Talk:Heterosexism/Archive 2

Fairness

This article implies that certain beliefs held by homophobes make someone a homophobe. For example, that everyone is naturally heterosexual has scientific merit when you consider natural selection. This belief does not make someone a homophobe. Also, belief that homosexual acts are morally wrong is not homophobi as exemplified in the book Songmaster by Orson Scott Card in which Orson Scott Card condemns homosexual acts but more seriously condemns homophobia and hatred/abuse of gay people. It is my Sincere belief that all people deserve respect and love no matter what. I however hold the two aforementioned views. Please rectify this situation. Thank-you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.10.116 (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not once is any person or group labeled as a homophobe in this article. In fact, neither "homophobic" nor "homophobe" are used anywhere. What's more, the article is about heterosexism, not homophobia, the difference being clearly explained in that section of the heterosexism article. Your fallacious points are unfounded, thus no rectification is due. I suggest you shift your time, energy, and focus to articles dealing with the causes of heterosexuality, religion and homosexuality or heterophobia since, in all fairness, that is where your true interests lie. --CJ Withers (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination is against people, not against relationships

To repeat my talk from 23:30, 28 November 2009, the definition of discrimination is "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." [1] The groups in question in this article are heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. --Dr.enh (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, that is NOT what discrimination means. Secondly, that does not exclude relationships. Third, according to that definition, prohibition of same-sex marriage is not discrimination. How about instead of just repeating yourself, you actually respond to my points?Heqwm2 (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My definition is taken from a dictionary.[2] What is your definition, and where did you get it? I will respond to your points when you make a point backed by evidence or reference, not just by bare assertion. --Dr.enh (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have already presented a different definition. Since you have declared that you are not going to respond to my points, I am going to revert your edit, and I will submit an edit war report on you if you revert. Your abysmal civility is unacceptable.Heqwm2 (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant definition from M/W is "to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit." In jurisdictions that do not recognize SSM, same-sex pairs of people of legal age who ask for a marriage license are always refused; opposite-sex pairs of people of legal age are always allowed, without having to demonstrate individual merit. That is clearly "a difference in treatment" that is "in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships" -- the definition of heterosexism. Please explain how the M/W definition and the dictionary.reference.com are "NOT what discrimination means." --Dr.enh (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You are repeating arguments that I have already responded to, and asking questions that I have already answered. Once again, you are being acting with a complete lack of good faith and civility. The PAIRS are being categorized. No INDIVIDUAL is denied a marriage license based on their sexual orientation.

Statements that you should read again (Dr.enh's comments in italics):

For instance, anti-sodomy laws, which target people not on some abstract notion of belonging to a group, but on individual actions, would not be discrimination [according to your definition].

True if the anti-sodomy law applies equally to opposite-sex and same-sex sodomy, but not relevant to this talk page on heterosexism.

True regardless of whether it applies to opposite-sex sodomy, and relevant to this talk page because it shows the inconsistency in your position.

Simply recognizing that a majority of people have a particular characteristic, and creating institutions that take advantage of that characteristic, does not satisfy either the actual definition of "discrimination" or the one you have presented. I should have included "disparate impact" on my list of concepts that are lumped together, as you seem to not understand the difference between that and discrimination.

False. That is the definition of discrimination.

Yet more hypocrisy, making such a statement after accusing me of the bare assertion fallacy.

But clearly two straight people of the same sex cannot get married, while two homosexuals of the opposite sex can, hence it obviously the relationship, and not the individuals, that are discriminated against

The couple either receives a marriage license or does not. Thus, it is the couple (not an individual and not a relationship) that is discriminated against.

The fight is over the recognition given to particular relationships. Either a particular relationship is called a "marriage", or it is not. It is the relationships that are receiving differing treatment.

According to m-w, "to discriminate" means "to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminate .

Not the relevant definition. This article is about treatment of people, not perception of people.

