Talk:Homonormativity

Untitled comments

It's been suggested that the "Homonormativity" page be merged with "heteronormativity" and "heterosexism." I don't see the virtues of this suggestion, as all three entries should be edited for clarification and to bring them into closer conformity to current usage.

I understand "heteronormativity" to refer to dominant social structures (institutions and beliefs) which reinforce and perpetuate the belief that heterosexuality is simultaneously common, natural, and superior to other forms of sexual and affectional expression. To say that heterosexuality is culturally normative is to say that most people are presumed to be heterosexual, and that heterosexuality is desirable and rewarded by their culture. Heteronormativity describes the system within which (some forms of) heterosexuality are thus promoted as ideals against which all other forms of intimacy are measured and found lacking.

Heteronormativity overlaps with heterosexism in its conviction that straight is better than gay, but the terms have different referents. "Heterosexism" is belief or behavior reflecting the presumption that straight is best. It can rest on religious faith, ethical convictions, or strategic concerns, none of which necessarily bolster their preference for heterosexuality by pointing to its frequency or to its normative status. For example, evangelical Christians may derive considerable spiritual energy to oppose civil rights legislation for GLBT people from their perception that their moral rejection of what they see as perversion is rare in contemporary American culture; for them, the widely documented fact that same-sex eroticism is common has nothing to do with the spiritual and social dangers it poses.

"Homonormativity" currently has several usages. Many current theorists follow Lisa Duggan, who uses the term to identify a shift in gay and lesbian movement politics away from opposition to dominant social structures, toward alignment with neoliberal state and capital agendas. In less academic contexts, "homonormative" is sometimes used as an adjective to describe straight-acting, straight-appearing gay people. Finally, Susan Stryker has pointed out that trans and genderqueer people use the word to critique some gay and lesbian people's identity investments in stable, unambiguous, naturalized gender differences that anchor their sense of the impossibility of loving or wanting a member of the "opposite" sex. Darkemmasca (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the two concepts differ significantly and thatmerging is not desirable, but this article is a mess - essay-like and full of sweeping assertions and poorly supported.I've corrected the footnote formatting, but blogsa should not be footnoted except in exceptional circumstances and Wikipedia articles should never be. They can be linked to. I've prvosionally left the blogs pending clarification. Paul B (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Does this page have ANY reliable sources though? How do you know the concepts differ, i find no authoratative definition for this. The lead is disingenuously cited to a dictionary, but not to the definition of homonormativity. Along with the blogs and google search "cites", this seem to be a non-notable neologism and OR.

I think that until sources are found, this would be better as a small section in heteronormativitiy, as it seems to have no non-OR meaning beyond contrasting with the more well known term. Or deletion is an option: I don't think this is a real word at all.Yobmod (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, I think there is clear evidence here that this is a term used in academia, at least within gay/queer studies. There is the discussion noted to the journal Humanities and Social Sciences: "Queer Futures: the Homonormativity Issue." (17 Mar. 2006. 4 May 200) which clearly indicates that the term has academic currency within the field. Yes, it's a neologism, but it's a neologism that seems to have real meaning within a sub-field of academia. It's obviously linked to the debates about the "homosexual agenda". Paul B (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone taken a look at Lisa Duggan's Twilight of Equality?209.98.144.82 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Aslyone

Merge redux

I had redirected this page because the article still has few to no good sources - a blog, a google search, and two dictionary definitions do *not* constitute reliably sourced information. Even the major proponent for keeping the article recognizes that it's a neologism. Unless there are compelling arguments to keep, I'm going to put the article up for AfD and see what consensus thinks. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You still should no be claiming to merge articles when you are doing no such thing. The fact that it is a neologism is not ultimately important. We have articles on many neologisms - e.g. truthiness (2005 vintage), Bushism (c2000?), Credit crunch (1990something) etc. There are actually quite a few academic references out there. This, of course, is a call for papers for an issue of the journal [1]. It may be as yet unpblished, but is certaibly due very soon since it is advertised as Winter 2008 [2](Volume 2008, Number 100, Winter 2008). Here are other academic references which suggests that the term is well known [3]; [4]. Paul B (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right - we do have neologisms. But unlike your examples, there are no reliable sources in this article. If you can come up with research and sources that show that "homonormativity" is somehow as well documented as metrosexual, than this article doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why it has to be as well documented as "metrosexual", since that is essentially a popular/colloquial term, and this is a more esoteric academic one. Metrosexual is a term used in the popular media, whereas this is a term used in academic journals. It will not be scattered over style magazines. However, no-one is stopping you from filing an AfD request, just from taking what should be a community decision youself. Paul B (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What happens to this article if there are some verifiable sources added and some of the other issues are addressed? It has been a year since this decision was made and this term is used within the academic community. I am new to Wikipedia and I do not wish to step on anybody's toes however there does not seem to be a great definition for either heteronormativity or homonormativity. If any of you would like to give me some specifics I will do my best to find verifiable research. Then there can be a discussion about adding it to heteronormativity or keeping as a separate article? 209.98.144.82 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)aslyone

If information cited to reliable sources is added, the article could stop being a redirect. Mintrick (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me that homonormativity would be merged into heteronormativity. They are 2 separate things. E.g. homosexuality is separate from heterosexuality. They both would be within the umbrella of sexual orientation... Eric Stoller (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

About the history of this article

Summary -

1. Annieb6608 created this article in 2008 as special:permalink/212263213
2. In 2009 the article got redirected into heteronormivity following Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_7#Homonormativity
3. In 2019 new user Ocularchivist rewrote the article but somehow misplaced it into "Wikipedia" space instead of "draft" space
4. I cut/pasted Oculararchivist's version here over special:permalink/254380058 <-- mine this version for old content to put into this article
5. I requested a history merge of the article here; a bit out of order but it should work without conflicting edits

Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the current article, I'm seeing problems, including WP:Synthesis. I would not have published the article, as you did here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

As also made clear by this source from Sage Publications, "Scholars and activists use the term homonormativity in many ways." So the article will need to do a decent job at covering that in the lead and lower in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I added some in-text attribution, but didn't look hard for synthesis. If anyone pinpoints it, please chop it out. This appears to have been a student-editing assignment. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Political Bias

This article is not a neutral discussion of the concept of homonormativity. Instead, it is a one-sided political polemic and argument which simply states as fact the Queer and Marxist (the professed ideology of theorist Lisa Duggan and others cited herein) take on this topic. This article entirely excludes the neoliberal side of this debate within the LGBT community, which - based on US census and survey data over the years as to how LGBT choose their live their lives - encompasses the overwhelming majority of the LGBT community in the United States. It should more be labeled a collection of opinions than established fact. Politics1 (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

straight passing ?

femme + femme real homo , not a political lesbians and radfem separatist look 217.66.154.23 (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)