Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Verifiability

I've spent some time looking through gender and queer theory essays that I have, and I confess, I'm not finding the analysis this page gives to be held by any of them.

I am not denying that the treatment of intersexuals, etc is as described in this page. What I am questioning, however, is whether the exact analyses of heteronormativity this page offers are actually coming from a source, or whether they are original research.

Would someone please provide the following if they exist, so as to give some guidance on what work needs to be done to make this article something other than a piece of original research.

• Where has the word heteronormativity been used outside of academic texts?
• Where does the claim of a connection between heteronormativity and patriarchal society come from? Currently it says "is often seen," but by who?
• Where do the critics of heteronormativity come from? What critics have actually addressed the topic of heteronormativity in so many words?
• What gender theorists comment on the connection between intersexuals and heteronormativity?
• Who has blamed restrictions on gender reassignment on heteronormativity?
• Who has criticized governments for being heteronormative?

For an article about a concept or theory like this one, it is exceedingly odd that it only actually cites a specific person once (The Eve Sedgwick line). Compare to Deconstruction, which is constantly ascribing ideas to specific thinkers. Let's refocus this article so that it actually talks about real and verifiable things. Snowspinner 17:16, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Just what are you going to do if the answers to your questions don't come up, or if you don't like them? Try to delete transgender and intersex people again from the article? And what a coincidence that we just met on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection! How strage! Say, could you not simply leave both me and this article alone? Your behaviour is really starting to worry me. Not to mention that I am worried about your "academical carrer" if you are really not capable of finding those references you are asking for.

And just for the record, trying to remove trans and intersex people with a fake argument of "original research" is not going to work any better then your previous attempts to get rid of me via this article (or whatever you want to get rid of). I recomment a Google search like [1], that sould show you how phony this attempt is. I don't know what thought worries me more - the thought that you know what you are doing or the thought that you don't. Either way, I recomment stopping it. -- AlexR 19:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes. If they are unverifiable original research, they need to be removed from the article. If there are sources, those sources should be cited. That's basic compliance with Wikipedia policies, and I would hope you have enough respect for the project you're working on to do that. Who says these things? And, more to the point, does anyone but you say these things? Move the assertions from blanket statements and nebulous "some say" to useful information that points to a debate and a real conversation on it.

Past that, I'm uniterested in your personal attacks. I am interested in making this article encyclopedic and valid. Right now, it is not. Hopefully you will help in fixing it, since I suspect you have a good knowledge of the source material it requires. Snowspinner 19:24, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Listen, Snowspinner. The article right now is valid, and it is more than odd that you come up with this argument after months of silence and before that, months of working on that article. You can not complain if I wonder about that. Besides that, even if there were no sources, this would not constiture original research, since no research is necessary to make that connection, it is absolutely obvious. But, since otherwise you will keep getting on my nerves:

• Check this article from the International Journal of Transgenderism, which happens to be the official journal from the HBIGDA: [2]. It is from 2001 and titeled The Gender Caste System: Identity, Privacy and Heteronormativity. The full article can be found here: [3] (RTF file).
• Or this abstract about a workshop with Judith Halberstam: „Queer Cultural Studies: heteronormativity, homonormativity and the politics of sexuality” [4].
• Or how about [5]? Quote: Internal divisions within the Trans and Intersex population replicate the very social and medical divisions generated as a result of these gender identities being pathologized by larger society on the basis that they do not conform to the hetero-normative expectations of contiguous sex and gender categories as exclusively male and female.
• Or maybe [6]? Quote: Heterosexism / Heteronormativity
  The institutionalized assumption that everyone is heterosexual and that heterosexuality is inherently superior to, and preferable to any and all orientations outside of heterosexuality. (...) Homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia all stem from and are supported by heterosexism, which is then enforced by a binary gender system.
• And then there is a book I have not read, but the summary is interesting:
  Scheman, Naomi. 1996. Queering the Center by Centering the Queer. In Diane Tietjiens Meyers, ed., Feminists Rethink the Self. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 124-162. Scheman compares and contrasts Jewish identities and the identities of transsexual women to displace the normalizing apparatuses of Christian-normativity and heteronormativity.
• And [7], [8] and [9] also make your claim of "original research" go the way it ought to - straight through the john.

