Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Heteronormativity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Untitled

I removed all content of the discussion page as of 2.June 2004 here, although a few paragraphs will remain on the discussion page itself. -- AlexR 01:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What we're still working on

"Transgender people offer another challenge to the assumption of an unambiguously male or female human beings. Transgender people always violate the assumption of an unambiguous male or female identity. Many also seek to change the sexual characteristics of their body, and this is seen as violation of the assumption of unambiguous anatomy, and also of gender roles and sexuality." is now "Transgender people offer another challenge to the assumption that sex, gender identity, gender roles, and sexual orientation correspond to one another and must all either be male or female."

This loses much of the awkwardness of the previous version, and also eliminates the sweeping "always" that I was having so much trouble with, while still addressing the sex=gender identity=gender role=sexual orientation equation you want dealt with there. Snowspinner
- Yes, unfortunately it looses much content as well. I agree that the old sentences would not have won a Pulizer price, but your edit is - once again - just a reiteration of the definition of heteronormativity, and therefore redundant. It is important to tell how exactly transgender people violate that idea. I'll give a better wording some thoughts, but you know, changing the same sentence again and again, while removing the debates about it to the archive, and then claiming you want "cooperation" does not exactly look convincing. -- AlexR 10:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  - The debates had gotten to be such a mess, as well as so long, that I thought clarity was preserved best through going back to what the issues were. I figured if we needed to recall a point, we could crawl through the archive. It's not as though I erased all record of the debate. I just made it easier to actually continue said debate. In any case, let's see what you can come up with for new wording there. Snowspinner 15:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"basically confirms" to "reinforces"

Confirms would mean that transsexuals prove the system exists. Since we are both in agreement that the system does not exist, we probably ought not say that it does exist. Reinforces is a reasonable synonym. Snowspinner

"include" to "can include"

You have already said that this does not happen in 100% of the cases - can puts a necessary hedge on this. Snowspinner

Quick note: This isn't an appropriate way to speak about transgendered people. Hyacinth 19:44, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Do not let non-intersex people such as doctors and therapists speak on behalf of intersex people."

"Do not automatically include intersex people in "trans" and "queer" categories. Many intersex people do not feel included or represented by the trans and queer movements, for good reasons."

"Do not exploit intersex existence for the sake of deconstructing sexism, homophobia and/or transphobia while neglecting issues they are facing."

from http://www.survivorproject.org/is-intro.html, I realize it reads intersex people, but is more than applicable to trans people. Hyacinth 22:22, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Project Critical Theory again

This is equivalent to putting the article in a series, which is reasonable. It is an important term in critical theory. Yes, there are other important terms that are not marked. This is not the point. The point is that major terms in critical theory should have a box pointing towards other resources for people who came to the term looking for information on them, much like major figures in philosophy (Immanuel Kant) have the series box at the bottom. I have, however, trimmed the box so that it takes up slightly less space. Snowspinner
- Than can be done with a link, and needs not to be done with a still-too-big box, which will leave casual readers with the impression that this article is critical theory only, which it is not. Funny how you removed that debate to the archive already, isn't it? The box goes, because this article is not only relevant for critical theory. And I am saying that again: Those boxes are seen to be problematic in most of the Wikipedia, not just by me. If you keep insisting of this box, this isn't the last revert war you will find yourself into, that is predictable. -- AlexR 10:23, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's not a hijack when there's another box on the page for a different project/grouping. You had half a point when it was the only box on the page, but now that there's an LGBT box (at the top, no less), there's no reason to exclude the critical theory project's box at the bottom. It goes in. Or is that only members of the LGBT community can claim the page for their own? Justin Johnson 13:48, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Very basic problem

