Jump to content

Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

editorial standards

I'm glad to hear you have such high standards, shall we all compare our references and in some way document our respective expertise? I fail to see the value in a good portion of soft (read pseudo) science in general. If you feel I am unqualified to say anything on this subject, I would point out to you that soft scientists have no place claiming much of anything, ever, due to the complete lack of Falsifiability in the majority of what they claim. Lets not be bossy and sassy, and rather do the work that needs done to make this articles useful to both the expert, and the common reader. Sam Spade 04:50, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on the falsifiability aspect. As well as the pseduoscientific aspect. As well, actually, as the claim that there's any scientific component to the humanities. (Queer Theory and Gender studies typically being classified there, and not with the social sciences.) Put broadly, the humanities and theory focus on claims about identity, both in the personal sense, and in the sense of how one identifies in relation to other members of a society. I think the prose of the article could stand to be cleaned up, yes, but I don't think that objections to the basic nature of critical theory belong here - there are plenty of other places where they do belong. Check out the Sokal Affair or Fashionable Nonsense, or even the basic entry on critical theory. Those would be good places to discuss this. But Heteronormativity is a technical term within critical theory, and ought be simply explained within the context of its field. It could be explained better - but it need not be explained in a context it's not meant to stand up in.

I agree with most of that. But there does need to be a section devoted to criticism, as w any confrontational/controvercial/etc... subject. Anyways, I have been saying I am pretty much done w this article, which is largely due to my lack of both interest and expertise. The important thing to me is that things stay NPOV and factual accurate, which includes among other things retaining/expanding information about objections to the concept, and not trying to say that anyone "defends heteronormativity". I agree w you about prose being improved, and while I am not of course looking to do that, I must express a concern that things remain fair and reasonable in regards to areas capable of rationale debate. Cheers, Sam Spade 05:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I confess, I'm unaware of any serious attacks on heteronormativity within the field of study. You have to understand, the entire critical theory field of study more or less starts from the position that the entire idea of normality is socially determined. Which is not to say that it's some nebulous unknowable thing - just that it's ultimately the product of society. Given that domain of discourse, frankly, it's very difficult to claim that heteronormative standards are not dominant in culture.

In light of that, I've done some cleaining to the article - both removing arguments that fall outside the domain of discourse for the concept, and tidying the prose a bit to ensure NPOV without giving undue attention to irrelevent views, and also without getting off track into discussing historical concepts instead of theoretical ones.Snowspinner 05:49, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

After drawing back from the discussion I can only say that this article is now just a bunch of rubbish. Quote: It is descriptive of a dichotomous system of categorization that directly links social behavior and self identity with one's genitalia. I don't know anyone who has such an opinion. Of course there are some gender crusaders who thinks there are persons who have such an opinion. But there are blockheads everywhere. My congratulations to your "work". --Benedikt 15:56, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's not the point -- the article describes in neutral word a specific and actually used theory/concept in gender studies academics and gender politics. This is what wikipedia should be -- if you like that theory, or if you think it is rubbish, doesn't matter. -- till we *) 17:05, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well phrased. Heteronormativity is a technical term that is used frequently in some academic circles and in respected scholarly publications. The entry needs to explain the term - nothing more. Snowspinner 17:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Respected? BS. Respected by whom? .... Sam Spade 19:51, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Respected by the academic fields the journals circulate in. Your objection is not to heteronormativity - its to gender studies and queer theory at large, and you should put your objections in those articles. Snowspinner 20:02, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
We all know that you're fully aware that just because something isn't respected by you specifically that doesn't mean that it isn't a well respected idea or publication within a field. -Seth Mahoney 19:54, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thats an irrellevent sidestep of my question. Who respects this junk science? Sam Spade 20:06, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Most anyone currently employed as a professor in departments of English, Gender Studies, Philosophy, Women's Studies, Cultural Studies, Cinema and Media Studies, or Art History at a major research institituion accepts the term as an important critical term. Snowspinner 20:29, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Have any documentation of that? Sam Spade 23:41, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, let's see. I am currently enrolled at the University of Chicago. The University of Chicago publishes Critical Inquiry, which is one of the top journals in the field of critical theory. While at the University of Chicago, taking classes in the humanities, the term has been used uncontroversially in well over half of them.
Give me a break, Sam. If you have no knowledge of critical theory or of current scholarship in the humanities, that's fine, but don't try to edit articles about it. Snowspinner 23:45, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think the page is excellent as it currently stands--the removal of the "objections" section is sufficiently justified, I think, by the fact that the article as written now does a good job of placing the term within its own perspective, that of coming from an academic background and serving a somewhat specific discursive purpose. Much more NPOV than what I tried to write. Well done. Justin Johnson 02:03 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm flattered. /blush Snowspinner 01:17, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Information request: Does anyone know of any facual basis behind the claims of the following quote from this article: "This has in some cases gone so far that homosexuals were encouraged (in Europe and North America in the 1960s and 1970s) or even forced (in South Africa in the 1980s and 1990s) to undergo sexual reassignment procedures." I have no interest in the ongoing debate, I'm just looking for the source of these claims for another topic. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Paige 05:24, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't name sources, the first is something every doctor involved into the subject will tell you, it is the one reason given why patients are usually not told they are transgender or transsexual, but have to mention it themselves. (Because, in those cases it was of course a complete catastrophy.) And I read a long article about the South Africa story, but lost that like many in a hard disk crash. -- AlexR 21:04, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