I hope that ends that line of "debate". You know what the really funny part is? I found those with a single Google search in about 10 minutes. And almost all of them have an academic background. Therefore your claim that you could not find anything is so utterly ridiculous that I find it hard to explain. After all, when I am not involved, you seem to be able to do some constructive work. And I will tell you something else: If you keep trying to remove trans- and intersex people from the article, with increasingly phony arguments, I won't bother with long debates any more, since they are, at least between us, so utterly pointless. Instead I will request mediation, since I see no other way to resolve these perpetual and highly irritating debates. -- AlexR 01:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Great, you found them, Snowspinner didn't. Can you incorporate citations into the article, ascribing points of view to those who hold them, thereby making the article verifiable, accurate, and neutral? Hyacinth 01:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... Problem is, those articles are hardly the first one to mention the connection, and indeed I do not know who made that connection first. I also do not know which books are the most influential on that matter. I know this will disappoint snowspinner; but I life in Germany, and have access to English language articles almost exclusively through inter-library loan. (That is, if I can make it to the library at all; health reasons.) That makes keeping up with literature a bit tricky, especially English literature. I'd therefore prefer very much if somebody with easier access to that could do a literature section. Also, I do not think that not having a large one or not having tons of quotes in the article would make it less verifiable, accurate and neutral. Nor does it invalidate anything in the article, because contrary to Snowspinners claim, the connection is both well established and quite trivial. -- AlexR 02:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'm finally getting back to this after a semester that had me with no time for doing fact-checking, and I've looked at the links Alex provided. I'm still not seeing any evidence of the term gaining meanignful use outside of an academic context. Links 7, 8, and 9 above seem to be the closest thing to providing that, but they are, in order, a page that is quoting fact-index.com, which is a Wikipedia mirror, an interview with Pauline Park, who is described elsewhere as a political scientist, and thus not unacademic, and a site for a student association that is describing its goals in terms of the academy. So I'm still not seeing the penetration of the term outside academic circles. Is there still some verification on that?
(Put bit about criticism part below, hope you don't mind. [AR])
I'll work on integrating some citations into the article to provide a context for some of the conclusions based on what Alex provided, but I'd like, long term, to see some more in terms of original sources. Anyone feel like crawling through a bunch of Butler and Irigaray for what quotes or citations we could use? I know I don't..Snowspinner 04:57, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC).

First of all, let me say something personal: Now that we both had some time to you know, move away emotionally from whatever is itching us about each other, or whatever, do you think that now we could actually start doing some constructive work together? Because I find your behaviour towards me and how you jump at everything I say, also in other debates, highly disturbing, and more, it makes us both spending far too much time with each other, instead of with improving articles. I would appreciate if things became a lot less personal between us. And, granted, by now your appearance alone is enough to prompt me for a sarcastic answer, but I am willing to make an effort to stop it. Can you make an effort too to stop what is going wrong between us? If, on the other hand, that continues, I am seriously considering requesting mediation, I checked, that is entirely possible when a matter is personal rather than about an article in particular. I would very much prefer, though, if we can solve that without the intervention of a third party. [AR]

Second, I do not know why "penetration outside academic circles" is so important to you, you are certainly not suggesting that because something might be mainly used in academic circles, it should not be in the Wikipedia. The term itself is, after all, a technical term, and probably in all contexts used rather in academic circles. However, a definitely non-academic use would be in Usenet, and it does turn up there occasionally. [10], [11].

Similar searches ought to produce other interesting and relevant results. -- AlexR 17:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Feb 1, 2005

Fascinating argument. It seems that the discussants have different views on various roles of an encyclopedia: to record, to summarize, to consolidate and to create usage and/or scholarship.

I do believe that Judith Butler used the term "heteronormative", but I don't have the exact cite. I will find it, by and by, and post it on the site. I have noted a number of net usages of the term, but some of them seem far afield. I understood it to refer to the "heterosexual norm," derived, if I recall correctly, from a discussion by Monique Wittig regarding the default assumption that people are heterosexual.

However, I took a quick peek on the net, and saw this usage: “A genderqueer is part of a group of people who reject heteronormativity, the traditional two-gender system." (Fact-index.com) I have not used the term in this way, and I do not believe Butler did either. However, that does not mean it is "wrong," since I believe that meaning follows usage, and not vice versa.

