgender." We cover queer issues all over Wikipedia. Just because we don't use the term queer for all of those topics does not mean that it's queer erasure. To many in the LGBT community (especially older people), queer is still a slur; many LGBT people refuse to use the term for that reason or other reasons. The Queer erasure article calls queer erasure "a heteronormative cultural practice." There's that, and the fact that it's currently a tiny stub. So, yes, I proposed a merge. And as for experts, I'm not sure if you think we are any less experts on LGBT topics...but expertise is not the issue. Nor is it necessary to judge a merge in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Queer erasure is so frequently referred to in scholarly, legal and popular media discussions about representation and inclusion, that seems to warrant its need in a comprehensive reference source (even if it mainly points to other, more built up entries). And as pointed out below, the entry for Bisexual erasure serves as a future model for Queer erasure. Merging might discourage the work on this starter stub.--Mozucat (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You stated "so frequently referred to in scholarly, legal and popular media discussions." What evidence do you have for the first two? Looking on Google Books and/or Google Scholar, I mainly see passing mentions on the matter or sources briefly commenting on it. There is, however, this 2016 "US Public Schools and the Politics of Queer Erasure" source, from Springer, that is clearly devoted to the topic. By contrast, the topic of bisexual erasure has been given a lot more attention. If we look on regular Google, yes, there are sources like this 2018 The Guardian source speaking of queer erasure. But are we going to have the article mainly concern what has been reported in the media? Although I prefer academic sources for topics like this, that could work. And as for discouraging work on the stub, it's not standard that we keep tiny stubs like this based on that reasoning. If the stub should be merged, it should be merged. People can break the topic out into its own article later if it needs its own article or is better suited as its own article. Anyone who wants to create an article on the topic will, just like it was created without much effort put into it. But, yes, we can wait to see how it develops. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I see that before I responded to you above, you and Theredproject came across the same sources I did and expanded the article a little with them. Well, you expanded the article, and Theredproject added a source. That we came across and focused on the same few sources is what I mean about the research on queer erasure, rather than a specific aspect of it like bisexual erasure, being something that is lacking. As for expansion of the article, I will go ahead and note here that there is a counter argument from The Guardian for the aforementioned The Guardian source (and I will add bit of this content to this section of the Gay-for-pay article). And like I stated here, "the lesbian addition is based on old research, and likely should be excluded. Furthermore, lesbian women were (and still are) at a significantly lower risk for HIV/AIDS, which is why the sexually transmitted infections research for it hasn't focused on them as much as it has on heterosexual couples and [same-sex] male couples." But, yeah, if looking for sources about lesbian erasure, trans erasure, asexual erasure, or looking at the topic under "LGBT erasure," and including a WP:Summary style section about bisexual erasure, the Queer erasure article can grow well. Editors just have to make sure that it doesn't focus too much on one type of erasure in a way that overwhelms the article. As is clear, we already have a Bisexual erasure article. So the Queer erasure article shouldn't be much about bisexual erasure. Also, there should be sources, other than this theodysseyonline.com source, that specifically note that asexual erasure is queer erasure; otherwise, it's a WP:OR issue. Theodysseyonline.com doesn't pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline. Yes, "LGBT" includes "asexual" in some sources, but not in most others. It is also worth noting that the term "LGBT erasure" seems to have more media sources and that some might want to rename the Queer erasure article "LGBT erasure." The term should at least redirect there. There is also a LGBT erasure bill redirect. Information on that bill can also go in the article. Googling "LGBT erasure bill" shows results like this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC) ‎

Looking at the current state of the two articles, I think merging is sensible. If someone were to flesh Queer erasure out (e.g. in draft-space) to the level of detail and sourcing that Bisexual erasure has, then that would be another story. -sche (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Heteronormativity of the universe

The universe is heteronormative. It set heterosexuality as the norm. What an absolute prick, I know. However, this fact about the state of the universe is important for this discussion and should be noted, no? Nikolaneberemed (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Intersex

I had some ideas on a new intersex sections and threw in some new information that I think would benefit the article.