neutrality poll

Is the neutrality issue sufficiently settled to remove the pov tag? Snowspinner 15:38, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  1. One vote for removing the neutrality tag. Justin Johnson 19:38 20 Apr 2004 UTC
  1. Remove. till we *) 08:37, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Intersexuals/Transgenders/GLB

I still think these sections should go. Not that they're badly written, but they belong in the articles on the individual topics - not in a discussion of heteronormativity. Snowspinner 14:51, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, though I think the Alternative Genders and the transgendered sections could be combined, shortened, and linked to the appropriate articles. -Seth Mahoney 19:45, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I left in "Alternative Genders" when I put LGBTI back in; I'd say the first two sentences can definitely go, and the title should be different; what the rest says, though, applies at least to transgender and intersexual, probably to some GLB-people, too. -- AlexR 21:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My issue is threefold. First, I think the sections are POV, and I'm not sure how to edit them to fix that. Second, I think the sections focus more on historical aspects of the various groups than on the concept of heteronormativity. Third, I think that they get too specific - when dealing with a broad concept like Heteronormativity, specific analyses of specific things should probably be done in the context of major works on heteronormativity - not in the generalized entry. Snowspinner 01:10, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

New topics usualy belong at the end of a text, not above.

However, these sections. Why would you want to remove them? They do belong into the article, because the describe the problems these groups have specifically with heteronormativity, and the questions for heteronormativity that they pose. The do not focus on some obscure "historical aspects" but on very current problems.

And it is OK if you focus on the theoretical aspecs of the article - but I don't really see why the more practical aspects should be removed. After all, these are the groups which struggle most with heteronormativity. In fact you could argue that they are the only people who are a problem to the concept of heteronormativity, because all other people fulfill the basic assumption of the idea. The moment they don't, they are part of at least one of these groups.

Besides, this is the Wikipedia, we have room enough. It would be really nice if not so many academic people would ignore practical matters quite so much - they happen to matter some people, you know. And unless you come up with much better arguments, those sections will remain in the article.

And if you think they are POV, explain why, you are not the only one, you know, who can edit the text. However, you are the first to say so. Nevertheless, no problem to correct them. Just throwing them out is a problem, though. -- AlexR 21:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


My interest was in compromise with those who argued that the article assumed heteronormativity to exist. Certainly I think all three of the sections are spot-on, but it appears to be the case that people dispute the existence of heteronormativity. I can vaguely understand this point, and, in light of it, felt that specific analyses of heteronormativity may be too much. I mean, as I said, I'm very much sympathetic to the analyses in principle. Can we compromise on recasting them to phrase them as common applications of the concept of heteronormativity? Snowspinner 22:43, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for putting the discussion down on the page - the debates about this article are complicated enough to read already.
If you vaguely understand their point, you got a lot further than I did; I asked them several times to clarify, but none of them ever did; both Mr. Spade and Benedict just became insulting. I understand why some people would rather not have it spelled out (check /Archive_3#Defenders_of_a_heteronormative_society), but I know far too many people (including myself, but in that regard, I am a lighter case) who have run into the effects of heteronormativity to doubt its existence. I also simply maintain the position what as long as the word exisits and is used (wherever that is the case) there is no point in claiming it somehow does not exist.
I don't think that there is any problem in putting a sentence above these sections saying: "The most common applications of the concept of heteronormativity are" or something like that. Although - 'most common' indicates there are others, so maybe a better wording may have to be found. -- AlexR 00:38, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think there are others. Are you familiar with Lauren Berlant's work in The Queen of America Goes to Washington City? It's a brilliant book if you haven't read it. =) In any case, I'll make the changes to the article tonight. Snowspinner 00:40, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's not that I doubt the existence of heteronormativity; nor do I think Sam and Benedict dispute it either. It's that the concept and the article have a strong critical/deconstructive component. My original problem with the article was my feeling that the article didn't acknowledge its academic origins and its critical bent; instead, it acted as a matter-of-fact presentation of the circumstances. I didn't dispute the facts, but as it stood, it was very judgemental. Sam responded much more strongly to that, treating it as an attack on something that many people really feel is the normal way of things; thus, his support of the defenders section (if I've misrepresented you, Sam, please correct me).
At the beginning, I felt that too much attention was given to the analyzed consequences of heteronormativity, because the exegesis of it was lacking (something that's been corrected now). Now that the article has a much less judgemental feel, I've changed my mind: I think a lot of the content of the concept lies in its consequences. I'd put that analysis back in. Justin Johnson 02:03, 21 Apr 2004 UTC

