A whole lot of isms, but mostly heterosexism.

[strange_tomato]

Given that this Sunday, May 17, is the International Day Against Homophobia, it's interesting that I was recently called out for being heterosexist. To my face, by a lesbian. I was pretty embarrassed. (Not that it would be any better to have this pointed out in another way, but I felt pretty careless.)

Comments

Long reply is long

[ikichi]

"Heterosexism" is a curious thing- even by having the word exist is a form of it; it's still implying (or flat out saying) that heterosexuality is the "norm, even though a "norm" in sexuality is a laughable concept at best. ("Heteronormative" is another concept that irks me to no end: if you're raised with the expectation that you'll fall in love and marry, why is it *hetero* normaltive if you marry a person of the same (or trans) gender? It's just f-ing normalitive, isn't it?! [granted, this is the same thing that pisses me off about "white trash"- it implies that the same behaviours are acceptable and expected in other races, but how dare a white person sink so low

Re: Long reply is long

[wtsims]

The thing about the term normal is that it doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means, at least in this context. Normal means usual. Some people have this connotation that it means 'good and right', but that's an interpretation I personally am trying to dissuade people I know from. Unusual is not bad. It's just different.

Other things that are not normal: genius+ IQs, extreme height, AB- blood. Nothing wrong with any of those things, but they do all fall outside the norm. I know precisely one person with AB- blood (that I know of). He's not normal in that regard; he is quite unusual. I know someone who has an IQ over 180; he is not normal in that regard. I know someone who is 7'1". He is not normal, except perhaps in a group of basketball players. (He does not, btw, play basketball.)

Re: Long reply is long

[ikichi]

You're right, it does mean usual. But in cases of gender and sexuality (and man, do I hate having to use the term "sexuality") we as a species have no real idea what usual is and isn't. We only know what's usual in the context of the societies we've formed, that sometimes- I'm not saying always- retrains behaviors into what they find more acceptable. How different would our concept of normalcy be if the concept of "no sex expect for procreation" had never existed? How many cultures acknowledge more than 2 genders?

Your "abnormal" examples are better than most because there is a non-arbitrary constant to measure them against. This is harder if not impossible to do with socialisms (let's pretend it's a word, because I can't think of the real one); you can't "force" a culture to be 7'1" (without eugenics), you *can* pressure/force a culture to "be" straight.

Re: Long reply is long

[wtsims]

IQ is pretty arbitrary, too, IMO, but that's a different argument.

My point stands, however. It doesn't really matter why the norm is currently heterosexuality... social, biological, some mix of the two, whatever the reasons are. It's still the norm at this time, because that's measured on observation, not cause. You could argue that self-reporting may be somewhat unreliable but it's the only way to measure something like this, and based on those standards, a large majority of people identify as heterosexual... hence, the norm

Re: Long reply is long

[ikichi]

Ah, gotcha.

(And with regards to your marriage example, average ages changes on location. It's common to still live with roommates in your 30's in the NYC metro area, and of my friends, I've only had 1 marry before 30.)