As one of the recently debated sections shows, the article has a very bis problem - the basic heteronormative assumption of sex = gender identity = gender role = sexual orientation is not defined anywhere anymore; it must have gotten lost during the edit wars. Consequently, the article is very likely somewhat confusing; that should go back to the very beginning of the article. I am however to tired to do so right away, so do we have a volunteer here? -- AlexR 04:20, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'll put it in before I go to bed. Snowspinner 04:30, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

the text box

My personal feeling is that Alex tends to be a little autocratic when it comes to the articles s/he cares about. I don't see the problem with the box really, though I've agreed with a few of Alex's comments here. Whatever the case, it's time to take a break from reverting this article. You're already at 6 reverts in the last day. Exploding Boy 13:41, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Hi! No, I am usually not, on the contrary. However, this particular article has seen 3 1/2 edit wars in the last week or two, I think there was exactly one day of rest in between. Consequently, my patience is a bit thin right now. I don't mind a link to the list, I put it in myself. But that box is far too big, it hijacks the whole article as being part of critical theory only, which is what snowspinner tried for days now. Obviously, this is not acceptable. Numerous other project just put in links, and why should this one be different. As for the LGBT box - I am rather surprised by it, one person is throwing it into many articles now. In this case, it is not really needed, in my personal opinion, since all topics it links to are in the List of transgender-related topics, too. A link would be OK, but I am not particularly sad about trading it in for no Critical Theory box. -- AlexR 13:55, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, I wasn't particularly thrilled with the LGBT box (not just on this article but in general), but the Critical Theory box I didn't mind. At any rate, in case you weren't aware, it's recently been decided that 3 reverts (per person per article per day) is the limit. People have been getting listed for Wikipedia: Quickpolls for violating this rule, so you might want to take a break for a bit. Exploding Boy 14:02, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, although luckily most "reverts" were not reverts, technicaly. It's bad behaviour, I know - but I really don't like the article being hijacked with that box. It's not as if they were shot if they didn't manage to keep it in the article, either. And as I said, a link is perfectly alright, but why this gigantic thing that dominates the whole perception of the reader? The TG-list is just a list, and it does the job just as well. Making it into a project so I can have a big box, too, would be rather childish. Or does the person with the biggest box win a price? Why not let the readers decide where else they want to go from here? There is just no point in having the link to Critical Theory dominate the whole thing, that's all. -- AlexR 14:41, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't think we've technically been doing reverts so much as heatedly coming to a compromise. I do resent the claim that I made the Critical Theory project just to put a box on the page. I don't mind the LGBT box. As I've said, I'm happy to have articles have as many boxes as is relevent. Personally, I think the LGBT box could stand to be better designed (I'd model off of one of the philosophy series boxes, which are very aesthetically pleasing boxes), but I think it's a good thing and it belongs on the page. As I've said, I shrunk the box, because I agree that three lines of box may well be too much. And the reader is welcome to decide where to go. I don't imagine anyone who came in looking at transgender topics is going to get confused about the CT box. I think they'll recognize that as another aspect of the word. In any case, as per the advice of people, I'll leave this one be for the day, and see how the discussion develops. Snowspinner 15:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We're at about 24 hours, and it seems to be a distinctly minority view that the boxes should go. So they're back. Snowspinner 04:22, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As another note, I'm out of town for the weekend. If AlexR reverts the box again and I don't do anything until Monday, it should not be taken as my giving up on the matter - it's just that I wasn't near a computer where I could do anything. =) Snowspinner 06:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

for the record

I heartilly object to the removal of the objections section. Sam Spade 06:35, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure why. If, as you claim, the term has little use outside of Wikipedia, it wouldn't have many objections that are worth noting, would it? Or are you saying the term is more widely used than you'd suggested. Where are these objections actually coming from? Snowspinner 14:08, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

wikiproject boxes

I moved {{msg:CriticalTheory}} to this talk page. Every other Wikiproject links only from the talk pages, never from the articles. I don't want to get involved in whatever fights are going on with this article, but please retain the conventions of the other projects in keeping this out of the main namespace. Angela . 11:12, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

As it stands, we're currently using the box not only as a call for editing help (In which case it would belong on the talk pages, I agree) but also as a series box, providing links to related resources. I'd do a normal series, but if you look at the topics page for the project, they're heirarchically ordered by school of thought within Critical Theory, making a linear series an unworkable choice - hence the box. I'll give the box an edit to make it emphasize its series-like quality more. Snowspinner 14:08, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article already has a series box. It's probably best not to overdo it. Also, any links to the Wikipedia namespace will need to be removed from the CT one if it's going to stay (I'm not saying it should stay - just that Wikipedia namespace links definitely shouldn't). Angela . 14:17, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