---

I took a pass at editing these sections to both be more NPOV and to be more directly related to the concept of heteronormativity. Thoughts? Snowspinner 03:23, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, several.
First, the heading "Alternative Genders" You did that before, and it is still wrong.
Second, most LGB people feel they are not "alternative gender". Neither feel all intersexual people they are; btw, your definition of intersexual is wrong as well. And by no means all transgendered people feel as an "alternative gender" either. So sorry, but no.
And it not "the intersexual" or "intersexuals" either. It is "intersexual people" if you please.
LGB people are not disapproved in American culture only, and the English Wikipedia is not an American Encyclopedia.
And transgender are not just "read by many gender theorists" as another challenge, but by most people who assume heteronormative rules to be correct. Also, many transgender people have an unambiguous male or female identity. And an "anatomical gender" is a contradiction, if its anatomical, its sex, not gender. And their psychological identifications do not necessarily challenge gender roles, either, they challenge the equation of sex=gender identity= gender role.
You may have read many books, but I seriously doubt your understanding of these matters. No offense indended, but what you wrote can't remain that way. -- AlexR 05:11, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The term is used almost entirely in academic circles, and the article does need to reflect that. Frankly, "most people" who have any assumptions about heteronormativity are academics.
I've taken another pass at it. However, the transgender section was a mess - a lot of incomplete sentences and generalizations that are just too sweeping. I suspect it will require another round or two of compromise.Snowspinner 05:20, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Because of the lenght of the text, I am shifting to the left.

First: Your assumption that: "The term is used almost entirely in academic circles, and the article does need to reflect that. Frankly, "most people" who have any assumptions about heteronormativity are academics." is, as I have already mentioned, wrong. The term is not just used in academic debatesm it is also used a lot in debates with and about trasngender and intersexual people, for example, to tell one particular person that there is a pattern behind some of the problems s/he is facing; or when it comes to fighting for political changers. And these are not the only examples either. Maybe you never encountered the word outside of avademic debates, but that hardly gives you the right to claim it is only used there. It is not.

And your changes still not OK. Why did you for example take out: " If this is detected intersexual people are almost always assigned a gender at birth; if deemed necessary for producing an unambigous body, medical procedures, often drastic ones" Mayor surgery or invention does not take place in all children that are born intersexual and discovered right away. In many yes, but not in all.

And that change in GLB again: It is not only in "most Western" but in most heterormative" societies. Check with Amnesty International if you don't beliefe me.

And your changes to Transgender are unacceptable. I know current theorie thinks its hip to think of all transgender people as the next revolutionists, but you know what? Most are not interested. They do not necessarily challenge the assumption of an unambiguous male or female identity, because quite a few have an unambiduous male or femal identity. Why you keep editing out my first sentence in favour of factually wrong sentenses is a mystery to me. And removing the Transsexual section, or rewriting it the way you did, completely turns around what I said:I said that "Transsexualism" is a method choosen by others to keep people at least partially in the heternormative fault. You make that appear as if the choice was ours, and it was a free choice. Both is wrong. So, sorry, but yould you stop editing these sections until you have gotten yourself a clue? Because what you are doing here is taking peoples lifes, experiences and identities away from them and shoving them into your academic drawer. You are taking away people's right to define themselfes, only to support your own academic agenda. That is hardly fair, is it?

If you have any special crititcism about this section, it would be far better if you would point then out there in the discussion page. Editing and restoring is frustrating for both of us, and will most likely not produce the best possible result.

Therefore, let me once again propose that you write something about current academic debates, history ot the term or whatever you feel confident about. And stop editing those bits of the text which you obviously do not understand. It would certainly improve the article. -- AlexR 09:55, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One of the problems this article has been having was its assumption of the existence of heteronormativity. I think it exists. You think it exists. However, it is obvious from past controversy on this page that it is not universally believed that it exists. Therefore, phrases like "in heteronormative societies" just won't work. You need to phrase around them.
[AR] Wrong. We can write the article of course as if it existed, for NPOV it is perfectly enough to state that some people do not beliefe it exisits. In an article about Earth we would not be compelled to write "If the Earth were round" everytime, either, just because some people believe so.
If it were seriously questioned whether or not the Earth is round, however, it would not be NPOV to repeatedly refer to its circumphrance and size as fact. Snowspinner 16:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your use of the word transsexual in the paragraph in question flatly contradicts the wikipedia usage of the word, to say nothing of the OED's use of the term to mean a desire to change sexes. While it may well be the case that most transsexuals would prefer a more ambiguous sexual identity, the word is simply not generally used like that.

