Forum

Last edited by Mojave on Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

Most people outside the LGBTQ+ community do consider the term "heteronormative" to be derogatory, because that's how it's most commonly used. If you usually use something as an epithet, you don't suddenly get to claim that it's not when you're called out for using it. Yes, there is an academic use of the term, and I'm well-acquainted with it. That's not the usage the term has had in the several instances on the site though. The academic usage of the term would have only come into play if the show presented non-heterosexual pilots that could do the job just as well but weren't allowed to because of rampant discrimination, and society in the show's world agreed that things should be that way. The way it was used here and in previews is to basically call out the writing for not presenting gay couples, as if they must be included or else it's erasure. That is inherently insulting and derogatory. ANN, listen to your readers. You outlawed the ess-jay-dub term on here because you consider it to be an insult. Heteronormative is far more derogatory than that term, so please be consistent and stop using it.

My previous post was the last on the page, so it may have been missed. Let's not continue this line, guys. The discussion has run its course. For my description of the problem, let me quote part of the previous post:

The problem here is that everyone's arguing in a loop about a counterfactual, rather than anything that's actually about the show itself and what it's doing. And that's what bothers me about this kind of thing in general; that these kind of complaints drag the discussion into being about themselves rather than what's actually going on.

Let's not go there.

Last edited by ANN_Lynzee on Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:49 pm; edited 1 time in total

Simplo wrote:

octopodpie wrote:

No, actually, that's a pretty weird goalpost to move. People are talking about other sexuality in regards to this show specifically because this show's entire foundation is BUILT around sex.

If we changed the entire premise of the show to center around able-bodies and all the metaphors were in regards to that, then yes, it would pose the question of "what about people born with or who develop disabilities?"

I know you're trying to pull a "Actually, you're a hypocrite because I just created an entire other concept and it works to poke a hole in your statement" on me but, no.

So, you got me on the disabled part and conveniently ignored how the show (and ANN writers) ignores transgender sexuality / asexuality. Wonder if I ever gonna become this good at verbal gymnastics.

Transgender isn't a sexuality, it's a gender identity. A transgender person could be gay, straight, bi, asexual, etc. Most people consider transgender identity and asexual as falling under the LGBT+ umbrella and those types of characters would be entirely inline with my original point of inclusion in the show's themes. I didn't "forget them," they're also applicable.

Simplo wrote:

octopodpie wrote:

No, actually, that's a pretty weird goalpost to move. People are talking about other sexuality in regards to this show specifically because this show's entire foundation is BUILT around sex.

If we changed the entire premise of the show to center around able-bodies and all the metaphors were in regards to that, then yes, it would pose the question of "what about people born with or who develop disabilities?"

I know you're trying to pull a "Actually, you're a hypocrite because I just created an entire other concept and it works to poke a hole in your statement" on me but, no.

So, you got me on the disabled part and conveniently ignored how the show (and ANN writers) ignores transgender sexuality / asexuality. Wonder if I ever gonna become this good at verbal gymnastics.

\

Literally your first post in this thread was complaining how even a single queer person would be "over representation", and now you're scolding the ANN writers for not being inclusive enough. I'd say you're already pretty good at verbal gymnastics.

Also, being transgender is a completely different thing than being gay/lesbian/etc, and the term "heteronormative" doesn't just mean "not gay", but also relates to the erasure of asexual people. But as noted above, you're not arguing in good faith here.

Mojave wrote:

Most people outside the LGBTQ+ community do consider the term "heteronormative" to be derogatory, because that's how it's most commonly used. If you usually use something as an epithet, you don't suddenly get to claim that it's not when you're called out for using it. Yes, there is an academic use of the term, and I'm well-acquainted with it. That's not the usage the term has had in the several instances on the site though.

The meaning of the term has nothing to do with whether people consider "heteronormativity" to be derogatory, or with whether it's been treated as a good or bad thing by individuals on this site. The word describes a phenomenon - if you feel like it's derogatory then that's a description of your relationship with the concept, not of the concept's content.

Mojave wrote:

That is inherently insulting and derogatory. ANN, listen to your readers. You outlawed the ess-jay-dub term on here because you consider it to be an insult. Heteronormative is far more derogatory than that term, so please be consistent and stop using it.