Intersexuality can be described as a person who does not only have both male and female physical and mental features to their body. Children born with sexually ambiguous genitalia happens more often than most think, about one in 2,000 (1). There are multiple intersex conditions, these are a few: 5-alpha reductanse deficiency, androgen insensitivity syndrome, clitoromegaly, etc.(2). There are studies being done to better understand if intersex people are getting surgery to basically “normalize” themselves or do these “normalizations” conflict to what the intersex person's physical sex relates to their genders self(3). There have been many studies on ambiguous genitalia and in the past the diagnosis was to choose the gender that is most suitable to the child. Different cultures have adopted different views on intersex babies because of the role of male and female within their society. For example in Malaya females are mostly chosen because of their ability to acquire money and property, but in China females are considered an inconvenience(4).

1. Ott, B.L., & Mack; R.L. (2014). Critical media studies: An introduction (2nd ed.). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.

2. Intersex conditions. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.isna.org/faq/conditions

3. Amato, V. (2016). Approaching Intersex: Conceptual and Theoretical Framework. In Intersex Narratives: Shifts in the Representation of Intersex Lives in North American Literature and Popular Culture (pp. 29-54). Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1xxrsz.5

4. Woodhouse, C. R. J. BJU International. Vol. 93 (Suppl. 3). May 2004. 57-65. Abstract Available. [Article] (AN BACD200400232352) BrendanGreene8 (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

media representation

I felt as though the media representation section needed more information. These are my thoughts on ideas on how today's society views homo and heterosexual people and how they are represented in today's media.

In today's media, specifically television, the amount of homosexual characters is less than the amount of heterosexual characters. The media sees heterosexuality as the “normal” in today's society so we see less homosexuality on television because of this1. There are many stereotypes that come with this, as it can also be seen in advertising in the newspapers, radio, and television. For example, mainstream media has developed the idea that gay men are more likely to be attracted to advertisements that promote expensive, highly educational, and over the top products because of their assumed attitudes and way of life. This puts all of these men that fall into the category at a disadvantage because of this stereotype2. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are also differentiated in the movies as well. Homosexual characters are only seen in movies if the movie is about issues regarding sexuality and the character would be presented as homosexual3. Television shows are also another aspect of media where there are stereotypes and negatively represented homosexuals. For example, the TV show Modern Family has two gay characters that are married and have a small adopted child together. Some may see this relationship as degrading and stereotypical of how the mainstream media views homosexuals. The shows sexual politics are considered fake because of how their relationship is portrayed as overly flamboyant and excessively put together4.

1. Ott, B.L., & Mack; R.L. (2014). Critical media studies: An introduction (2nd ed.). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.

2. Kates, S. (1999). Making the Ad Perfectly Queer: Marketing "Normality" to the Gay Men's Community? Journal of Advertising, 28(1), 25-37. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4189098

3. Benshoff, H. M., & Griffin, S. (2011). America on Film: Representing Race, Class, Gender and Sexuality at the Movies. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

4. PUGH, T. (2018). Conservative Narratology, Queer Politics, and the Humor of Gay Stereotypes in Modern Family. In The Queer Fantasies of the American Family Sitcom (pp. 161-189). New Brunswick, Camden, Newark, New Jersey; London: Rutgers University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt1trkkgj.9 BrendanGreene8 (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

More under Media representation

I enjoyed this article and thought it gave some great insight as to what heteronormativity is, how it is used in society, how people interpret it, and how it connects to other genders. These are my suggestions for the overall improvement of this article. -- There were a few sections of the article that were a little distracting and seemed like the information was just there to fill space. The section on heteronormativity is quite short compared to the other sections of the article. Although they make references to how it ties in to heteronormativity, there should be more information on that specifically. -- Also there should be more information under the media representation section. This seems like a big issue in today's society and how the world views people who just think in black and white and do not see deeper into someone's life. The media plays a huge role in effecting stereotypes and how we view different people and their roles in society because of how they are represented in the media. -- Again, overall, this article was great but just having a few more points on how heteronormativity and other genders are portrayed through the media would make it a lot better. BrendanGreene8 (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the media representation section is a little short. I feel as that is a broad topic with a lot of potential inquires. I think should be more information on heteronormativity than homonormativity since the article is about heteronormativity. You might just have to add some citations. Jack Sasso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksasso39 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

new part to media representation

Hello I am a student doing a project for class and the goal was to make a significant contribution to a Wikipedia article. I added a paragraph to the media representation section please check it out and let me know if there are any comments or concerns.