[AR] My use of the word cannot contradict the other WP articles, because I wrote most of them. More likely you did not unterstand the paragraph, and you are editing the article by the rule "don't know about that, can to" anyway. But that's not how it works or should work. Either point out any particular problems, or leave it alone. Besides, I don't see, where the bit about "Transsexualism" is contradicting the OED? It means to completely change bot sex and gender, or rather, sex, since the equation sex=gender is assumed to be correct. Therefore, those wishing to "change sex" can only do so if it can be safely assumed that s/he will conform to the new gender role as perfectly as possible. Otherwise -> no medical treatment, no change of name etcpp. That is a fact, and one still very much alive
Your point about transsexualism, as it is currently written, is that it is forced upon transgender people. That flatly contradicts the other articles. If this is not your point, then you need to write your point coherently, because I have no clue what it is. Snowspinner 16:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Considering that basic conflict, the issues you're describing need to be taken up in transsexualism and not here.
[AR] It does not contradict the other articles, because it is not something about transsexualism as it exisits in people (that is what transsexualism and transgender are about, but about the treatment of transsexual and transgendered people by a heteronormative system. Consequently, it belongs here.
[AR] No, it does not, because it is the prime example of how western societies deal with transgender people, if they try to "help" those people instead of removing them.

I deleted the paragraph again, because I think the distinction is artfully and substantively made in the first paragraph now - I really like that sentence.

[AR] Many of your changes are again highly questionable. "Transgender people offer another challenge to the assumption of an unambiguous male or female identity;" is flatout pointless - as I already said, it is not the only assumption of unambigous identity, but thw whole of the sex=gender equation they violate. Why do you keep invalidating people lifes and experiences by reducing them to your extremely limited unterstaning? Then there is the odd assumption that "Others, however, actively reject the idea of having their gender "fixed" through the process of sexual reassignment, saying that they are not simply male and female.". I am not sure what you mean - those people looking for physical modifications don't try to fix their "gender" but their "sex" to conform to their gender. Maybe you mean that not all transgender people opt for all medical options, but they do so for a variety of reasons, which to list here would indeed be too long.
Because your phrasing as it stood previously was awkward and wordy. I'm using identity to encompass both ends of the equation, as male describes both a gender and a sex. I concede that the statement should have read "having their sex 'fixed'" and not gender.Snowspinner 16:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(This is why I prefer to continue editing. We both seem to be successfully using each other's phrasing as a jumping off point to better clarify what we want to say.)

[AR] Well, that did not work this time. I am flatout tired to have people lifes and experiences and identities errased by somebody who dropped by out of his ivory tower and feels he needs to explain people who they are. Thank you very much, but we have had enough of those. Unless you start assuming that maybe the people you are writing about know something about their own life, and stop being so condescending, I really see no further point in this debate.
I'm sorry, but honestly, I don't trust your empirical experience. Words have meanings. Concepts have general usage. You need to work within those concepts. If you do not, your articles will be edited.
[AR] Well, and I don't trust your books (or at least not your understanding of them) - now what? Can't you simply accept that there is a life outside of your ivory tower? Because there is, you know. And the article was working with those concepts; if the result is not exactly what is written in your books, that does not mean it is not a valid experience or a valid point or a valid article.

As for the academicness of the term, the only non-academic usages fond by Google within the first five pages are wikipedia definitions or derivations thereof. So I'm at a loss for where these non-academic debates of the term are taking place.

[AR] So if you can't find it in Google, it does not exist? Strange assumprion, and less than scientific, too. much of that debate still takes place in Real Life, a lot also on mailing lists, forums and similar forms of communication. You ought to be familiar with the phenomenon that new things are not always communicated to the outside, but first debated on the inside; especially if that takes place within a group that has learned to be rather carefull with communicating with the outside.
If I can't find a single website that's using the term non-academically, and I can find dozens that use it academically, yes, I think it's a fair assumption that the term is an academic one. Especially since academic journals and the like aren't even going to be included in a Google search, whereas many places where casual conversation occurs - forums, mailing list archives, etc - will be searched. And if a term is only used within a closed group, then Wikipedia is not the place to break it out. If there is a strong move to use the term differently from its academic context, that is one thing. If it is something that happens on private mailing lists, however, then using it that way on Wikipedia amounts to original research. Snowspinner 16:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[AR] Once again - much of the debate which does take place is not archived on Google, because by no means every mailing list and every forum is archived on Google. Also, conferences, meetings and many paper publications are not archived on Google, either. That does not mean they don't exist. It also does not mean that it is only a closed group, it is a far less closed group than those sitting in the ivory tower invalidating other people's lifes. Also, as I already said, much of what is going out of these groups - and there is a lot of it - is also not necessarily archived on Google. So the fact that you don't finde anything on Google does exactly prove nothing in this case. It proves even less (if that were possible) because it took me about 5 minutes to find the following links:
  • And how about the following books:
    The Transgender Reader ISBN: 041594709X
    (K)ein Geschlecht oder viele? ISBN: 3896560840 Admittedly, the last one is in German - but guess who is one of the autors?

