[HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all.

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 178180

Magpie:
   > And this world is so conservative and heteronormative

CJ:
  > "Heteronormative" ? Hiding silly arguments behind faux
  > erudition doesn't make them less silly.

Magpie:
 > if that's a word I hear used a lot and you don't, but I didn't
 > put it in to be faux erudite or look silly.

CJ:

I wasn't referring to you, but to the coiners of the word. It strikes me 
as one of those words (like "homophobia") coined for the express purpose 
of denying it. But a lot of this hinges on the differences between 
"normal" and "normative", for which, see below.

Magpie:
> It's a word used to describe situations wherein variations from 
 > heterosexual orientation are marginalized, ignored or persecuted

CJ:

What used, in other words, to be called "homophobia" -- another misnomer.

> Sure heterosexuality is normal. So is homosexuality. 

The term is "heteronormative" not "heteronormal".

 From OnlineDictionary.com:

NORMATIVE: of or pertaining to a norm, esp. an assumed norm regarded as 
the standard of correctness in behavior, speech, writing, etc.

NORMAL: conforming to the standard or the common type; usual. (CJ: in 
colloquial terms often used as a synonym for "average": "I'm just a 
normal guy.").

Homosexuality is not "normal" for the simple fact that most people are 
not homosexual. It is "deviant", or abnormal, in that it deviates from 
the behavior of most people. Note that this is statistical judgment, not 
a moral one.

 > Both are perfectly normal in the world, not just one.

I need to ask you to define "normal". In the above statement you seem to 
mean "frequent" or "not uncommon"; but this would be different from my 
definition of "normal". Perhaps our disagreement here is merely over 
definitions.

 > Sex has other puposes besides making babies.

No. It has other benefits and effects, certainly. But it has no other 
*purpose*.

 > So I'm not sure what argument is being called silly.

The attempt to reduce all judgments about homosexuality to mere cultural 
bias. My first encounter with this argument was about 25 years ago in a 
Usenet group. Some poor sap, attempting to be erudite, made the 
ludicrous assertion that there was "absolutely no empirical evidence" to 
support the contention that "heterosexuality was the norm and 
homosexuality a deviation" (those were his exact words). The poor fellow 
was operating under two disadvantages, I'm afraid. The first was that 
back then we didn't have big words like "heteronormative" to paint a 
faux veneer of erudition over what remains an exceedingly silly 
argument. The second was that he was a complete bonehead.

Note that in nothing I have said above am I making any moral judgments 
or assertions about homosexuality. The argument that heterosxuality (not 
homosexuality) is normative is biological. The argument that it (and not 
homosexuality) is normal is statistical.

Whether or not as a society we should be open to and supportive of 
homosexuality IS a value judgment, but it's an argument which I have not 
touched on.

Magpie:
> Why would she have to defend having an openly gay character in a book? 

Really? I would think the heated discussion the topic has generated in 
this list alone in the last 24 hours would be ample enough evidence. 
Whatever your personal views on homosexuality, the fact remains that it 
IS a controversial subject in most parts of the world.

 > I would say Dumbledore being in love
 > with Grindenwald is just as relevant to the storyline as many
 > other love affairs shown or mentioned in the story.

If it were, then why didn't JKR make it so explicitly? Why hide it 
behind ambiguous passages and veiled references? I, for one, don't see 
it as relevant either to the narrative or to my understanding of the 
character (and I think the mere fact that her statement was such a 
"bombshell" indicates that most people did not). If JKR intended it to 
be, then she has failed in her authorial duties to make it so.

--CJ