In today's media, specifically television, heterosexual character are used more often than homosexual characters. In 2018 only 8.8% of broadcast television has a LGBTQ person on the show[66]. Media portray heterosexuality as “normal” in today's society so we see less homosexuality on television because of this[67]. There are many stereotypes that come with this, as it can be seen in advertising, newspapers, radio, and television. For example, mainstream media promote the idea that gay men are more likely to be attracted to advertisements that sell expensive, flamboyant, and possibly feminine products because of their assumed attitudes and way of life[68]. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are also differentiated in the movies as well. Homosexual characters are predominantly seen in movies with issues regarding sexuality and the character is presented as homosexual[69]. Television shows are also another aspect of media where there are stereotypes and negatively represented homosexuals. For example, the TV show Modern Family has two gay characters that are married and have a small adopted child together. Some may see this relationship as degrading and stereotypical of how the mainstream media views homosexuals. The show's sexual politics are considered fake because of how their relationship is portrayed as overly colorful and excessively put together[70].

66. GLAAD Report: Record-high percentage of LGBTQ regular characters on broadcast TV, with more LGBTQ people of color than white LGBTQ people for the first time among regular and recurring LGBTQ characters. (2018, October 25). Retrieved from https://www.glaad.org/releases/glaad-report-record-high-percentage-lgbtq-regular-characters-broadcast-tv-more-lgbtq-peopl

67. Ott, B.L., & Mack; R.L. (2014). Critical media studies: An introduction (2nd ed.). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.

68. Kates, S. (1999). Making the Ad Perfectly Queer: Marketing "Normality" to the Gay Men's Community? Journal of Advertising, 28(1), 25-37. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4189098

69. Benshoff, H. M., & Griffin, S. (2011). America on Film: Representing Race, Class, Gender and Sexuality at the Movies. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

70. PUGH, T. (2018). Conservative Narratology, Queer Politics, and the Humor of Gay Stereotypes in Modern Family. In The Queer Fantasies of the American Family Sitcom (pp. 161-189). New Brunswick, Camden, Newark, New Jersey; London: Rutgers University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt1trkkgj.9

Thanks!

BrendanGreene8 (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Is heteronormativity a "belief" specifically, and nothing else, as stated in the first sentence?

My main complaint is this: In its current form, I think this article will immediately alienate somebody who is simply ignorant and wants to figure out "what is up with heteronormativity" or "why might it be harmful to assume everyone is heterosexual and ignore 'edge cases' like gay people?" People who are completely ignorant of a topic will often arrive at Wikipedia first, and I think it's important to get the first sentence right, in a tactical sense. This is not the article on the farad, where most of the visitors are probably scrolling down to a section immediately. This is an entry point into a whole new world, similar to the article antidepressant. Look how tactical the first sentence in "antidepressant" is, using the weasel word "some" three times in a row to keep from scaring people. Nobody is complaining about that weasel word in the first sentence because it gets very specific later on.

Here is the first sentence of the article as of 2018-11-21 at 09:21 UTC:

"Heteronormativity is the belief that people fall into distinct and complementary genders (male and female) with natural roles in life."

Is heteronormativity really a belief? Is it such a specific belief that Wikipedia can say "it is the belief" with any specific end for that sentence?

I would argue that heterosexism is more specific, and look how that is defined on Wikipedia:

"Heterosexism is a system of attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships."

There you've got three keywords: attitudes, bias, and discrimination. It actually doesn't mention "belief" at all, though attitudes are related to beliefs.

In my personal opinion, heteronormativity is not a belief, it is a set of attitudes, biases, phenomena, and norms. Heteronormativity may or may not carry a specific intent and may or may not be related to a belief system, such as the Christian Bible and specific interpretations of certain passages of that book. A religious doctrine, if sincerely held by an individual, is a belief. I feel like heteronormativity is something far more nebulous that often stems from religious beliefs, but also ignorance. Sometimes it operates at an individual level, but the article also shows how it can operate at a societal level.

I think it's important to avoid saying that something is a belief when it is often a manifestation of ignorance without intent to harm, or with severely limited understanding of the type of harm being done. The subset of heteronormativity that always has intent is heterosexism.