The LGBT series box was actually added following the addition of the Critical Theory box. So if we're going with "Whatever box got here first," it's Critical Theory. That said, I think there's room for both boxes - one at the top, one at the bottom. As for the Wikipedia namespace, I'm not sure how to work around that. The categorized list is in the Wikipedia namespace, because that's where we put it for the project, since its original purpose was as a list of articles for the project. Shortly after we made it, we went "Hey, wait, this list is a really good resource unto itself." It seems somewhat silly to make a copy of the list outside of namespace just to put in the box. Particularly when we have notable figures, basic topics, and notable works in critical theory articles that can be found outside of namespace already, all of which link to the heirarchical list through the boxes. So it's not as though someone searching for the list won't get you there. As for the rest of the namespace links... I dunno. I just don't see the sense of this rule in this situation, honestly. The box is neither a straightforward project box nor a straightforward series box. It's somewhere in between, and I think it sort of needs to be decided on the merits of the particular situation. That said, feel free to take a stab at editing the content of the box if you like... Snowspinner 14:27, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the CT box needs editing. Whatever form you put it in, it will not be suitable for the article. It is an advert for a wikiproject, and is therefore relevant to editors, not to readers. This is why it should be on the talk page. This is the same for every Wikiproject. If you want to link to a list of relevant topics, put that list in the main namespace and link to it. There is no reason to move this box from the talk page to the article. I can't see a single benefit for it. You also have to remember that Wikipedia is not the only user of the content. Many of our Mirrors and forks do not download the Wikipedia namespace, so such a link would break. This is not acceptable. Angela . 14:42, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

My conceptualization of wikipedia is that readers and editors are the same people. I'm not so sure that your distinction between the two is justified. Voyager640 15:25, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's just an advert, honestly. I can see what I can do about revising it, but its primary purpose really is for readers - readers interested in critical theory. In any case, I can't deal with this again until Monday, as I'm out of town. Snowspinner 14:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This are so childish arguments, its hard do believe. "But the others can have a box, too, why can't I have a box?" and "If they can have a box, I want one, too!".
But that is not the question - the lgbt box is also debated, but at least it is a navigation box, not a project box. Also, the question remains why a simple link to a list does not suffice, as I suggested.
Now look: Shall we really start a box war now? Let's make an LGBT-box, and a CT-box, and then a Transgender-Box, and an Intersex-box. A Feminism-box might be useful, too. I am sure we can think of a few more boxes, if we try. And then, what do we get? More boxes than article. How much sense does that make?

Those boxes are a brand new idea, and there should be a general consensus about them. In my personal opinion, these boxes are needes as much as a toothache, but that should be discussed at another place. -- AlexR 20:17, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. Read the policies, and try not to be so silly. Sam Spade 21:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And who but you debates the accuracy and the neutrality of this article? There is nobody else I can see. -- AlexR 22:31, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, why don't you read them yourself, Sam? -- till we *) 17:14, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quotes again

"'Queer commentary shows that much of what passes for general culture is riddled with heteronormativity [the view that heterosexuality is and should be the norm]' (Berlant any í Warner 1995, 349)." The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation (Ideologies of Desire) by Edward Stein, ISBN 0195142446
"heterosexism, heteronormativity Heterosexism is discrimination against lesbians and gays...In 1975 the Dutch lesbian feminist Purple Semptember staff named heteronormativity an instrument of perpetuating power. Both lesbian feminists and queer theorists address the compulsory nature of heterosexuality (see lesbian feminism; queer theory). However, 1990s queer theorists focused on transgressoin and deviance while lesbian feminists focused on structural analysis. The difference: lesbian feminists regard a heterosexual man buying a prostitute as normative heterosexuality, queer theorists regard it as transgressive/progressive. See also: heteropatriarchy; homophobia" Encyclopedia of Feminist Theories by Lorraine Code, ISBN 0415132746
"Compulsory heterosexuality (or what some have called 'heteronormativity') functions to underline the fact that heterosexuality is an institution, a practice, with its own set of expectations, norms, and principles of conduct." Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Text-Reader by Gail Dines, ISBN 076192261X
"Heterocentrism. Heteronormativity. These terms were coined recently to refer to the placing of heterosexual experience at the center of one's attention, or the routine assumption that heterosexuality is "normal" and that any other sexuality is "deviant." ibid

These are mostly for Sam's benefit. Hyacinth 00:39, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What for? Do you seriously expect him to actually come forward with an argument? Check his history, he is a well know troll. He will take those quotes only as further proof that society indeed need protection against these "horrors". Check his remark from 9 Apr 2004 20:32 (UTC) in /Archive 2004 2, that should tell you all about his attitude you'll ever need to know. -- AlexR 01:08, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Boxes once again

Wow, when a page draws the most recent three entries on RfC, it's hard to tell whether an outside participant weighing in will cool tempers or fuel the fire. Anyway...