(Lest anyone think I follow Humpty-Dumpty's dictum that a word means whatever I want it to, let me say this: the coiner of a word does not have exclusive privileges on meaning after they loose it into the world, anymore than an author or a painting. The meaning can be expanded, though the expansion should be noted, if you're going to call yourself a scholar.)

This usage at fact-index.com is an interesting one, because it refers back to the Greek root, and the original medical usage of the term "heterosexual" from 1892, at which point it connoted a “so-called male erotic attraction to females and so-called female erotic attraction to males” in one person. Jonathan Ned Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality 20 (1995). Thus, in addition to assumptions about sexual orientation, the new usage refers to assumptions about gender identity. In particular, it refers to the idea that there are only two genders, an assumption that genderqueers reject.

This expansion of meaning may be repugnant to the original lesbian users of the term, because the two-gender system was (and is) embraced by many lesbians. These fight against sex roles constraining women, and they claim the right for people to express their gender in a non-traditional way, but they strongly resist the notion that they are not women. The same views are held by others in the LGBT community, including, surprisingly, some transsexuals. See my article in the Journal of Bisexuality: "GL vs. BT" available at http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jweiss/glvsbt

By contrast, genderqueers strongly resist the notion that they are women or men. The usage at fact-index.com uses "heteronormativity" to refer to the assumption of binary gender, in addition to the assuption of heterosexual orientation.

Should it thus be expanded? If someone else has some guidance, all the better. I look forward to an interesting discussion.--Jillian Todd Weiss 10:57, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

The "criticism" section

Seeing no verification at all for the alleged "criticisms' of heteronormativity, I've taken those out entirely. Snowspinner 04:57, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I certainly will not object to its removal, but you do remember the debates, especially with Sam Spade, about these bits? If you don't, since I think you came in after the worst of them, check archive 2004, 1 and 2. I think you and I very much agree that a repetition of these debate would be entirely undesireable. No disagreement here, just cautioning. -- AlexR 17:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LGBTI

Because it looks like a typo to an untrained reader, and the audience for an encyclopedia is an untrained reader. Perhaps if it were LGBTI instead, but having the unlinked I hanging at the end of it is just typographically unseemly. Snowspinner 04:43, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I made LGBTI a redir to LGBT, so it does not "look like a typo" any more. You know, both above and below we talk about Lesbians, Gays, Bi, Transgender and Intersex people, so using only LGBT here seems to be quite problematic. Once could expand the acronym, but I don't think that is necessary. It would be far preferable, though, to removing the I behind the LGBT. -- AlexR 17:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems the link must be "neutral".

Since only one link may be used, it can only have one form, and thus a representative form must be chosen. I argue LGBT is most representative of the acronyms.

We could find POVs which insist on a more thourough discernment of terms than "LGBTI" (such as "LGBTIQQA"), but the longer the acronym the less representative because of the greater possibility of variance ("LGBTQQIA", for example) and the lesser frequency of its use.

However, I changed the link to sexual minorities to avoid the acronym debate. Hyacinth 02:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm affraid I most certainly have to revert that, since on the one hand neither transgender people nor intersex people are a "sexual minority" and on the other hand there are sexual minorities that are not fundamentaly affected by heteronormativity, like BDSM people and the like. So actually using "sexual minority" would introduce a fourth group, and that introduction would be inaccurate into the bargain. Also, I already explained that the acronym seems to be used here so that one has not to write "lesbian, gay, bi, transgender and intersex people" (because these are the groups explicitly mentioned in the article), and that happens to be abbreviated LGBTI. There is also nothing un-neutral about that, so I do not understand the change at all. -- AlexR 03:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Out of sincere interest... what are intersex people then? Surely not a majority... Snowspinner 03:45, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Not a majority, no... the issue here was with the "sexual" of "sexual minority". Being intersexed has nothing to do with one's sexuality or sexual orientation, instead it is akin to a "third gender", a term which I have often heard intersexed individuals use to refer to themselves. The most accurate discription would probably be "Gender minority". Arcuras 21:05, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

Though the vandal who keeps insisting that the term 'heteronormativity' doesn't exist is wrong (I mean, really, its use proves it exists), it is kind of funny that the link s/he provided, to dictionary.com ([12]), thinks you're looking for "to run mad after". Then again, maybe its just late and I'm getting rummy. BTW, it seems odd that a term that "doesn't exist" would get over 13,000 google hits: [13]. -Seth Mahoney 08:53, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, but there is another point here. The term doesn't have a single definition, because it isn't in wide enough use. It seems to be one coined and used by a teeny tiny group of academics, widely divergently, whose students temporarily adopt a use of the term vaguely approximating that of their professors.