The article already states that the term is used mostly in academic circles. I think that it's misleading and erroneous to step outside of those academic circles within the article - unless you can point to some other usages in the article. And show some evidence here in talk of those usages.

[AR]I don't have to show you any evidence, you will have to simply accept my word for it. Because, you know, not all meetings and conferences keep protocols, and I will certainly not post any mails from other people here, just because you haven't found any yet, and neither do I intend to scan any books. Sorry.

I'm sorry, but I'm not accepting an edit made on your word. If you want to claim a common non-academic usage, you need to provide evidence that it exists. It's just bad scholarship to do otherwise. Snowspinner 16:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think I just did.

Finally, I would be substantially more sympathetic to your edits were they not accompanied by posts to talk that insult me and my qualifications.

[AR]I do not insult you academical qualification. I do protest, though, that you seem to think that everything you have not yet heard about can't be important enough to remain in the article. It would also substantilly improve our qualification if we could agree on changes before you make them - and that goes particularly, but not exclusively, for the transgender section.
No, that's not what I think. I think things that leave NO SHARABLE EVIDENCE OF BEING TRUE cannot be included in this or any other article. The only evidence that I have of your claims about this is your sayso. That is not enough to justify putting it in. Not when Google offers a wealth of evidence of academic usages and none of the usages you're claiming. Snowspinner 16:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[AR] Isnt't it funny how I found half a dozen references in less than five minutes when you clain to have found none? What justifies that sort of looking for evidence?

I recognize that your gender identity is a challenge to heteronormativity. I recognize that it is, in many ways, a challenge to the very word "gender." I am sorry that the current discourse of Western culture does not allow you to meaningfully hold your identity. Snowspinner 16:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[AR] Stop being so condescending. I am having a quite meaningfull hold on my identity, thank you very much.
You clearly don't in the public sphere, as I'm going to go ahead and guess that 99% of the population does not understand the term "polymorph perverted trannfag" to mean anything at all. While you may have a firm grasp on your identity, it is clear that society at large does not. Likewise, while you may have a firm grasp on many of these concepts, the average reader does not. It needs to be phrased using words in conventional senses. I am trying to make those edits. However, it is rather difficult, and it would be eased greatly if you were to try to work within common and accepted usages. At this point, I am only trying to clarify what you are writing, and to insert a smattering of qualifiers to prevent broad generalizations. Snowspinner 16:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

However, this is an encyclopedia. The tone we are obliged to take is detached from political engagement, and NPOV, no matter how obviously right we believe our POV to be.

[AR] As I already offered several times, let us talk about changes before they are made in the article. That does not seem to be an option to you. Also, don't you think it is somewhat arrogant to assume that just because something has some bearing in my own life (and not even all that much) I become unable to say anything about it that is NPOV? In that case, this article could only be written by a Martian, but since all Martians on earth seem to be rather busy, we will have to do.
No. I think that you can write NPOV text, as you have in most of this article. However, on this topic, you are not writing NPOV text. Snowspinner 16:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[AR]And by deleting and changing things until they are flatout wrong, what are you showing? Why don't you simply ask if something is not clear enough for you to understand? But you go ahead and change it for the words. That is not exactly NPOV, either.

Post your views on these things to message boards, march on your capitol, I will praise you. Were your capitol not continents away, I might march with you. But I can't support you on Wikipedia. Words need to be used here in the context and sense that they are generally understood. Otherwise, you start well past a point where an average reader looking for information can get a foothold.
Please. Change the sensibilities and understandings of the average reader. I'd love for it to be the case that the article as you want to write it can fly. I'd love even more for an article about heteronormativity as a historical artifact to fly. But we're not there yet. Snowspinner 16:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[AR]Sorry, but do you habe any idea how arrogant you sound? What you say is essentially: "Keep out of the Wikipeda, because you have real issues, instead of having come across the term in an academic paper. Only people who do analyse things from the holy ivory tower should write here, because all others are "not academic enough" anyway." Sorry, but you definitely need a change in attitude.
I'm not going to respond to this, in the hopes that you will think better of it and retract it. Snowspinner 16:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[AR] I clarified minor bits, but I see no reason to redtract anything.