Neither you nor any other individual speaks for "ANN's readers".

Galap wrote:

To me it would be a bit like criticizing it for, say, not being about the people who design the FranXX robots... I mean, if you feel that way that's OK but do you see how that's kind of a non-starter in terms of discussion?

While I understand the point you're trying to make here, I disagree with this comparison because the show is explicitly about sexuality - and more specifically about the conflict between individual sexual expression and the rigid roles and expectations of the society one is raised in. (For the sake of expediency I'll just say my reading of FranXX so far is more or less in line with Agent355's interpretation.) And that particular conflict is one that happens all the time, in real life, to queer people - to the point that I think ignoring that aspect (be it through oversight or active decision) would be a pretty big flaw in the show's articulation of its message.

Now, part of the roadblock this discussion's run into is that fact that FranXX is only 1/8 of the way through its episode count, and the way it's kept its cards close to the chest leaves a lot of room for conjecture as to how the show will play out. So instead I'll use an example of a show that has, at least in animated form, run its course.

Love & Lies from last summer was a show about teenagers living in an alternate history where, purportedly to combat population decline, a law was passed that would assign citizens a marriage partner at age 16. While this assignment can be refused by one or both parties, it's established that doing so results in some pretty concrete social discrimination - potentially losing eligibility for higher education, employment, housing and more. That particular situation is also one that literally, actually happens in real life to queer people, and thus begs the question of how queer people would exist in a society where heterosexual marriage/procreation is all but totally enforced.

The show itself does attempt to address that with Nishikata, the main character's best friend who is also in love with him and spends the entire TV series quietly pining for him. But outside of Nishikata being a jerk to the MC's crush and assigned marriage partner, L&L never actively grapples with how he feels about living under such a law. It never brings up how he feels about the idea of being coerced into marrying and making a family with somebody he isn't sexually attracted to. And that's a pretty glaring bit of unexplored territory that implies the creators either weren't interested or didn't care about that aspect of their own story.

Now, for the record, I think Franxx will explore the occurrence of a gay or ace pilot with its cast (My money atm is either on Mitsuru's partner or Gouto) and my hesitance is more trepidation about whether the series can thoughtfully articulate that perspective rather than just playing into tired Tragic Gay tropes. But I also 100% understand why viewers, especially queer viewers, would have little patience for a series that so far has been focused on the perspective and concerns of a cishet guy.

Last edited by Mojave on Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:13 pm; edited 1 time in total

鏡 wrote:

Mojave wrote:

Most people outside the LGBTQ+ community do consider the term "heteronormative" to be derogatory, because that's how it's most commonly used. If you usually use something as an epithet, you don't suddenly get to claim that it's not when you're called out for using it. Yes, there is an academic use of the term, and I'm well-acquainted with it. That's not the usage the term has had in the several instances on the site though.

The meaning of the term has nothing to do with whether people consider "heteronormativity" to be derogatory, or with whether it's been treated as a good or bad thing by individuals on this site. The word describes a phenomenon - if you feel like it's derogatory then that's a description of your relationship with the concept, not of the concept's content.

Mojave wrote:

That is inherently insulting and derogatory. ANN, listen to your readers. You outlawed the ess-jay-dub term on here because you consider it to be an insult. Heteronormative is far more derogatory than that term, so please be consistent and stop using it.

Neither you nor any other individual speaks for "ANN's readers".

The term hasn't actually been correctly used to describe the phenomenon it's meant to in its usage on the site. The phenomenon it refers to is a society actively shunning all forms of sexuality other then heterosexuality and discriminating against all those who fall outside of it. So if you use it outside of that correct usage, you're most likely using it as an epithet to disparage not focusing on gay relationships or not including them even when there's no reason to. Which makes your usage of it derogatory. It doesn't matter whether you specifically are fine with it because of your obvious far-left political leanings, it is being used in a derogatory manner on this site, and that's not okay.