More on verifiability

I just came across this page. There's one reference. The stuff in the article really doesn't read like it comes from it.

I would like to see references for most assertions. At least one per paragraph. 'Cos right now it reads like original research. There's a pile of supporting links on this talk page, but if they're references they should be on the article. - David Gerard 19:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article isn't original research, but I'm with you as far as more references go - for all pages, not just this one. -Seth Mahoney 19:41, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I could add some references - anything in particular you'd like to see connected to a reference? -Seth Mahoney 19:42, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

This is a great article.

I'm a heterosexual - not even a "metrosexual". Geez, take a look at my apartment and you'll see that I'm not. However, I just wanted to say that this article is extremely convincing and well-written.

It has not changed my beliefs. I've rallied for gays in Cincinnati, Ohio (a very conservative place). I don't think that I am contributing much to the dialogue, but I want to let the community know that a "straight" man suppports this article 100%.

The main thing I have to contribute to the debate is that I don't like loud people. At present, there is a gay person in my office space who is loud and demands attention at every possible opportunity. I don't care that he's gay. Whatever he does outside the office is his own business. However, he seems to put on an act that involves unnecessary drama. He yells and screams to his "audience", including my team (by physical position).

I know lots of homosexuals that do not "flame". I know that maybe 30% (or less) of homosexuals find the need to be "flamers". This is not a deroratory term. It is merely an observattion. I know that some homosexuals employ the word "girlfriend" just to get a rise out of conservative heterosexual men. "Flamers" are hurting their own cause. It's perfect that everyone wants to be him/herself, but deliberatly engaging a "show" persona endangers the cause.

Believe me, I love to get the "homo-haters" into the light. Just understand me correctly. I know there is a place for "Just Jack". That place is not in the office. Just as formerly repressed and disadvantaged African-Americans do not call each other "nigga" in the office, so should drama queens refrain from drama at the office.

There is a place and time for drama queens to reignite the spark. That place is not at the office. Were I to engage my unrestrained self at work, I would be fired for hitting on too many girls and talking about sex too much. The same standard should be applied regardless of sexual orientation. --Axi0m 22:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Axi0m

One of the results of people trying to force other people to conform to their ideas of how individuals with male genitals and individuals with female genitals are supposed to behave is that they do lots of psychological damage -- even to unknown victims, maybe even including their own kids. People who have suffered attacks and have lived under the threat of attacks for long periods of time almost inevitably build defenses, and sometimes their defenses are not any more appropriate and effective than were the original attempts at controlling other people's business. It is very difficult for somebody to put down his/her defenses. It's like the true story of a gorilla in a zoo. I think it was a zoo in Chicago, but the location doesn't matter. This was back in the mid 20th century when most zoos kept animals in monotonos and cramped indoor cages. They had a large gorilla whom everybody liked. They decided that they would do the gorilla a big favor by building him an outdoor exercise on the other side of the wall to his cage. They built the outside fence and then they created a door in the wall of the cage, but to the end of his days the gorilla would never go out that door. The reason must have been that, having never been out there, he was afraid of the unknown. I had the same problem with a dog that I got from a Canine Rescue service. Somebody must have slammed her in a car door or some other door a number of times because you had to pull her through the door, and then when she decided she was going through she would make a mad dash -- often dragging me into the door frame and banging my head or shoulders. It took weeks or even months for her to learn that none of my doors were ever going to slam on her.

In the Dao De Jing (or Tao Te Ching if you prefer the old spelling) the Daoist sage says: "The good people I treat like good people. And the bad people I also treat like good people. In so doing, I acquire good." The same methodology was followed by Jesus in the story of the woman at the well. He didn't send her away and tell her to clean up her act, and then come back in five years to receive forgiveness. Instead, he forgave her on the spot, and in so doing he expressed his love and compassion. When you do that for a person you take away the need for them to be continually doing things either to defend themselves or prepare to defend themselves. Doing all that defending takes lots of one's time and energy, and when one no longer has to do it one finally has some resources left over with which one can start to grow.