Edits from 21 Apr 2004 14:32 (UTC)

I've made another pass. I think that editing back and forth has already produced language we both find acceptable on a number of sections, and I'm hopeful that these last few will smooth out as well. It may take a few tries, but I really do think we can get this. Snowspinner 14:32, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[AR] I did a complete revert. Your edits are once more factually highly questionable, the reasons for that I gave before; since it is not as if you'd ever try to understand what I write you obviously feel free to ignore it. Also, let me propose something else again: Do expand the article on academic use and so on, that is obviously something you know something about. And keep your fingers out of those section you obviously neither have a clue about, not with to get one. -- AlexR 15:43, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I try to understand what you write. Unfortunately, it is not written clearly enough for that to be an easy task. I'm taking another pass at it to try to clarify what you are saying and to use terms in their generally accepted usages. Hopefully this time you'll work with me instead of reverting. Snowspinner 16:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I already told you several times, let us try to find a compromise here, and not in the articel itself. Are you expecting me to let your false claims and edits stand in the article, because you keep refusing to do anything that looks like cooperating? Keep displaying that academic arrogance and you leave me no choice to revert. Ususaly I try to include whatever usefull you have written; which was, in the three paragraphs in question, not much, but I will not let your flatout wrong ideas, especially but not exclusively in the transgender section, remain in the article. -- AlexR 23:16, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Please see section below for an explanation of every single edit I just made. Snowspinner 23:23, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Remaining changes

Here are the changes I am making, and the justifications for them. I would like to know exactly what your problems are, instead of simply having edits reverted with no explanation or evidence of claims.

"for producing an unambigous body" to "for producing a body with an unambiguous sexual assignment"

  • Unambiguous body is unclear phrasing. It suggests that the surgery is to make it unambiguously true that the person has a body. It needs to be revised such that it is clear that we are talking about making an unambiguous sexual assignment.
    • "Producing a body with an unambigous sexual assigment" is far more unclear, it does not make sense, because an unambigous assigment could be given even with an ambigous body, in fact, that sometimes happens. And since you don't bother talking about changes here first, I'll make the corrections in the article as well. Seems your idea of cooperating is significantly different from mine. It's "for producing a seemingly unambigous body" The assignment is already there. [AR]

"disapproved of in many heteronormative societies" to "disapproved of in many societies"

  • "heteronormative" is an unnecessary word, and use of it assumes that heteronormative societies exist. Statement remains true of word is dropped, and no meaning is lost.
    • OK [AR]

"Transgender" to "Transgender"

  • Article exists in Wikipedia - should be linked to on first usage.
    • Correct. Used to be linked above, but most have gotten lost during one of the 100+ edits.

"the assumption of an unambiguous maleness or femaleness. Transgender people always violate the assumption of an unambiguous male or female identity" to "the assumption of an unambiguous male or female identity"

  • Current phrasing is redundant - maleness and femaleness are awkward words that should be avoided if possible. Making broad claims about groups of people always doing something is potentially offensive to members of that group who do not conform to broad generalization.
    • You just don't get it, do you? Transgender people - is that the third or fourth time I tell you that - are not just violating the assumption about identity, but about the whole concept of sex=gender identity=gender role, in other words, maleness and femaleness. Agreed, those are not particular beautiful words, but I have rather a few ugly words instead of even uglier untruths. It's now "the assumption of unambiguously male or female human beings. Transgender people always violate the assumption of an unambiguous male or female identity"


"Many seek to" to "Many seek"

  • Grammar fix.

"and also many violate assumptions of gender roles and sexuality" to "and also of traditional gender roles and sexuality"

  • Too much usage of 'violate assumptions of' in a row - no meaning is lost, and it smooths language.

"A special case of incorporating transgendered people into a heteronormative system is transsexualism." to "Many transgender people are erroneously lumped into the category of transsexual."

  • Transsexualism is more than a case of incorporating transgendered people into a heteronormative system - there exist people who are in fact transsexuals. The broad category "transsexualism" is inaccurately used in current form.
    • Well, I clarified that to "the medical diagnosis and treatment", it might remove some of your problems. [AR]

"If transgender behaviour in a person cannot be suppressed, it is allowed on the condition that the person becomes entirely a member of the other sex, so that s/he thereby confirms the binary gender system." to "When this happens, their transgender nature being allowed on the condition that the person becomes entirely a member of the other sex, so that s/he thereby conforms to the binary gender system."

  • Current phrasing suggests that all transgender people are forced into transsexualism. New phrasing flows better from previous sentence. Also, transsexuals do not confirm the binary gender system - they are not a proof of it. They conform to it - that is, they do not disprove it.
    • At least for a long time it was tried to force all people looking for medical treatment into the TS/TV-system, and that has been changing only very recently. I'll think of adding something to that effect to the article. And your idea that transsexualism (not necessary transsexuals!) do not conform the binary gender system, sorry, but that is flatout wrong. On the other hand, some transsexuals do disprove of a binary gender system, even if they feel completely male or female themselves. Rare but true. [AR]

"That" to "This"

  • This was a simple grammar fix.