The phrase "natural roles in life" is a bluelink that surprisingly is not a link to gender roles, but that's not the biggest problem with this sentence. (It's arguably not a problem, it links to Essentialism, which was more interesting to me because I had never heard of this philosophical concept before. I think people expect the link to take you to the Gender role article.) Fluoborate (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm agreed that it seems odd to define heteronormativity as a belief. I suggest rewriting the lead to:

Heteronormativity is an attitude in which people are assumed to be either male or female (and cisgender), and heterosexual. It reflects a belief that sexual or marital relationships are only natural for opposite-sex couples, and that men and women have distinct roles in life. A heteronormative view is therefore one which conflates biological sex and gender identity and assigns to these categories a specific sexuality and set of gender roles. Heteronormativity is often linked to heterosexism and homophobia.

— Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Stating "male or female (and cisgender)" doesn't flow well to me. Except for "is the belief," I prefer to stick with the current lead wording. I'll look over sources and see about how to alter the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we have it backwards: heterosexism is the belief, and heteronormativity is the system. It mirrors sexism/patriarchy and racism/white supremacy. -- irn (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Irn, do you think we should state something like "Heteronormativity is a system of the beliefs"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Not quite. It's a social system, not a belief system. Maybe "Heteronormativity is a social system based on the beliefs". Except that heteronormativity is about the primacy of heterosexuality, which requires distinct and complementary genders, so I'd suggest something more along the lines of "Heteronormativity is a social system based on the assumption that heterosexuality is the norm or default sexual orientation, and that sexual and marital relations are most (or only) fitting between people of opposite sex. A heteronormative view requires the belief that people fall into distinct and complementary genders (male and female) with natural roles in life and, therefore, involves alignment of biological sex, sexuality, gender identity and gender roles." -- irn (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Give me some time to look over sources on the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's a theory, isn't it? That covers both, "a system of beliefs", as well as not making any assertion about whether it is true, or not.
P.S. I added {{anchor|Belief}} to the top of this section, so you can direct target it without the long title if you want.Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a theory. And the source I added for the matter does not state "theory." We wouldn't state that "racism is a theory." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

See the #Definition section below for more on the definition. I haven't yet looked at sources for "a social system" wording with regard to the definition. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to add my two sense in that if we go back and actually look at how Michael Warner coins the term in his social text (Fear of a Queer planet) he basically references page 114, the whole page, as the description of heteronormativity. In that entire page the word is never mentioned, but the concepts are. The concepts that form the umbrella term of Heteronormativity. So I think it’s best to not label it as a belief, but to say it “refers to the concepts and beliefs of...” Saml214 1:49 p.m. UTC , 9 September 2019

Definition

As of rev 883343732, the first sentence says this:

First sentence as of rev 883343732:
Heteronormativity is the belief that people fall into distinct and complementary genders (male and female) with natural roles in life. It assumes (correctly) that heterosexuality is the norm or default sexual orientation, and that sexual and marital relations are most (or only) fitting between people of opposite sex References

First of all, gender is "man and woman" (and others, but in the context of heteronormativity, that's how they conceive genders) not "male and female", and Harris (2018) doesn't claim that it does. Here's what it does say about it:

heteronormativity The assumption that heterosexuality is the default, preferred, 'normal' state for human beings because of the belief that people fall into one or other category of a strict gender binary (see deconstruction; other). Thus it involves the further assumption that someone's biological sex, sexuality, gender, identity, and gender roles, are aligned. Such assumptions marginalize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Social work has been criticized for operating within heteronormative frames of reference, and developments in fostering and adoption by lesbian and gay couples can be seen as attempts to address such criticisms. However, question heteronormativity is relevant to all areas of social work practice. Heteronormativity is often associated with heterosexismm and homophobia. See also anti-discriminatory practice; anti-oppressive practice; gay and lesbian perspectives; heterosexism; homohphobia; queer theory.

The first sentence needs to be adjusted, first, for the misaligned sex/gender confusion; and second, to take better account of the definition in Harris (2018) (or, in some other reference, if desired). Mathglot (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot, the source states, "The assumption that heterosexuality is the default, preferred, 'normal' state for human beings because of the belief that people fall into one or other category of a strict gender binary (see DECONSTRUCTION: OTHER)." So I do not to see why you added a "dubious" tag for the "It assumes that heterosexuality is the norm or default sexual orientation." part of the lead. The source clearly supports that part, and it is that part I used that source for. That part, and the "Heteronormativity is often linked to heterosexism and homophobia." part. That is why that source is specifically placed at the end of those two sentences.