Your response is both false and irrelevant. The perception of people is clearly within the purview of this article, and even if it weren't, that wouldn't establish that this is not the relevant definition. You are engaging in circular reasoning; you are saying that it is legitimate to refer to everything as "discrimination", and then claiming that all definitions of "discrimination" that do not admit such a categorization should be discarded. This is fallacious and narcissistic reasoning; you are saying that anything that disagrees with you should be ignored.

You have not explained how prohibition of SSM is discrimination against people, or at all acknowledged my argument to the contrary. You have not explained how prohibition of SSM is not discrimination against relationships. You have not responded to my pointing out that your proposed definition of "discrimination" is nonsensical.

I have not responded to your irrelevant statements. I have not proposed any definitions; thus, your accusation of "nonsensical" is also irrelevant.

More narcissism. Anything that disagrees with your point of view is dismissed as "irrelevant". You quite clearly have presented a definition, so unless you are attempting some sort of quibble over the term "proposed" (again, revealing a narcissistic attitude, this time of "I'm not proposing that this is the correct definition, I'm telling you that it is the correct definition"), you flat-out lied.

You say "same-sex pairs of people of legal age who ask for a marriage license are always refused". Exactly my point. Pairs are refused. Yes, the pairs are made up of people, but the people are not prohibited from getting married, the pair is.

On that we can agree. Pairs of people, not individual people, and not relationships.

They are differentiated on the basis of what sort of relationship they have. But if this is as far as we've gotten, I'll change it to that for now.

Do you have an actual argument, or are you going to just repeat the same bullshit in section after section of the talk page?Heqwm2 (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am repeating myself because you are repeating yourself.--Dr.enh (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm repeating myself because you are repeating yourself. You created an entire section, of which your first entry was nothing but "points" that I had already responded to.Heqwm2 (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Language! - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Same-sex Pairings

"Same-sex pairings" is redundant, and should be removed. Unless someone can find a reliably sourced instance of two straight women or two straight men who applied for a marriage license and were denied. -Dr.enh (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not waste anymore time as "same-sex pairings" is ridiculous: harrassing women's doubles tennis? discrimination against Sherlock Holmes and Watson? Come on, the issue is linguistically and semantically inconsequential. --CJ Withers (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop wasting time on the talk page with utter bullshit. Either you are completely ignorant of what the word "redundant" means, or you are deliberately making nonsensical statements. I don't think that it's too much to ask that you treat me and this talk page with respect, nor do I think that is reasonable to ask as a condition for my participation at this website that I put up with utter garbage masquerading as "discussion". You STILL have yet to make any reasonable attempt to respond to my points, and seem to have adopted a pattern of simply starting a new section on the talk page every once in a while in a pathetic attempt to distract from that fact. This is now four sections that you've played your little obfuscatory games in. And the burden of proof is not on me, but on you.

Furthermore, do you really believe that if a same-sex couple were to apply for a marriage license, they would receive it if they could establish that they are heterosexual? No, I don't believe you do. You are clearly making a completely bad-faith argument in yet another of your attempts to avoid having a reasonable discussion of the issue. Heqwm2 (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Language! - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ego-dystonic

I've just removed the link to ego-dystonic sexual orientation because it is a tangent and thus does not belong in the lead of this article. Nonetheless, it would be interesting if the previously removed material on straight-acting LGB people, passing, etc. were combined with the ego-dystonic info as related to heterosexism. Otherwise, the info can be incorporated into the coming out article under the identity issues section. --CJ Withers (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop Murder Music

The article is Stop Murder Music, Murder Music is a redirect to music, so reverting me to revert to this incorrect redirect is strange. I expect no repeat. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 13:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Equal rights

We do not need to use the slippery term equal rights in the article. Removing the term does not harm understanding. Including the term is POV pushing, something that we should always avoid, especially in an article that may already be considered controversial.