"including things like choice of jobs and hobbies and so on, and a heterosexual sexual orientation" removed

  • "proper gender roles" already describes what occurs. Furthermore, phrasing is inaccurate. Is not the case that transsexuals are mandated to be heterosexual. Furthermore, gender lines on jobs and hobbies are increasingly fading, though I will admit that they are still there.
    • I am sorry, but you are wrong again. Transsexuals are still sometimes refused treatment because they have the wrong sexual preferences, and some are forced to get "proper" male or female jobs and hobbies. I know this sounds crazy, and it is, but it still happens. Check any support group (off-campus), and they will tell you the very same thing. [AR]

"(Please note: This is a description of the heteronormative treatment of transgendered people, not a description of a course freely chosen by transsexual or transgendered people.)" removed

  • Change to beginning of paragraph covers this. As it stands, this is in contradiction to the claim that transsexualism as a whole is something forced upon transgender people. Furthermore, parenthetical clarifications ought be avoided - better to simply not make the language unclear in the first place, which is what previous edits have done.
    • I'll think about rephrasing that. If I can't find a better place for it, it goes back in again. -- AlexR 23:52, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

{{msg:CriticalTheory}} tag added

  • Heteronormativity is a term in critical theory - it is reasonable to put it in as a part of WikiProject: Critical Theory.
    • Fine, I'll add the List of transgender-related topics then. It's after all a widely used term in transgender debates, too. (Which is why I originally wrote the article; something I definitely and fervently wish I had never done).
    • I've reconsidered after actually seeing that big box. I made a link out of that this box, because you know, it feels a bit too much like hijacking the subject. This article was written and intended to be part of the transgender pages. Fine if it would be expanded with some critical theory (which it was not), but you can't claim that it belongs there exclusively, which is what that box implied. You and your academic debates don't own this word. Try showing some respect for other people and groups. -- AlexR 00:24, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

==Accepted Changes

Here's what's now been sorted out.

"disapproved of in many heteronormative societies" to "disapproved of in many societies"

  • "heteronormative" is an unnecessary word, and use of it assumes that heteronormative societies exist. Statement remains true of word is dropped, and no meaning is lost.
    • OK [AR]

"Transgender" to "Transgender"

  • Article exists in Wikipedia - should be linked to on first usage.
    • Correct. Used to be linked above, but most have gotten lost during one of the 100+ edits.

"Many seek to" to "Many seek"

  • Grammar fix.

"and also many violate assumptions of gender roles and sexuality" to "and also of traditional gender roles and sexuality"

  • Too much usage of 'violate assumptions of' in a row - no meaning is lost, and it smooths language.

"That" to "This"

  • This was a simple grammar fix.

"A special case of incorporating transgendered people into a heteronormative system is transsexualism." to "Many transgender people are erroneously lumped into the category of transsexual."

  • Transsexualism is more than a case of incorporating transgendered people into a heteronormative system - there exist people who are in fact transsexuals. The broad category "transsexualism" is inaccurately used in current form.
    • Well, I clarified that to "the medical diagnosis and treatment", it might remove some of your problems. [AR]

"(Please note: This is a description of the heteronormative treatment of transgendered people, not a description of a course freely chosen by transsexual or transgendered people.)" removed

  • Change to beginning of paragraph covers this. As it stands, this is in contradiction to the claim that transsexualism as a whole is something forced upon transgender people. Furthermore, parenthetical clarifications ought be avoided - better to simply not make the language unclear in the first place, which is what previous edits have done.
    • I'll think about rephrasing that. If I can't find a better place for it, it goes back in again. -- AlexR 23:52, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • I like what you've done with this. Snowspinner 01:58, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Remaining changes

Here are the changes I am making, and the justifications for them. I would like to know exactly what your problems are, instead of simply having edits reverted with no explanation or evidence of claims.

"for producing an unambigous body" to "for producing a body with an unambiguous sexual assignment"

  • Unambiguous body is unclear phrasing. It suggests that the surgery is to make it unambiguously true that the person has a body. It needs to be revised such that it is clear that we are talking about making an unambiguous sexual assignment.
    • "Producing a body with an unambigous sexual assigment" is far more unclear, it does not make sense, because an unambigous assigment could be given even with an ambigous body, in fact, that sometimes happens. And since you don't bother talking about changes here first, I'll make the corrections in the article as well. Seems your idea of cooperating is significantly different from mine. It's "for producing a seemingly unambigous body" The assignment is already there. [AR]
      • My idea of cooperating is that the article, as with all of Wikipedia, is a work in progress - I'd rather have us each put our changes into the article until we arrive at an article we're both happy with. Unambiguous body is still unclear - I've attempted to recast the whole phrase to "Produce a body that appears unambiguously male or female." Snowspinner 01:58, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"the assumption of an unambiguous maleness or femaleness. Transgender people always violate the assumption of an unambiguous male or female identity" to "the assumption of an unambiguous male or female identity"