I don't know enough about the people you're interacting with to be able to suggest how you might be able to create a security dome for them. That kind of thing pretty much depends on individual sensitivity to events as they unfold. But maybe it is worth repeating another bit of ancient wisdom. Characterizing somebody as X, Y, and even worse than that you're a rotten Z is in all cases except for the occasional saint likely to make the person more defensive and therefore more into doing whatever s/he was doing to "counterattack" in the first place. But sometimes it works to say, "When you say/do that kind of thing, this is how it makes me feel. If the other person's intent was not to make you feel that way, then you're already at least as far as first base. 金 (Kim) 06:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing. I'm new to posting on Wikipedia, and I'm trying to learn all of the markup. Sad thing is, I'm a web developer.  ;)

Anyway, I appreciate your reference to the Tao Te Ching. That is one book, that were everyone to embrace, the world would be a much better place. Lao Tzu was a very wise man.

I also appreciate your point about defense mechanisms. I'm certain that this man has encountered much hardship because of his homosexuality. Were I to witness anyone bothering him, I'd take his side on principle, defending him with fists were it necessary. But I don't have to like him, and his behavior is unacceptable in a business setting.

At work, be yourself to the extent that it is not disruptive. He is not programming computers as my team is. His work, while very important, probably does not require the concentration level that does programming.

In a casual setting, I appreciate flamers very much. I do volunteer work for a local theatre that espouses gay rights more than any other in the city. Feminine gay men are a blast to be around at a bar, in the theatre, etc. However, there is a certain level of decorum that must be observed while at work. As I've mentioned above, were I let it to all hang out, I would be fired. Yet effiminate men are apparently permitted to engage their full gay persona, while our heterosexual / bisexual friends must limit themselves to business-appropriate diction.

Hell, I've kissed a man and enjoyed it. I'll kiss more men if I feel like it. I'd rather be with women, but I'm not disruptive. I know that the business world does not take kindly to improper etiquette. I'd have no less of a problem with this man were he a woman.

I'm not about to confront the poor guy. He's in a different division of the company, and I don't know what political fallout would ensue. I don't even know which guy he is. The point is that loud people suck. I would never infringe upon the sonic space of others without due cause - like My computer is on fire!

He plays his boombox throughout the day, and I don't honestly care if he is having sex with goats. I believe that herein lies the disconnect between mainstream America and the GLBT community.

Call me an accomodationist if you like, but there is an informal manner and there is business-speak. I engage in the latter, and expect nothing less from our gay brothers and sisters.

--Axi0m 22:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)Axi0m

Article is very POV.

This article is little more than a carefully worded attack and criticism of so-called "heteronormativity", and that isn't even including the fact that the phrase itself seems to have been invented for use with a negative connotation. Information is presented as objective fact here but it's pretty obvious there's an underlying agenda.

Just listen to the comments of axiom and kim. This article seems to have been designed with the express purpose of promoting the view that males and females are arbitrary, opressive concepts, that there is no "right" way for either to behave, and the article encourages specific (read "alternative") modes of behavior. --Uthar Wynn 01 05:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for GLBTIFMTAPZ people, and articles should conform to NPOV and have a certain standard of quality.

I used the fully expanded acronym so as not to leave any groups out. :) --Uthar Wynn 01 05:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the article is about explaining an existant concept that you basically do summarize. The question is what opposing points of view you would have included. I am unaware of any stinging critiques of heteronormativity. Normally this might lead one to suspect crankery, but with heteronormativity employed in a wealth of mainstream academic sources, I don't buy the crankery angle either. So if there are some countering viewpoints you'd like to see represented, please add them - with sources, of course. Snowspinner 06:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

• yawn* If this Uthar person would bother to dig through the archives of this talk page, we already had that debate. Several times, actually. Like the previous complaints, this one whines about the concept itself, not this article, and does not bother with any relevant arguments, either. So unless an argument (an actual argument, not an "I don't like this concept, therefore, any article that doesn't say it's BS is bad), and one that hasn't been debated to death, either, turns up, there is no reason whatever to put any sort of NPOV warning into the article. -- AlexR 07:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That said, I bet we'd get this less often if the article were better referenced. ;) Snowspinner 15:31, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yay! I'm glad someone else is pushing the referencing. -Seth Mahoney 00:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you already had the debate. See the guide sections o"Wikipedia is not a democracy" and is not governed by "majority rule". Just because the majority of the people working on this article are GLBT or are supporters of revisionist beliefs on gender theory does not mean the article should serve merely as a propaganda tool for these groups. I'm re-instating the NPOV warning, there IS indeed dispute over the topic's objectivity, and until things are sorted out you should not remove it. Removing the NPOV warning just because you happen to like the articles slant is a unprofessional and, quite frankly, an immature way of doing things. --Uthar Wynn 01 14:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You've been told what you need to do. Quit complaining and do it. Get out there, look up critiques of heteronormativity, and include them with references. -Seth Mahoney 14:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