As far as not speaking for all readers, often when readers complain on here that a term is offensive to a specific group, the offending article is changed and an apology is made. There was an article on here last year about Berserk originally titled "Griffith did Nothing Wrong" that was changed after one reader complained that it enabled rape culture. So if multiple readers are earnestly saying here that heteronormative is a derogatory term, then ANN would be hypocrites if they allowed it to continue being used. I don't think ANN necessarily meant to be, I think there's just a bit of a political echo chamber amongst them that made it difficult to realize that this was inappropriate and insulting.

Mad_Scientist wrote:

If by "statistically unlikely" you mean by your own math there's a 48% chance one of them is LGBT, well yeah. And if you consider the characters other than the teens, it's "statistically likely" that at least one character on the show is LGBT.

Well, except all this is really meaningless, because people who create characters for a show like this don't get out a spreadsheet and then design everything character according to math results. They make the characters that they want to use to tell a story.

And the writers of Darling in the Franx wanted to tell a story about sex. And they (maybe, we'll see what) decided to tell a story about sex that excludes anyone not straight. That doesn't mean it can't still be a GOOD story about sex. But it does make the show possibly a bit... what's the word... I'm looking for it, it's on the tip of my brain. Oh right, heteronormative, that was the word.

48% in a situation where a result is either 1 (gay) or 0 (not gay) rounds to 0. You basically said that after 12 tries at a random chance, the result is still likely to be negative, don't understand your point here. Other characters are irrelevant, because we could say that one of the masked dudes in the audience were gay. Overall, doesn't matter to the narrative.

Moving to your main point, you just said that heteronormative stories can be good. If that is the case what is the problem? I don't ask kyoani to make Free more sexually appealing to me as Straight White Cis Dude ™ and I don't criticise shoujo/shounen ai stories for not including more straight material. Why do heteronormative stories have to be ''fixed''?

Mojave wrote:

The phenomenon it refers to is a society actively shunning all forms of sexuality other then heterosexuality and discriminating against all those who fall outside of it. So if you use it outside of that correct usage, you're most likely using it as an epithet to disparage not focusing on gay relationships or including them even when there's no reason to. Which makes your usage of it derogatory.

That is not what heteronormativity means, and if it was, it would not follow that using it otherwise is necessarily derogatory.

Mojave wrote:

As far as not speaking for all readers, often when readers complain on here that a term is offensive to a specific group, the offending article is changed and an apology is made. There was an article on here last year about Berserk originally titled "Griffith did Nothing Wrong" that was changed after one reader complained that it enabled rape culture. So if multiple readers are earnestly saying here that heteronormative is a derogatory term, then ANN would be hypocrites if they allowed it to continue being used. I don't think ANN necessarily meant to be, I think there's just a bit of a political echo chamber amongst them that made it difficult to realize that this was inappropriate and insulting.

Regardless of whether ANN takes your claim seriously, your views don't represent the views of "ANN's readers" generally. Asking ANN to "listen to their readers" where "readers" denotes yourself and the individuals who share your views is a misuse of the term.

Mad_Scientist wrote:

Simplo wrote:

octopodpie wrote:

No, actually, that's a pretty weird goalpost to move. People are talking about other sexuality in regards to this show specifically because this show's entire foundation is BUILT around sex.

If we changed the entire premise of the show to center around able-bodies and all the metaphors were in regards to that, then yes, it would pose the question of "what about people born with or who develop disabilities?"

I know you're trying to pull a "Actually, you're a hypocrite because I just created an entire other concept and it works to poke a hole in your statement" on me but, no.

So, you got me on the disabled part and conveniently ignored how the show (and ANN writers) ignores transgender sexuality / asexuality. Wonder if I ever gonna become this good at verbal gymnastics.

\

Literally your first post in this thread was complaining how even a single queer person would be "over representation", and now you're scolding the ANN writers for not being inclusive enough. I'd say you're already pretty good at verbal gymnastics.

Also, being transgender is a completely different thing than being gay/lesbian/etc, and the term "heteronormative" doesn't just mean "not gay", but also relates to the erasure of asexual people. But as noted above, you're not arguing in good faith here.

I have not complained, rather 'statistically proven' would be the correct term while your statistical example was exploding the sample size to the whole USA population to make the percentage seem bigger. I did not scold writers on non-inclusivity, rather poked holes at how their inclusivity is focused solely on homosexuality.