  • Current phrasing is redundant - maleness and femaleness are awkward words that should be avoided if possible. Making broad claims about groups of people always doing something is potentially offensive to members of that group who do not conform to broad generalization.
    • You just don't get it, do you? Transgender people - is that the third or fourth time I tell you that - are not just violating the assumption about identity, but about the whole concept of sex=gender identity=gender role, in other words, maleness and femaleness. Agreed, those are not particular beautiful words, but I have rather a few ugly words instead of even uglier untruths. It's now "the assumption of unambiguously male or female human beings. Transgender people always violate the assumption of an unambiguous male or female identity"
      • My fear is that it is unclear to a non-technical reader that male and female identity are different from that. I've tried "the assumption that people are either male or female, and that they have male or female identities, gender roles, and sexualities." Snowspinner 01:58, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • The heternormative equation of sex=gender identity=gender role=sexual orientation used to be at the very beginning of the article, where it seems to have gone under sometime during in the edit wars. It would be much wiser to put it in there again, instead of using confusing statements further down. What you wrote does not make sense, because IS and LGB people violate the very same assupmtion. So put that bit where it belongs. -- AlexR 03:54, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"If transgender behaviour in a person cannot be suppressed, it is allowed on the condition that the person becomes entirely a member of the other sex, so that s/he thereby confirms the binary gender system." to "When this happens, their transgender nature being allowed on the condition that the person becomes entirely a member of the other sex, so that s/he thereby conforms to the binary gender system."

  • Current phrasing suggests that all transgender people are forced into transsexualism. New phrasing flows better from previous sentence. Also, transsexuals do not confirm the binary gender system - they are not a proof of it. They conform to it - that is, they do not disprove it.
    • At least for a long time it was tried to force all people looking for medical treatment into the TS/TV-system, and that has been changing only very recently. I'll think of adding something to that effect to the article. And your idea that transsexualism (not necessary transsexuals!) do not conform the binary gender system, sorry, but that is flatout wrong. On the other hand, some transsexuals do disprove of a binary gender system, even if they feel completely male or female themselves. Rare but true. [AR]
      • You're misreading me, I think. I'm claiming that transsexualism does conform to the binary gender system - just not that it confirms it. Also, I put "the other" in proper quotes instead of italics, which is what the double single quotes does. The fact that it is changing, however, does necessitate the loss of the sweeping language - I think "When this happens" puts in the possibility of reform, and I've put that qualifier back in. I also tidied up phrasing in this section a bit. Snowspinner 01:58, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • Of course it basically confirms it. It takes out the sex part, but the other three parts have to stick to it even more firm. -- AlexR 03:54, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"including things like choice of jobs and hobbies and so on, and a heterosexual sexual orientation" removed

  • "proper gender roles" already describes what occurs. Furthermore, phrasing is inaccurate. Is not the case that transsexuals are mandated to be heterosexual. Furthermore, gender lines on jobs and hobbies are increasingly fading, though I will admit that they are still there.
    • I am sorry, but you are wrong again. Transsexuals are still sometimes refused treatment because they have the wrong sexual preferences, and some are forced to get "proper" male or female jobs and hobbies. I know this sounds crazy, and it is, but it still happens. Check any support group (off-campus), and they will tell you the very same thing. [AR]
      • While it may happen in some cases, as you note, it happens sometimes - this needs to be noted in the discussion. You've gone some measure towards this. I've tried "which can include" instead of "including." I've also changed this unambiguous body to "unambiguously male or female" as per previous problem with the notion of unambiguous bodies. I also changed recent years to an actual mention of the year, so that it doesn't require constant updating. Snowspinner 01:58, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And since you did not bother to mention all changes you have made, let me list the rest -- btw, that is something that should be done seperately for every edit, otherwise it is impossible to find those references:

  • You changend "Gender reassignment includes medical procedures to produce a body that is as unambigously male or female as possible, a gender identity" to "to produce a body that is as unambigously male or female, a gender identity". Apart from the fact that that leaves a grammatical error, no medical procedure in the world can make one unambiguous body into the other, so that is definitely a case of "as possible".
  • Also, why changing "including" to "which can include". We are talking here specifically of "transsexualism" as part of a heteronormative system, and in this case, this is not optional.
  • "Even up to 2004" sounds as if we could expect a change soon, or as if this were past already. Well, it is not. I'll make this into "even today", when things change, we can always change the article.

Oh, and did I already mention that this box WILL remain out of the article. You now have a chance to put it in for a few hours, because it is 6am here, and I would like to get some sleep. It would be rather nice if I had not to remove it before breakfast again, though. -- AlexR 03:54, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive_5&oldid=450940523"