As for the rest, yes, "male" and "female" are not genders if defining "gender" strictly, but it's clear from the Gender article and Sex and gender distinction articles that "male" and "female" are associated with gender. They are seen as gender identities by enough people in society, which is why you might see "male gender identity" or "female gender identity," or "male" or "female" as options under "Gender" on documents or online signup matters. No one states "man gender identity" or "woman gender identity." Stating "man and woman" for a topic like this is sometimes taken by people as excluding boys and girls. And stating "boy (or man) and girl (or woman)" can be considered overkill. That stated, using "man and woman" in this case could be argued as us giving an example. So I'd be fine going with that. And I wouldn't mind stating "boy (or man) and girl (or woman)."

Going back to the source, even though I didn't add it at the end of that first sentence, it does cover that first sentence, since "the belief that people fall into one or other category of a strict gender binary" is about "the belief that people fall into distinct and complementary genders" and therefore the gender binary. The gender binary is specifically about "boy (or man) and girl (or woman)" and "masculine and feminine." And the source does state "strict." The "Thus it involves the further assumption that someone's biological sex, sexuality, gender, identity, and gender roles, are aligned. Such assumptions marginalize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people." part covers the "with natural roles in life" part, although we could reword the "with natural roles in life" part. Still, we don't need to use the exact wording of a source. We are supposed to put content in our own words, although we will use the same words as the source in some cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You're right, the dubious tag doesn't belong; I think I somehow didn't pay attention to the it assumes that.. and took it to be an assertion in Wikipedia's voice, which of course, it isn't. I've removed that tag. I'll have to respond to the rest tomorrow. Thanks for your detailed analysis. Mathglot (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Changed lead sentence to this for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments on the article

Hi, my name is Maria Spencer and I was given an assignment in one of my classes to analyze a Wikipedia article based on some questions and posts the answers to them here. Below are the questions as well as my answers to them.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? If so, how do you know? If not, find a more appropriate source to replace it. Keep in mind Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sources. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? This article does a very good job with in text citations. Every fact listed in the article is followed by a citation indicating where the information comes from. There is only one instance where a citation is needed after a sentence, in between sources 7 and 8. The citations themselves are also done correctly. None of the information is plagiarized or closely paraphrased and the links to the citations work.

Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? The information in this article comes from a wide variety of sources, with the majority of them being academic articles or books. These are some of the best sources to use in the creation of Wikipedia articles, as they abide by the credentials for “neutral” sources that only state the facts. Sources that do contain bias towards a particular point of view are used in this article, but the bias is explicitly addressed. For instance, in the section discussing the debate on whether or not parent sexual orientation effects children, both sides are presented in order to give the reader a full picture of the argument.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? One of the flaws of this article is that it is bogged down by information that is not essential to the topic. The actual section describing the term is very short, as well as the history of the term. On the other hand, sections that should be shorter in length are filled with information unrelated to the topic at hand. For example, in the section “relation to marriage and the nuclear family” the entire first paragraph on the history of the nuclear family is not needed. In a similar vein, the section on transgressions, which discusses intersex and transgender individuals, is important but does not contain any connections to the overarching topic of heteronormativity. A possible fix to this could be lumping the transgressions section into the section that discusses discrimination. This way, transgender and intersex people would still be included, but just in a way that focuses on their relation to the harmful stereotypes that come with heteronormativity. Despite this, I thought the section on media representation was very important and conveyed important information on heteronormativity and its prevalence in the media. As a largely media based society, I feel as though discussing a topic through a familiar lens helps people to better understand the concept.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? What perspectives are missing? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? Overall, this article remains neutral in its portrayal of the topic. Just as described in Wikipedia’s guidelines, the article displays just the facts from a variety of points of view. None of the points made in the article show a blatant bias towards a particular “side” of the story. Despite this, some sections of the article recieve a little more attention than others. As stated earlier, the sections on marriage and the nuclear family as well as the section on homonormativity are significantly longer than others. I can only think of one perspective that is missing from the article, which I will discuss in the next question.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? There article contains a solid mix of information that is a bit dated and information that is more modern. Some information could be updated to show more up to date instances of heteronormativity. For instance, in the section about discrimination, an example from a 1991 case involving homophobic hiring practices at a Cracker Barrel could be replaced with a similar example, such as an article published by CBS News in 2017 which focuses on a study done by GLAAD that reports on bullying of LGBTQ+ individuals in the workplace. In regards to missing information, a section on heteronormativity and its role in religion could be included to show a different side to the argument. Many people who abide by a certain religion believe strongly that heterosexual is the default and correct sexual orientation and that homosexuality goes against their religion. An example of this in action can be found in a 2015 case where Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples on the basis of religion.