Boxes. What function do these boxes serve that is not served by the See also or Related articles on many pages? Here, it seems that the box is a collection of articles that while somewhat related to the issue at hand, are more broadly related than the articles listed under "See also," which raises the question of why those articles less directly related are given emphasis through highlighting? I think the "List of transgender-related topics" link is the right idea ... one of the "See also" links is a link to a list of the broadly related topics. Shimmin 02:02, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I had a kind of gut reaction to them that makes me wonder whether they are a good idea. Other people may not react this way, but they reminded me of the paid advertisement boxes on the right-hand side of a Google search reply. (If you search for "wells and springs" you see listings for companies that sell ink wells, stainless steel springs, Springtime in the Bahamas, etc., etc.) They look like advertisements for a point of view. I think that will be offensive to those who are antagonistic to non-conventional thoughts on sex-related subjects, and counterproductive for those who hope to aid people to think more clearly on these subjects. P0M 05:05, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't personally see the boxes as being useful overall unless they provide a specific framework for the linked articles. The contents of the LGBT box can easily be moved to the "see also" section. -Sean 08:06, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bleh. The See also list is now ridiculously long, and contains entries that are indirectly linked to Heteronormativity at best. On top of that, the entry would become totaly unmanagable were I to add in the Critical Theory articles that the CT box would provide reference to. One of the things that the boxes allow is for a different kind of link. The See Also category should contain topics that directly relate to the content of the article. Boxes, on the other hand, give topics that are more related "in spirit" if you will - topics that may not address the same exact subject matter, but that instead reflect a similar viewpoint. For instance, an article on Evolution will have a see also to Puncuated Equilibrium, Creationism, and Biology. But it's not necessarily going to have something to memes, to social Darwinism, etc. I think, though, that there's a promising approach to reading the articles that way. In that regard, a series box might be justifiable.

Put another way, Wikipedia is hyperlinked, which allows for a wealth of threads and insights. One of the biggest advantages of it is the way in which it allows threads to be traced beyond the most obvious and most universally accepted ones. Series boxes are an essential part of that. Snowspinner 21:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Strange, then, how the Wikipedia could have ever had any success without those obnoxious boxes. While I do agree that the linking of the articles from the LGBT box was less than elegantly done, would you mind telling me which of those entries "are indirectly linked to Heteronormativity at best"? And how is it better to have entries that may or may not be only indirectly linked to a subject in very noticable boxes, while it is unacceptable to have them much less obtrusively in the see also section? You still fail to convince me that those boxes do anything that a link can not do, and can not do much better. -- AlexR 23:40, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Happy too. I do not think that see also links are in any way needed for Gender Roles, Transgender, Transsexual, Queer, Straight, Bisexual, Intersexual, Heterosexuality, or Homosexuality. Although the terms are mentioned in the article (And are thus already linked to), they are not articles that expand on Heteronormativity, and thus are not see-also appropriate.

As for the boxes being "obnoxious" and "very noticable," sure, they're noticable. They're visually striking. And they're small - especially compared to the article itself. They do not overpower the article. And, finally and more to the point, they are already generally in use. If you want to seek a general ruling against boxes, that is one thing, but given that they are already in use, and given that heteronormativity is a concept in critical theory, the box is appropriate. I'm sorry you don't like boxes. I don't like some things about Wikipedia either. But consensus and general opinion are against me, so there's not much I can do about it. Snowspinner 00:20, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I really don't know where from you have that optimcistic view that those boxes are universaly accepted, everybody but the makers of these boxes are universaly annoyed by them. Just check the debates about them; not just this one. The mailing list is one place, the IRC another, and how about Wikipedia talk:Article series