We can not even link the term equal rights without a redirect through Civil and political rights-- where there is no mention of gay or LGBT rights. Better to lose this politically charged term and let the definitions speak for themselves. I will restore awaiting consensus.--Knulclunk (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC

Good call. Social equality + equality before the law are more precise. I've made an edit to include legal and social equality to avoid "equal rights". --CJ Withers (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Civil and political rights explicitly mentions "sexual orientation". AV3000 (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

AV3000--> You are correct. I think CJ Withers new language does the job, though. Thanks!--Knulclunk (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree

It`s so easy to see that this article was made by a gay, so just use neutral language don`t talk about your gay proud and those things, just give the information in a neutral point. A cold point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.240.190.92 (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It could just as well be that the article was written by several people, who aren't necessarily homosexual but simply are broad-minded enough to see that discrimination and marginalization of any members in a society is wrong and causes suffering (not only to those individuals, but to their families, friends and others). The belief that any discrimination is wrong is far more prevalent in mainstream society than you seem to assume; however, for many reasons the system, both legal and social, is severely lagging. An article about discrimination against homosexuals needn't be written by a homosexual, anymore than an article against racism must be written by a non-white person. As far as neutrality, I see a lot of information based on studies and political/social realities, including a lot more references than most wikipedia articles. The article includes common arguments in defense of heterosexism; however, that such arguments are easily refuted by science and reason is not the fault of the writer(s). The tone of the article is not proud. An oppressed minority must have some sense of pride in order to assert itself in spite of the status quo of oppression. This was the case for the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s, and of any minority group of people that "imposes" on society their right to be treated as humans. However, I don't see anything in this article that could be written off as "gay pride" rhetoric, as you seem to believe (yet you don't bother to give any concrete examples, which is rather unhelpful as far as supporting your statement). 168.103.196.53 (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Queer Theory

I've just removed from the lede an extra mention to Queer Theory (QT). This addition was unjustified in the lede for several reasons (in addition to simplicity and readability's sake):

1. "Heterosexism" is also used in the field of sociology.
2. The mention was an unsupported statement that cannot be proved, e.g. "primarily used".
3. The use of "heterosexism" predates QT.
4. The lede had been reworked several times and there was a long-standing consensus as to what it should and should not include.
5. Even if the term is indeed used by some QTheorists, "heteronormativity" is the term in vogue.

Yes, this article should be certainly include a discussion of the ideological specificity of this term, and how it is partisan towards the homosexual agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.225.49 (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it would definitely enrich the article if someone were to write a small section on the 5Ws pertaining to the use "heterosexism" by specific QTheorists with examples and references. --CJ Withers (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Lede - "against..."

In reference to the edit that included "against same-sex sexualities and relationships", there are several problems which justify the removal of the words:

1. In the lede, the issue of "against" was resolved a long time ago.
2. The original text is a reference. The new text was not a part of the reference.
3. The notion of "against" is covered by the next few lines and supported by quoted definitions.
4. Logically, "superiority" covers "against" as there is a comparison.
5. Logically, in heterosexism, same-sex sexuality and relationships do not really exist or don't count, hence one cannot be against them. --CJ Withers (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Marriage and Immigration Restrictions

The article lacks any mention of one important area where homosexual couples are blatantly treated as second-class citizens. For heterosexual couples from different countries, marriage provides the opportunity for spouses to live together, and for the immigrating spouse to gain citizenship. This right is denied to homosexuals couples in nearly every country, even in some where same-sex marriages or civil unions are legal. While some Americans states have legalized same-sex unions or marriages, due to federal immigration laws, the opportunity for immigration which is generally granted to legitimate married heterosexual couples, is denied to all same-sex couples. Compare with less heterosexist countries such as Sweden, where for many years, the foreign romantic partner of a Swedish resident of either sexuality has been allowed to immigrate, even without the formal requirement of marriage or a civil-partnership. Especially in this era of globalization, international relationships are increasingly common. The fact that such relationships among married heterosexual couples are supported by many legal systems, while such same-sex relationships are made extremely difficult or often impossible (even in certain places where homosexuals are allowed to marry), is a perfect example of government-supported heterosexism that is unnecessary and unjust. It severely restricts rights to liberty and happiness. Matikainen (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"much lesser known terms"[sic]

It seems to me that heterosexism is actually less known than heteronormativity. Not sure who is making these judgements, and on what basis... AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This word is debatable.