True, the mere fact that we've had the debate before does not mean that the debate must be over. Again, if there are critiques of heteronormativity that you can cite that are not in the article, please add them. If there are not, though, the article is NPOV - all mainstream points of view for which references can be found are represented. The fact that you do not like the concept does not mean it's not NPOV, however - unless there are verifiable and notable objections, the article shouldn't cover them. Otherwise, they would be original research. Snowspinner 15:31, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Let's say that if a debate is re-opened again with the same arguments (or lack thereof), I'd say it is over - there is no need for endless repetitions of whiners who are not able to get together even one solid argument. Of course, if a solid argument (and new, or previously not throughly discussed) is made, the debate is open again, no question - only I don't see that this is the case here. -- AlexR 22:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You know what? I'm obviously totally outnumbered here and so to avoid a long, protracted edit war (which will be the result) involving me vs. the kind of people who wrote this article, I think I'll just end it now. Remove the NPOV warning if you like, but it still will be very POV, claiming the "naturalistic fallacy" is, indeed, a fallacy, claiming that gender and gender roles are merely oppresive concepts put forth by "the man" to "keep down the gays". The article is very POV, it fails to present any sort of counter-arguments, and it is merely a propaganda tool for GLBTI gender-theory revisionsists and for feminists.

You can keep your queer little article (pun intended) just the way you like it for all I care. I just hope you realize it violates the NPOV standards of Wikipedia. --Uthar Wynn 01 00:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, OK, I've removed the tag, but I still hope you'll add some referenced material in the way of counterarguments. Snowspinner 00:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Concept, noun, adjective, what?

In the first paragraph it should be clear what this article is about. It is unclear. I read the article and found it to be:

• a contested concept
• an adjective for (some or all? real or postulated?) societies, and
• a label for a debate - all mixed together.

The article lacks clarity. Quotes with references would help too; since anyone can edit here, how else can one judge? 4.250.132.22 12:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Uthar Wynn 01, You must think us complete idiots. You state that you will leave the heteronormativity article alone, and then ten short hours later a 'new' user shows up whose comments just happen to include some of the articles you've vandalized before (like this one and the article about meconium) as well as your own talk page.

What an amazing coincidence!

Just because you make comments while pretending you are another person doing so, it does not make your points more valid. The way to win this argument is not by masquerading as different people who agree with your unsupported belief, because even if a belief is popular that says nothing about its truthfulness. To win this argument simply do what others here have already said: quote reliable primary sources that support your opinion. NickGorton 15:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he's right here. The article does need more sources. And primary sources aren't what to go for - secondary and tertiary sources are much preferred, because they prevent original research better. Snowspinner 15:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

My comment was not about the sources statement, but rather the argumentum ad populum. If you are going to say something, say it. If I am the only person who holds an opinion, I do not impersonate others to give my beliefs the appearance of popularity or consensus. If I believe I am right I simply defend my arguments. To do otherwise is not only poor rhetorical technique, but quite simply dishonest.

Also while I agree that the sources comment may be a valid criticism, the rest of the points he made are nonsense. It is reasonably clearly written. It is not a reasonably contested subject (well at least not in academia... trailer parks in the rural south excepted.) Which of course makes the 'debate' point also a non-starter. NickGorton 20:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to get the proponent crap out of the article

I've edited this article to try to get rid of what some commenters have referred to as "new scholarship," and I rather think is some random academic trying to get their own bizarre theories included in an encyclopedia.

For this to be a real wikipedia article, it needs to stop advancing the theory, and only describe it.