Also, your claim that critical theory is so important that it needs a box, but other subjects should not even be mentioned in links is a bit biased. Of course those links expand on Heteronormativity, by explaing and expanding on the practical aspects of it. I know practical aspects are not exactly relevant on academic journals, but you know, they happen to matter to people outside of the ivory tower. -- AlexR 01:00, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The other subjects should get a box - as I've said, I like the LGBT box. I liked it right up on top. I don't think they're right for a see also when they're already mentioned and linked to in the article. But the article belongs in an LGBT series. As for the Wikipedia talk article series, I can't help but notice that the topic was largely dead for two weeks prior to this specific article coming up there. So, yeah, I think the issue had largely been resolved until you decided to pretend it wasn't. Snowspinner 02:05, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey yall, maybe a third persepctive is needed. It seems to me there are two questions:

Should there be boxes?
What form should those boxes take and where should they be placed?

I find very enticing Snowspinner's arguments that boxes are just one of many ways to link to things. They would never be central to, but could be a part of, wikipedias pluralism. I think that they could be a quicker and more clear way of grouping articles than to do so in the text of the articles, which may then be given over to explaining how it differs from or partially falls outside of any groups.

I find very convincing AlexR's arguments that boxes easily interfere with understanding articles and how those articles connect to other subjects, and how they may POV an article or group of articles.

I would suggest to Snowspinner that you create clear guidelines for writing and placing boxes, in that way you can ensure their quality and at least partially meet the objections against them (by incorporating those objections in your guidelines). I would suggest to AlexR that, if not completely opposed to ALL boxes, you create guidelines yourself, or at least a description of which boxes, where and when, you find acceptable. Ideally, you would collaborate. Things to consider:

What belongs in "see also"s?
What belongs in boxes?
Where should boxes be placed?
What is the maximum size a box should be?

If this doesn't alleviate the tone of the dispute, it will at least bring more clarity. If this is already taking place, my apologizes, please point me to it.

Hyacinth 02:56, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See also should contain articles that provide direct background or expansion on the topic of an article, or that contain information that was glanced over in the article. For instance, in this article, Michel Foucault and Judith Butler are not mentioned directly, even though they are two important people who use the term within Critical Theory. They therefore go in See Also, because their theories directly expand and relate upon the concept of heteronormativity.
Boxes should contain references to less obvious and immediately related paths through Wikipedia. Article links and see also contain the links that are materially relevent. Boxes should contain the links that are more abstractly relevent - linking Derrida to Foucault, John Adams to Bill Clinton, or soccer to basketball. All of these are connections that obviously make sense, but would not be directly made in the article.
Either at the bottom of an article, or right-justified somewhere within the article - either at the top or by a section to which they are particularly relevent. (Right justifying at the bottom is visually unappealing)
I can't see setting a blanket rule for this as a good idea, so let's just say "Boxes should not be offensively big, garrish, or stupid." And allow this to be fought out on talk pages. As it stands, I do not believe the LGBT box or the CT box to be overly large. Snowspinner 20:41, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There was no agreement!

I removed both boxes - the LGBT-Links had been added to the link section, and you can link your List of CT-articles to the links, too, as everybody else does. Did you hope it won't be noticed, or are you seriously convinced that a list of articles on critical theory has more rights than other topics or lists? -- AlexR 20:55, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

If I were hoping it wouldn't have been noticed, I would have stealth edited, put it as minor, and claimed it were a typo fix. Except, notably, I didn't. I put the edit in because the opposign forces, that is, you, stopped posting here, despite the fact that the discussion moved to trying to come up with a generalized sense of when boxes were appropriate.

Boxes are widely in use on Wikipedia - attempts to get them blocked have been unsuccessful. You need to come to a compromise here - a categorical rejection of boxes is going to get you nowhere. I've shrunk the box, I've stopped referencing the project, I've done every single thing you've complained about in the name of compromise, and you're not even still discussing the agreement. I can't help but think that, for you, this article is about your political agenda, and not about providing useful information for people. If this is not the case, I advise that you either adjust your manner in these talk pages, or cease editing Wikipedia. Snowspinner 20:59, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

First, I stopped posting here for two reasons: One is that obviously you are not willing to listen to any arguments - you want your box, and therefore, it has to be there. Two, I took the debate to more appropriate places for general debates, namely the mailinglist and Wikipedia talk:Article series.