I would like to add that one cannot call it heterosexism without defining homosexism. I feel like the definitions have some issues and this is just a political word rather than some intellectually formed English word. Also, most states are STILL against homosexual marriage. One also needs to remember that the way the electoral college works, it doesn't go by population or otherwise the large states would always win. So, I still say this word is utterly useless and is just an attention seeker word from homosexuals 'playing the victim.' The term seems fairly closed-minded and pejorative. One cannot say one exists without the existence of another. Looks like more of a word of hatred of heterosexual couples in my opinion rather than a word. Just call it sexism for crying out loud. It is just as bad as the word 'heteronormativity' being pulled out of someones butt, in which it is unarguably true that heterosexuality is the norm, otherwise homosexuals would not be here. Oh, and to those who disagree, just remember we did not always have artificial insemination or possibly even sperm donations (Considering the cells die quickly)in the stone ages nor part of the middle ages. Also, one cannot artificial insemination that can cost up to $3000 dollars, which means that they would have to reproduce with the opposite sex to have this many people on the planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎DarkGuardianVII (talk • contribs) 07:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

What in the world are you on about? Do you have any suggestion for improving the article? Happy holidays, anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 08:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"...in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships"

That is not how the definitions from reliable sources such as Marriam Webster define it. This article is focused on demonizing rather than setting an unbiased view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII (talk • contribs) 21:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Heterosexism vs. homophobia wording

[quote]Heterosexism, however, denotes the "system of ideological thought that makes heterosexuality the sole norm to follow for sexual practices[/quote]

So... heterosexism denotes fact? I don't understand. Heterosexuality is the sole norm to follow for sexual practices. From Merriam Webster, norm: "a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group." With ~80-90% of the human population subscribing to heterosexuality, heterosexuality is the sole norm to follow for sexual practices. That is a fact and can't be disputed.

Not to mention the fact that the link referenced is in French and therefore cannot be quoted in English without the original French plainly displayed.

If someone doesn't change this soon then I'll just remove the whole thing.

I agree that we should be citing an English language definition, rather than French. Can someone find a better reference. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I third that the wordiness of it is weird, and wish I could give a better definition of it. The best way to explain it is that Heterosexism is more broad that simply Homophobia. Homophobia is simply the idea of fearing Gay men and Lesbian women because the person is afraid of something that is different, Which is essentially the same as having a phobia of people of color. Both exist but in different contexts. However, Racism and the act of it is more systematic, and the same can be said for Heterosexism. Heterosexism manifests itself, as stated, in dialogue as well as internally in societal oppression, such as men being told they cannot be effeminate in anyway and women not being encouraged to act like men, and even when they do, they aren't embraced for defying gender roles but are lauded and laughed at for trying to have masculine traits. I would even go onto suggest that Heterosexism effects gay men and women as WELL as Straight people and that in fact, in having these rules in place in society, we are doing ourselves an even bigger injustice as no one really wins.

Anyway, that's the best way I can put it. --108.41.40.42 (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

When we call astigmatism a disability it is fine. Since when is merely stating that disability is disability some sort of discrimination? Ворот93 (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the lead wording to reflect that. Ворот93 (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a single reliable source that supports such a preposterous idea, we can discuss it. Otherwise, please don't waste everyone's time. Rivertorch (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

[3] Oh, there you go. But it's OK, loud homosexual minority on Wikipedia and elsewhere is so loud. Ворот93 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I said reliable source, not op-ed piece. You're edit warring. Rivertorch (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That is reliable source. And I am adding more now. Ворот93 (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The content that you have repeatedly added is poorly worded, non-neutral and the source that you shoehorned in is one person's non-notable opinion. It has no place in an encyclopedia article. - MrX 21:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, your opinion is more valuable... or not? Define neutral by the way. Ворот93 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral: "It can include the presumption...that opposite-sex attractions and relationships are the only norm." (specifically, the word presumption renders the sentence neutral.)