I do not think your unsourced and wildly POV additions to the article add anything, and in fact I think you are largely guilty of what you're accusing the article of. I will be reverting you until you provide sources for some of your assertions, particularly, well, all of them. Snowspinner 18:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

First off, yes there are some statements in this article that could use some touching up. However, Snowspinner is corerect. The changes were largely POV and deleted far more context than they added. The ensuing revert war was regretable, but the lack of discussion of the many points which were injected leads me to classify these anon edits as bad-faith. -Harmil 19:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think if you scroll up, you'll see that there has been repeated discussions about the deficincies of this article - indeed, there was a cricicism section at one point that Snowspinner simply deleted.

You may note also that her first edit was to add use of the term "hemaphrodite" - which is correct - in preference to the term "intersexual" - which is a POV of heteronormativity proponents.

His/her claims of innocence are belied if you look at the comment and change record here.

No, I'm sorry. Your changes include deleting inter-language links, de-linking the see-also section and introducing a huge amount of highly charged POV content. Bring your points here, one by one for discussion, and I'm sure we can work them out, but the wholesale hack-and-slash of this article cannot be allowed to stand. -Harmil 19:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I certainly didn't delete the inter-language links or de-link the see-also section. I think your mistaking a last sloppily-done cut-and-paste attempt to revert the article for the actual edit, which was several Snowspinner reverts back.

The hack-and-slash, by the way, has exactly as much right to be here as the original, which had no sources, was poorly drafted, and defied ordinary conventions like the use of the English language.

1. If you're "attempts to revert" need to be "sloppily-done", then there's a real problem here. There is nothing at all urgent about Wikipedia.
2. No, poor edits have no "right to be here". If your edit does not improve the quality of the artice, regardless of how you feel about the original, then your edit does not belong.
3. If you're unhappy about the lack or sources or of particular terms as you've mentioned above, you might try making very specific, surgical edits, with edit descriptions that justify / source them.
4. Creating an account / signing your comments on talk pages / threading your comments appropriately will help your case and allow people to discuss things with you more easily.

-Harmil 19:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Harmil - for the third time, if you go back through the change list, you will see that that is EXACTLY what I had started doing, making surgical changes to particular sections for specific reasons. I stopped when I discovered that SnowSpinner was reverting the changes - even grammatical and dictionary fixes - WITHIN A MINUTE OF THEIR BEING POSTED. Before he/she could even have had a chance to read them.

Snowspinner - STOP IT

This appears to be an article whose only purpose is to advance the personal views of Snowspinner.

He/she has repeatedly taken out any criticism of her views, and is repeatedly reverting the page to reflect only her edits.

This article, as he/she wrote it, is outrageously POV, poorly drafted, almost entirely unsourced, and fails to satisfy even the most basic objectivity requirements for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Actually, I didn't write most of the article, and I've been complaining that it needs more sources for well over a year now. Your version is notable, in my mind, mostly for being even worse than the current one. Snowspinner 19:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

First off, yes there are some statements in this article that could use some touching up. However, Snowspinner is corerect. The changes you (anon) made were largely POV and deleted far more context than they added. The ensuing revert war was regretable, but the lack of discussion and quality of edits seems to indicate a lack of desire to actually "edit" and more of a desire to "enforce" a point of view. Anon, please review WP:NOT before making further changes. -Harmil 19:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think if you look through the change history and discussion here, you'll find quite the opposite. The bulk of my changes were straight dictionary corrections - what does the word "normal" mean, what is a "hemaphrodite" etc.

This article, as snowspinner put it, is almost entirely unsourced and entirely POV. Since he/she has removed the critcism sections and even basic dictionary corrections, the claims of innocence as false.

A solution is to delete the bulk of the article, leave in the opening and the sources, and just dump the rest.

The criticism section you're speaking of, if I remember it, was about a year ago, and was an unsourced piece of drek that was obviously original research. As I have said repeatedly, anybody who wishes to add sourced criticisms of the concept is welcome to. People who want to add their own disagreements with the concepts should go get them published in a notable journal first, and then come back. Snowspinner 19:33, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

That's an absurd response. The article now is entirely unsourced and drek. If you have a problem with unsourced drek - delete the dammed article. These responses of yours are attempts to deflect the obvious fact that the article reflects YOUR views and your are acting to protect them.

Please sign your talk page entries by adding -~~~~ at the end.

Have you looked at the article? It currently contains more sources than most other wikipedia articles. -Seth Mahoney 17:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)