Second, I never wanted all boxes to be banned, but I do have objections against those that are not about articles that are in a series, like list of Kings or so on, but articles simply belonging to a field. And my argument is not that lists of articles are not relevant, my objections are against putting links to these lists (and whatever else) into boxes, therefore making this particular field appear more relevant than links to lists that are not put in boxes.

As for "pushing an agenda" and your "willingness to compromise". Sorry, but it is you who is pushing an agenda, namely that of your box in any article that is related, and if you were willing to compromise, you would have simply put a link to this list into the see also section, instead of insisting on your box. And kindly cease to advise me as to whether I should or should not cease to work on the Wikipedia - I have been around here much longer than you are, and I think I can say that I contributed more than a political agenda as well.

-- AlexR 21:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The box is now a series box. The series is broken up into schools of thought within critical theory, with each school of thought having substantial sub-articles. Perhaps when the critical theory coverage of Wikipedia expands, these subsections will be spun off into individual series - right now, that would be overkill, and this is the best organization for the series. As for moving things to the mailinglist and Article series, you might want to mention that to people here. I am not on the mailing list, nor is the article series talk page on my watchlist, so this move served primarily to cut me out of the debate.

If you look at my edit history, you will notice substantial contributions across a variety of fields. I am not pushing any agenda, beyond the agenda of Wikipedia - informing people. The box serves to inform people about the connection of heteronormativity to a massive conversation and field - critical theory. I can't think of any directions or connections to heteronormativity that are not adequately represented currently in the article. I can't even think of any that don't have boxes. If someone comes up with one, the issue of excluding and marginalizing concerns might be relevent. Right now, it's a hypothetical situation.

I am at a loss for why you are so antagonistic here. I have attempted to compromise with you on this article for some time. I have worked hard to understand your points and to find phrasings that are mutually agreeable. I have changed the Critical Theory box at least three times on your concerns. What more do you want? Is there any level of compromise that is acceptable to you beyond my reverting the article to where it was a few weeks ago and leaving every article you have any interest in alone? Snowspinner 21:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Moving to the left again for reasons of readability.
I don't know what makes you think that you adapted the box according to my comments - my comment on this box is that it should not be a box at all, but a link, like the "List of transgender-related subjects".
And I did mention taking the debate elsewhere - "Just check the debates about them; not just this one. The mailing list is one place, the IRC another, and how about Wikipedia talk:Article series (...) AlexR 01:00, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)"
And I have already noticed that you don't consider intersex and transgender people to be particular relevant - I guess they just did not turn up in sufficient numbers in your academic journals to be noticed. (LGB people not, either, I guess, but they already put in their own box), I already mentioned that more than once, too. Both don't have boxes yet, because they did what was adequate, making a list. Actually, at them moment they are still on the same list. But you know, that might change quickly. And those are particularly the ones that you currently drown with the box. You have not mentionend a single reason why the link of the article to Critical Theory is so much more important than for example the one to the List of transgender-related subjects. (Except your personal bias towards it, of course.)
The link, as it is now, is perfectly OK with me, and that is what I suggested in the first place. Now please give me one reason what you consider to be wrong with that.
And don't exaggerate, either. I never suggested simply reverting the article, nor would I object at all if you could put something more about the academical part of the subject in -- preferably without deleting other stuff as you did in the beginning. It is merely this box we have been talking about for ages now; time both of us could have spent in a much more productive way, I am sure. -- AlexR 22:11, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Intersexual was in the box at one point. I thought it still was. I would be perfectly happy to see a box made out of transgender topics. As I've said many times, I think a series or project would be beneficial. The fact that you are not interested in that is hardly my fault or problem.

The link is dimly acceptable as a stopgap measure, provided that, once that list becomes unwieldy and gets broken down into proper series, the queer theory series that will ensue will get a box on the page, as, at that point, it will no longer be a simple list. Snowspinner 22:17, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Intersex was taken out of the LGBT box, obviously because an intersex person did not consider it appropriate for it to be there; as far as I can tell, that was correct, since most intersex people don't feel they are part of the LGBT community, unless they are LGBT. (The T part is of course a bit tricky there, too, which is the reason why I feel slighty uncomfortable about intersex not having its own list.)