References

Mariassu (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Heteronormativity and Religion

Hello, my name is Maria Spencer and I'm contributing to this article for my Media Literacy class. Below is a draft of of article addition.

Various religions often promote heteronormative beliefs through their teachings. According to Sociology professors Samuel Perry and Kara Snawder from University of Oklahoma, “a long tradition of research has demonstrated a strong and persistent connection between Americans’ religious characteristics and anti-gay prejudice.” Out of the world’s five major religions Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all uphold heteronormative beliefs on marriage. Some examples of these beliefs playing out in recent years include the incident involving Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who refused to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on the grounds that it violated her spiritual views, as well as the Supreme Court case which ruled that a Colorado baker did not have to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple based off of his religion.

References

Mariassu (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Overall, I think this article was well written, and used legitimate sources throughout. There are just a few things that I would change:

I would change the first sentence to something more neutral, maybe something like "In the past, various religions have been found to promote heteronormativity in their preachings." I would also refrain from using so long of a quote, as this is discouraged for Wikipedia. A brief paraphrase would be better if you feel that the quote is essential. Aside from that, I think your proposed addition is well written.

Jgratt21 (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

New homonormitivity article

There is a new Homonormativity article. That means that the subsection here needs to be reconciled to that article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm contributing a section that goes more in depth on media representation for non-binary individuals.

Those who do not fit into the social categories of either woman or man identify as gender non-binary, or gender non-conforming. States in the United States are increasingly legalizing this “third” gender on official government documents. Recent television shows that have featured non-binary individuals include Ru Paul’s Drag Race and The Fosters. Complaints from members of the LGBTQ community include representation in media of non-binary has not expanded to the extent of gender-conforming transgenders.

Cbmcinnis (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)CbmcinnisCbmcinnis (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Article Improvements/peer reveiw

The information seemed necessary and organized.Good coverage of view points however, I am not very educated on many words associated with Heteronormantivity and the concept in itself so it was a little hard for me to understand even after reading the entire article. However, the article contribution did depict neutrality.Ashleybedard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-binary media representation

Those who do not identify as either woman or man are gender non-binary, or gender non-conforming. States in the United States are increasingly legalizing this “third” gender on official government documents as the existence of this identity is continuously debated among individuals. The controversy has resulted in minimal representation in the media, but recent television shows that have featured non-binary individuals include Ru Paul’s Drag Race and The Fosters. Members of the LGBTQ community claim that representation in media of non-binary people has not expanded to the extent of gender-conforming transgenders. Cbmcinnis (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)cbmcinnis

Hello, Cbmcinnis. I see that you are a WP:Student editor. The sources you used for the material you added are not about heteronormativity. Keep WP:Synthesis in mind. That stated, the whole section needs cleanup in this regard. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Same goes for other parts of the article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2020‎ (UTC)

_____

References

The Intersex section

The intersex section of this article pretty much follows the Leonard Sax definition of intersex, which I personally agree with. BUT, the actual Wikipedia wiki on intersex, opposes the Leonard Sax definition of intersex. For the sake of consistency, somebody should probably either re-write the intersex section in this wiki or the actual Wikipedia Intersex wiki. Leveni (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. The intersex article neutrally describes the various points of view. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Cryptonormative article

The article describes fringes' views as mainstream research, without quoting sources to underpin such ideas. The main entrance of this article relies heavily on one author only. More generally, the article proposes an ideological view of sex and sexuality, whereby lived experiences and identities are originally mediated by social construction. While this may be a position in social sciences, the article never makes clear that the position is controversial and is not the only one currently discussed, thereby espousing an affirmative and cryptonormative view as to what the link between sex and gender should be. --86.6.148.125 (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks ok to me. The first half of the main entrance looks pretty neutral, and the second half relies on three different authors. Would you like to quote some of the authors, which would benefit the neutrality of this article? --78.56.232.120 (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Source 6 and 7 do not currently having working links. This should probably be fixed. Emilylavacchia (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals

A potential edit: the term "transsexual" is used. Unless this is a direct quote, it possibly should be changed considering its outdated use. It should most likely be "transgender". Emilylavacchia (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Article Improvement

There could be a section on non-binary individuals included in the transgressions or against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals sections. It could even be added into the section on heteronormativity to intersex individuals since they're closely related. Emilylavacchia (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Non-Binary People

Prospective section on non-binary people.