Touché on the last paragraph, though.

鏡 wrote:

Mojave wrote:

The phenomenon it refers to is a society actively shunning all forms of sexuality other then heterosexuality and discriminating against all those who fall outside of it. So if you use it outside of that correct usage, you're most likely using it as an epithet to disparage not focusing on gay relationships or including them even when there's no reason to. Which makes your usage of it derogatory.

That is not what heteronormativity means, and if it was, it would not follow that using it otherwise is necessarily derogatory.

Mojave wrote:

As far as not speaking for all readers, often when readers complain on here that a term is offensive to a specific group, the offending article is changed and an apology is made. There was an article on here last year about Berserk originally titled "Griffith did Nothing Wrong" that was changed after one reader complained that it enabled rape culture. So if multiple readers are earnestly saying here that heteronormative is a derogatory term, then ANN would be hypocrites if they allowed it to continue being used. I don't think ANN necessarily meant to be, I think there's just a bit of a political echo chamber amongst them that made it difficult to realize that this was inappropriate and insulting.

Regardless of whether ANN takes your claim seriously, your views don't represent the views of "ANN's readers" generally. Asking ANN to "listen to their readers" where "readers" denotes yourself and the individuals who share your views is a misuse of the term.

That is exactly what the academic usage of the term means. The reason why it's derogatory to use it outside of that context is because it's calling something problematic. If you are calling simply not focusing on non-heterosexual couples problematic, then you are inherently saying that gay people mean more and are more important. And that's incredibly insulting and derogatory. It doesn't matter if you disagree, that's the connotation it has for the majority of heterosexual people. So it's objectively unacceptable to use it in this context. Many heterosexual people have also had the experience of having the term thrown at us accompanied by more blatant epithets, so yes, it's not okay to use the term here. You can disagree all you want, just like a white supremacist can disagree that there's anything wrong with calling black people the n-word. You're both wrong though, and being bigots in doing so.

Last edited by Liuwdere on Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

So I'm probably shouting into the void here, but here's what we mean by "heteronormativity" since nobody here can seem to agree on its definition:

"Heteronormative" doesn't mean heterosexuality is bad. It refers to gender dynamics based on a model of heterosexual relationships where the man is expected to be the dominant figure in the relationship, and the woman the submissive one. These roles dictate how they interact with everyone: guys are supposed to be aggressive, while girls should be meek and subservient. Now there isn't anything inherently wrong with men who happen to be assertive or women who happen to be patient; the problem is that these models of behavior are accepted as the ideal, with no room for people who don't perfectly fit those boxes. When we criticize heteronormativity, we're questioning the assumption that everyone has to act the part they would fill in this one type of heterosexual partnership. People come in more shapes and sizes than just two personality types, so expecting everyone to be one or the other is seriously limiting.

Heteronormativity is also the reason you get the stereotype that marriage is miserable for guys because their wives chain them down. Being committed long-term with a partner means a guy can't exercise power willy-nilly, so it's seen as emasculating. But it doesn't have to be that way! It's unfair to expect every single man ever to constantly assert himself to prove his worth, and if you do, well, that's a damn shame. If you have a problem with criticisms of heteronormativity, what you're really defending is the expectation that men take charge in a relationship. Heterosexuality (i.e. attraction to the opposite sex) doesn't imply maintaining those power dynamics. If you think one is synonymous with the other, then buddy, sucks for you to be constantly stanning a dynamic that doesn't work for everyone.

For the record, "heteronormative" can also apply to queer relationships: in the absence of both a male and female partner, the temptation is to assign those roles to whomoever's there. So like, that's why in fiction you so often see the BL seme/uke dynamic, butch/femme lesbians, "feudal lord and handmaiden." There isn't anything inherently wrong with emulating that dynamic; again, the problem is that it's presented as the only acceptable option, all alternatives conveniently forgotten about.

Of course, you might see that ol' antiquated alpha male harem dynamic as a good thing, in which case I'm sure as hell not convincing ya otherwise.

And by the way, I do think straights are dreadfully boring - but the criticism for that is "heterosexism," the rejection of all non-hetero sexualities. Not "heteronormative." Anyway, Aquarion EVOL is one of my favorite shows ever despite its huge blind spot re: non-cishet identities. It's really not that hard to accept that things you like might be flawed, y'all should try it sometime.