Also, the point of not making a series box out of transgender is not so much that I am not interested, but that I see simply not much of a point. How should I lead people through these articles, and why? Why not simply let them decide what they want to read? Not everybody will, for example, be interested in all the technical details about surgeries. Or about the articles about the various forms of intersex. Besides, I just do not believe in putting rings through people's noses and leading them around where I want them - I believe in showing people what's there and let them decide for themselves where they want to go. Pretty much the same will be true for "Queer Theory", btw, as well as for all other "series" which are not series in the first place. I can only point you to the page I mentioned and the mailing list again.

Besides, your box right now does absolutey nothing more than the link now does - it links to a list of articles. So I don't really understand what is so "dimly accaptable" about treating it like any other link to a list. -- AlexR 23:10, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

As I said, I won't make the switch until the list starts getting unwieldly, at which point it will be a proper series. We're a ways off from that now, since Queer Theory only has three articles in that section right now. I wouldn't even consider it until all of the sections we have become about 8 entries long. Snowspinner 23:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

General proposal on Article Series Boxes

After much debate on the subject, Hyacinth suggested creating clear guidelines for writing and placing boxes in Talk:Heteronormativity, which is a good idea, in my opinion. Here, therefore, my attempt can be found: User:AlexR/Article series boxes -- AlexR 16:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Pejoratives

Shall we edit racism, sexism, homophobia, marxism, pacifism, socialism, communism, evil, bad..... to include a link to pejorative in their first sentence?

Minus a few of those, yes. I got the idea from here [1] Sam Spade 23:21, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that the term is used perjoratively - at least, universally. Yes, I can't think of many critical theorists who are really pro-heteronormativity, but generally, at this point, when something is called heternormative, it's usually, at this point, more a matter of fact analysis - usually in the service of a larger claim about culture. Really, critical theory at this point is fairly pessimistic about the possibility of any political change - especially on the level of heteronormativity. It's more trying to understand than to criticize.

I'm also uncertain that every article of a term that's critical to something needs to link to pejorative. Snowspinner 23:42, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind the term "heteronormative" itself so much, but some of the definitions here seem to outlandishly insulting as to be based in a perjorative status. Sam Spade 00:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, which parts really bother you? Snowspinner 00:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

What really bothers me

For starters I made a number of edits of what I could see no reasonable person arguing in favor of (excesses of POV). The folowing are either more debatable, or more often, difficult for me to replace.

It is descriptive of a dichotomous system of categorization that directly links social behavior and self identity with one's genitalia.

No one links their self identity to their genitalia, or at least nobody I would want to meet...

Genitalia largely define gender - plenty of people identify as male or female. Most of them decide which to identify as through consultation with their genitals. Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

men and women are interpreted to be natural complements

this is being insinuated to be a subject of debate?

I'm going to go ahead and say that it is a subject of debate - c .f. the existence of gay people. Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

As with much of critical theory, the focus is less on reasons for the norm, and more on trying to figure out what voices and groups are not given a voice or an identity within the terms of the norm

is there no mention to be made of the voices of those who are maligned and dismissed as "heteronormative" and who are out of the cultural loop? Has anyone seen MTV or HBO lately? Gay culture is as trendy as can be, its practically ancient greece out there

Yes and no. There's plenty of work being done on the appropriation of gay culture - MTV and HBO being central texts in this. The readings of most of these shows is not the straightforward reading that they're advocating gay culture. They're generally read as redefining what gayness is, and then advocating their new definition as though it were not new. Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

by refusing to track down and/or prosecute murderers of transgendered people or denying vital services to transgendered people (currently, in parts of North America and Europe)

Can you cite the numerous contemporary examples necessary to make this provocative claim? I seriously doubt the accuracy of it.

Here I've got nothing. Alex? Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

When this happens, if transgender or transsexual feelings and behaviour in a person cannot be suppressed, people are left with two choices: they may either conform to the norms for their births sex, meaning that no medical treatment is given, and legal change of name and/or gender is not permitted, or they may comply with very strict rules for their "new" sex; any deviation from these is not permitted.

who gives them these choices? And what are you talking about, no medical treatment is given? If they are in a car accident they are left to die? If they need orthadontic work, this is not allowed? Again, I would need copious contemporary citations for this preposterous claim.