The term “non-binary” is one used to describe those who do not identify as either male or female. (1) Those who are non-binary are regularly dismissed, and have their feelings and desires equated to joining a trend. (2) The singular use of the pronoun “they” is often used by non-binary people as their pronoun of choice. (3) International Non-Binary People’s day is held on July 14 (4)

1. Abrams, Mere. "Nonbinary: What Does It Mean?". Healthline, 2021, https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/nonbinary.

2. Krishnaswami, Charanya et al. "They, Them, And Theirs". Harvardlawreview.Org, 2021, https://harvardlawreview.org/2019/01/they-them-and-theirs/. 3. Hekanaho, Laura. Helda.Helsinki.Fi, 2020, https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/321581/hekanaho_laura_dissertation_2020.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. 4. "International Non-Binary People’S Day". Prideinclusionprograms.Com.Au, 2021, https://www.prideinclusionprograms.com.au/event/international-non-binary-peoples-day/. Emilylavacchia (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Emilylavacchia, what you really need are sources that describe how heternormativity affect non-binary people. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Emilylavacchia, I think the sentence about they/them pronouns would go better as the second sentence. I would also like to see more about how non-binary individuals challenge heteronormativity and how non-binary people are treated in heteronormative spaces. Cturgiss (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Non-Binary People and Heteronormativity

Possible new section to add

The term “non-binary” is one used to describe those who do not identify as either male or female. (1) The singular use of the pronoun “they” is often used by non-binary people as their pronoun of choice. (2) There is much discrimination against non-binary people, especially in America, due to the largely heteronormative ideas presented in American culture. (3) Heteronormativity often is described as following specific male characteristics and specific female characteristics, therefore non-binary people, those who do not conform to a specific gender, are outside of the bubble of it. (4)

1. Abrams, Mere. "Nonbinary: What Does It Mean?". Healthline, 2021, https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/nonbinary. 2. Hekanaho, Laura. Helda.Helsinki.Fi, 2020, https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/321581/hekanaho_laura_dissertation_2020.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. 3. Duncan Steven G., Aguilar Gabrielle, Jensen Cole G., Magnusson Brianna M. Survey of Heteronormative Attitudes and Tolerance Toward Gender Non-conformity in Mountain West Undergraduate Students. Frontiers in Psychology, 2019, https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00793. 4. Cochrane, Kristen. “Why Heteronormativity Is a Bad Thing.” Teen Vogue, 1 Sept. 2016, https://www.teenvogue.com/story/heteronormativity-gender-identity-sexual-orientation.

Emilylavacchia (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

What you will need are sources that specifically discuss non-binary people and heteronormativity together. This is because we must avoid WP:Synthesis, a type of WP:Original research. It looks to me like your four sources are about one or the other, but not both. Regarding source #3, gender-nonconformity is not the same thing as being non-binary. Ideally, you would also use sources by academic researchers and experts in a relevant field, rather than articles in magazines like Teen Vogue. This is per WP:SOURCETYPES.

If you can't find any such sources, you may like to revise your goal to instead write about a different aspect of this topic. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Completely agreed with Crossroads, and Firefangledfeathers made the same point a couple of weeks ago, asking for "sources that describe how heternormativity affect non-binary people" (emphasis mine), not just text that describes it. — Bilorv (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adrianaa2016. Peer reviewers: Vincostantino.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Summer 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KennyMcLean22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BrendanGreene8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mariassu. Peer reviewers: Jgratt21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vin0beats.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vin0beats.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 28 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cbmcinnis. Peer reviewers: Ashleybedard.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Whisper of the Forest.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emilylavacchia. Peer reviewers: Cturgiss.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)