Edit: Ultimately, though, I don't think coming-of-age stories about straight boys need to be fixed to cater to me. I just personally find them exceedingly tired and wish these things would branch out more. It'd make for less stale storytelling, is all.

Mojave wrote:

That is exactly what the academic usage of the term means.

It's uh, not.

Mojave wrote:

The reason why it's derogatory to use it outside of that context is because it's calling something problematic. If you are calling simply not focusing on non-heterosexual couples problematic, then you are inherently saying that gay people mean more and are more important.

Using it "outside of that context" indicates nothing about how it's being used other than "not in that context".

Mojave wrote:

You can disagree all you want, just like a white supremacist can disagree that there's anything wrong with calling black people the n-word. You're both wrong though, and being bigots in doing so.

You're saying that the n-word and heteronormative are similar insofar as they are both derogatory to different groups?

Editor's note: I am dedicating this post to satan and the concept of heteronormativity as used in anime reviews and their talkback threads.

Last edited by Galap on Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:50 pm; edited 1 time in total

edit: reposted on new page.

Last edited by Mojave on Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:49 pm; edited 1 time in total

鏡 wrote:

Mojave wrote:

That is exactly what the academic usage of the term means.

It's uh, not.

Mojave wrote:

The reason why it's derogatory to use it outside of that context is because it's calling something problematic. If you are calling simply not focusing on non-heterosexual couples problematic, then you are inherently saying that gay people mean more and are more important.

Using it "outside of that context" indicates nothing about how it's being used other than "not in that context".

Mojave wrote:

You can disagree all you want, just like a white supremacist can disagree that there's anything wrong with calling black people the n-word. You're both wrong though, and being bigots in doing so.

You're saying that the n-word and heteronormative are similar insofar as they are both derogatory to different groups?

Editor's note: I am dedicating this post to satan and the concept of heteronormativity as used in anime reviews and their talkback threads.

As someone who has used the term academically, that is what it means. The concept outlined in detail by the user above you is "strict adherence to traditional gender roles," not heteronormativity. Additonally, the term has been used on the site solely to criticize works and call them problematic, so this incorrect usage is certainly derogatory in that inherently makes value judgments against heterosexual relationships. And yes, I'm saying that using the n-word and heteronormative (outside of its correct academic usage) are similar insofar as they are both derogatory to different groups. I'm not trying to establish nay comparisons between the severity of the terms or the difficulties faced by those having these epithets hurled at them. There is clearly a large enough amount of readers on the site that have stated that heteronormative as it has been used on the site is a derogatory term, for ANN to stop using the term based on how they have treated other terms deemed derogatory by a group of readers in the past.

EDIT: Sorry Galap, didn't see your post ending this discussion until after I had already posted this.

Forum - View topic
This Week in Anime - DARLING in the FRANXX Has Only One Thing on its Mind

Yuri!!! on Ice: Ice Adolescence Film Canceled

Frieren: Beyond Journey's End Series Gets Escape Room Set in Dream World

The ANN Aftershow - What Anime Should You Watch Part 2 (Spring 2024)

Classroom of the Elite Season 3 Anime Series Review

This Week in Games - Nintendo Indies Showcase 2024

The Best Weapons in BLUELOCK to Build The Perfect Team

INTERVIEW: Small-Town Horror Comes to Life in Masaaki Ninomiya's GANNIBAL Manga

At 25:00 in Akasaka BL Drama Cast Discuss Kiss Scene, Personal Hobbies at Live Event

This Week in Anime - Are This Season's Isekai Anime Any Good?

The Spring 2024 Anime Preview Guide

Fans Say Farewell to Yokohama's Life-Size Moving Gundam

This Week in Anime - What Do You Do When Your Fav Anime Isn't Simulcast?

Ragna Crimson Manga Volume 11 Review

Forum - View topicThis Week in Anime - DARLING in the FRANXX Has Only One Thing on its Mind

Forum

Forum - View topic
This Week in Anime - DARLING in the FRANXX Has Only One Thing on its Mind