The medical treatment in question is pretty clearly, from context, referring to the sex change process, and not medical treatment at large. Still, if you'd like this clarified, it can be done. Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

From the end of the 1990s or the beginning of the 2000s, in some places, transgendered peoples are given medical treatment as well, although their legal situation is still somewhat more difficult than that of people who can obtain a diagnosis of transsexualism.

similar to above, and confusingly worded. What is difficult about their legal situation? Which jail to put them in? And what is ment by "in some places"? Where are they not being given medical care?

That would be the legal situation of their gender - something very relevent to, say, getting married, getting health care, etc. Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Documentation/clarification?

All in all, the person really to blame here is not any of you, nor any editor of the wikipedia, but rather the hack prof. who came up w this confounded assault upon intelligible discourse. Sam Spade 04:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Your argument isn't really founded on a good understanding of how the concept is employed in critical theory. I mean, I understand what you're saying, but the term just isn't used that way - at least not in critical theory. I don't know about other usages, and though I think I understand what AlexR was getting at in the latter sections better than you seem to, i don't know whether I wholly agre with it. But as for your first three objections... there's not much there. The idea that gay culture (As opposed to simply gayness) is becoming accepted is far from clear. Indeed, the idea that gayness is becoming accepted isn't wholly clear - it's becoming an acceptable subject for entertainment, but there's a difference between being amused by something and accepting it. (For a good example of this, consider gangsta rap. Plenty of people can take a gangsta rapper as an object of entertainment. Fewer people can take being gang raped as an object of entertainment. The gang member is not accepted - it's appropriated.) Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Wow, I think you might want to substitute your gang member example for something less distressing! I happen to have been close friends w a large number of gang members, and they didn't rape anybody to my knowledge, gang style or otherwise. As far as critical theory, I know absolutely nothing of it outside of what I have seen here, so you might expect a bit of differences in our perceptions on it. I suppose I'll have to take a look at Critical Theory. I notice you made no mention of the issues regarding poorly documented allegations, and thus assume you are in general agreement w me on these particulars? Sam Spade 05:07, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I think, in that case, that the gang comparison is particularly apt, in that it shows clearly the act of a real culture (gang culture) being overwritten by an "accepted" popular view of it (The gang raping gangsta rapper, etc). Many would say something similar happens with gay culture. As for the other allegations, I'm neutral on the subject. I would not ask for their deletion, since I find them believable, however I also could not provide evidence to defend their inclusion. As for critical theory... it's tough. It's especially tough to figure out exactly what its political investments are. And, unlike a science, there's fierce disagreement in it - tracking it with generalized claims is very hard. That said, its view is that there's almost always someone being silenced - and that it's very often not who you think. :) Snowspinner 05:28, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Eve Sedgwick

"It is a rather amazing fact that, of the very many dimensions along which the genital activity of one person can be differentiated from that of another (dimensions that include preference for certain acts, certain zones or sensations, certain physical types, a certain frequency, certain symbolic investments, certain relations of age or power, a certain species, a certain number of participants, etc. etc. etc.), precisely one, the gender of object choice, emerged from the turn of the century, and has remained as the dimension denoted by the now ubiquitous category of 'sexual orientation'" - Eve Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, page 8.

That is why that sentence is there. Because it is clearly Sedgwick's point. Snowspinner 05:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree that Snowspinner's edit in question only clarifies things. Most people *do* only think of sexual orientation in terms of gender of sexual partner. It takes a leap of mind to think of sexual orientation in any other terms, and the phrase you added helps the reader make that leap. It's simply another way of viewing the question, and NPOV is all about presenting multiple points of view without making a judgement (all the article is doing there is presenting Sedgwick's point as Sedgwick's point. I've restored the text. - Seth Ilys 05:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

But you don't allow for the same in articles about "politically incorrect" subjects, ideas, persons or groups. There it is all about making a straw man, and disallowing any real argument to reach the surface. I am not saying that this therefore should be the rule, because it's just screwed up to do against anybody, but Snowspinner's version is crossing the line between presenting an argument, and making the article slanted and assuming.

The passage in question has the qualifier "is viewed as", and is specified as being in the work of Sedgwick. I am unsure what other methods could be used to explain Sedgwick's point. Perhaps you'd like to take a stab at rephrasing the passage instead of deleting it? Snowspinner 06:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)