Non-neutral: "It can include the fact that opposite-sex attractions and relationships are the only norm." (no authority that has established this statement as fact; it remains in the realm of opinion, and a particularly non-neutral one.) - MrX 22:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"It can include the presumption that..." this one implies that it is not true and a myth. This formulation is faulty. Ворот93 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that Ворот93 has added some "sources". The problem is that sources don't support what he's trying to say. First source is opinion piece from Daily Telegraph and can't be used for statements of fact. The second source doesn't support his wording. It says that heterosexuality is a norm, but not *only* norm. I suggest that we end this charade and restore longstanding neutral wording. This is encyclopedia, not Russian regime's site.--В и к и T 22:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, both sources support my wording. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, not a homosexual recruitment centre. Ворот93 (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

First Known Use of the Term

The first paragraph reference to the Merriam Webster Dictionary will, if looked up, show that the Merriam Webster notes 1972 as the "First Known Use of Heterosexism." There is an earlier use by gay rights activist, Craig Rodwell, in a publication that he wrote editorials for several years during the early 1970's, QQ Magazine. In its January/February 1971 issue, he writes in the second graph of the edit on page 5:

"After a few years of this kind of 'liberated' existence such people become oblivious and completely unseeing of straight predjudice and - to coin a phrase - the 'hetero-sexism' surrounding them virtually 24 hours a day."--Stnwll (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

interesting 38.108.87.20 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there an opposite term, an antonym?

In defining a term, it is often helpful to show the antonym. Is there a word that would be understood as being opposite to "heterosexism"? Pete unseth (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204061410/http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/homophobia to http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/homophobia
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091224142614/http://gbge.aclu.org/schools/free-speech-free-expression-and-prom to http://gbge.aclu.org/schools/free-speech-free-expression-and-prom

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Not neutral

According to the text, this: "The institution of opposite-sex marriage and reserving the right to marry strictly for opposite-sex couples via explicit definitions... is DISCRIMINATORY.

We should not forget that the institution of marriage is a polemic issue. Thus, it is open to discussion. Wikipedia's purpose is to bring accurate and objective facts, not opinions. Classifying "The institution of opposite-sex marriage" as discriminatory is not objective nor accurate. Let's be polite and responsible and avoid biased comments, because Wikipedia is not a forum. Thank you --Commander Aletheia (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It occurs to me that there are several ways to respond to this post. One would be to point out that there's no such thing as an accurate fact. Another would be to note that you're wrong about Wikipedia's purpose, which includes presenting a range of noteworthy opinions on various topics. And another would be to note that the content you're objecting to is reliably sourced—a detail that doesn't necessarily negate what you've said but certainly would need to be addressed before taking your argument seriously. Yet another would be to ask who you're a sockpuppet of, since instances of brand-new editors quoting policy and getting piped links right on their first try occur with roughly the same frequency as hens' teeth. (AGF is not a suicide pact, but you know that, right?) Here's the way I'll choose to respond:

That an issue is still polemical in some quarters doesn't mean that it doesn't involve discrimination. Sad to say, many forms of discrimination are demonstrably extant in the world; sadder still, there is no lack of people who choose to continue to defend them. Sometimes such people couch those defenses in neutral-sounding language, but their agenda still shows through. I will concede that the wording here might be tweaked to better differentiate the "institution of opposite-sex marriage" from efforts to prevent non-heterosexual persons from enjoying the advantages that the institution of marriage itself can confer. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)