on pamphlets

[spinneret]

Good to know. I don't think you'd ever said that before. In any case, as you've said the overwhelming reaction has been no to stock photos. If you really think stock photos would be good and I take it from your repeated mentions that you do, I'd suggest bringing some candidates instead of just suggesting stock photography in the abstract.

I still don't understand why such a discussion should be held off-site when you could just arrange for people to talk in the PT forum at a given time.

Couldn't you explain in more detail here?

I'm not trying to make problems or belittle your or anyone's work on this, Triple A. I'm just practically minded, and I want these pamphlets to make the best impression they can.

[Kez]

All of the concepts covered in the old, should be in the new - however, Sam did rephrase things to counter the "too much text" problem, which is why some things are missing - like the pamphlets specifically mentioned how asexuals may prefer one sex over the other, or both sexes for romantic orientations (and I know for a fact that was in there because it really grates on me when people tell me that because I'm asexual I'm biromantic)

However, before we decide to go back to the old text exactly as is, I'd like to bring up something that was mentioned to me by several of the foreign avenites who were helping with the pamphlets. The Italians, Dutch, and Germans all mentioned that the text in the old pamphlet was too defensive. They felt it gave off an impression like, "I don't mind not having sex, because I can do this.." instead of a lack of interest in sex in the first place. One suggestion to help counter the defensive stance came from the Dutch Aven: "I think the quotes should be about our feelings, the reasons why we are not interested in sex and maybe about the lack of understanding for our feelings."

The reasons for why we're not interested in sex? I know for the most part, people don't know _why_ they're asexual. They just are. Or did you mean why we're not interested in being sexual despite the fact that we're not?

I didn't think that the old pamplets had too much text. They covered everything they needed to cover (remember, they are there to introduce the concept of asexuality to people. If they're interested, they can go to the website and find out all the nitty gritty about it.

[Brodertun]

Good to know. I don't think you'd ever said that before. In any case, as you've said the overwhelming reaction has been no to stock photos. If you really think stock photos would be good and I take it from your repeated mentions that you do, I'd suggest bringing some candidates instead of just suggesting stock photography in the abstract.

I still don't understand why such a discussion should be held off-site when you could just arrange for people to talk in the PT forum at a given time.

Couldn't you explain in more detail here?

I'm not trying to make problems or belittle your or anyone's work on this, Triple A. I'm just practically minded, and I want these pamphlets to make the best impression they can.

Real time conversations allow for much greater discussion and results, and as I previously mentioned, but perhaps didn't explain clearly if we're in go to meeting, Dj will have the pamphlet open on his computer and everyone can see it, as changes are being made real time, and comments like, "maybe the text should be a little higher and to the left" can immediately be incorporated and shown to everyone at once who may then decide that it doesn't look great to have the text a little higher and to the left, but maybe to the right instead. Does that make sense? In goto meeting the setup would be the same if we were all in the same room at the same time around one computer.

Sorry guys, but going on my past experience, I have to agree with Dj that a real time meeting is far better and allows much greater collaboration and insight than a threaded discussion can. To prevent chaos and guarantee that progress can be made, the goto meeting will only be open to PT members, but as long as its possible to do so a transcript will be posted here. (If it isn't possible you'll still get a list of the decisions made in the goto meeting). Prior to the goto meeting, we'll have a general aven chat where members can discuss the pamphlet amongst themselves (being as the the standard three days time period for pt decisions has passed, I'll use the information provided by pt members to make a date/time session for the go to meeting, and then we'll determine the group chat to be some time prior to that (perhaps two or three days before to allow time for reflection before the goto chat).

Also, Dj felt it best to start a new thread that is just about issues one wants brought up about the pamphlets, so I'm starting a new thread about that this afternoon. I don't have time to put in the current concerns/ideas/thoughts but I'll do that tomorrow, and I'll update the first post with each concern as it is posted.

They just are. Or did you mean why we're not interested in being sexual despite the fact that we're not?

Quite a few people felt the old pamphlets gave off the impression that asexuality was a stance taken to prove something, as opposed to the way people are naturally

If you really think stock photos would be good and I take it from your repeated mentions that you do, I'd suggest bringing some candidates instead of just suggesting stock photography in the abstract.

I've suggested the possiblity of my bringing in stock photos before but everyone was very adament they didn't want any stock images at all.I saw no reason to search for candidates when 100% of the comments were against using any type of stock photography for any reason. This is something that takes quite a bit of time and effort to do and I relaly don't have two hours to waste on something that no one will be happy with.

*I'm late for school I'll clear this up better tonight

[Hallucigenia]

(being as the the standard three days time period for pt decisions has passed, I'll use the information provided by pt members to make a date/time session for the go to meeting, and then we'll determine the group chat to be some time prior to that (perhaps two or three days before to allow time for reflection before the goto chat).

Three days? Where are you pulling that number out of, Trip? The original time period was supposed to be a week, and then we voted 3-1 to extend it to two weeks. I'm all for getting this stuff scheduled ASAP, I just don't know where you got the idea that three days was standard.

[Kez]

As my future job will be an editor, I took the liberty of editing one page in particular that really irked me.

The third part on the first page was, in my opinion, really poorly worded. Grammatical errors, repetition, and just information in the wrong section made it seem amature.

Here is what I did with it - feel free to use it, or not.

Who are asexuals?

Asexuals are people who do not experience sexual attraction. They can experience both sexual arousal and sexual desire, or one of these, or none. It is also possible for asexuals to experience a romantic attraction to either, both, or neither gender.

Asexuals may have sex in order to please a partner, but they are also content to live their lives without sex.

Am I asexual?

Only you are able to answer this question, because you know exactly what you are feeling and thinking.

Asexuality is not celibacy, as asexuals do not see it as denying themselves anything.

I'm not entirely happy with the final part, because it does not fit well with this section.

If you want, I can go over other areas in the pamplet and make them tighter and more coherant.

[Brodertun]

(being as the the standard three days time period for pt decisions has passed, I'll use the information provided by pt members to make a date/time session for the go to meeting, and then we'll determine the group chat to be some time prior to that (perhaps two or three days before to allow time for reflection before the goto chat).

Three days? Where are you pulling that number out of, Trip? The original time period was supposed to be a week, and then we voted 3-1 to extend it to two weeks. I'm all for getting this stuff scheduled ASAP, I just don't know where you got the idea that three days was standard.

Isn't three days for minor decisions, two weeks for major?

But anyway given the time to the big conference and the fact that Keith isn't comfortable with where his photo currently is, I think in this case it might be best to go ahead and schedule a meeting - we can change the pt one if more people announce their availability, or hold another one later on. Sound good?

[Hallucigenia]

Yes, definitely go ahead and schedule something. The rest of the PT seems to be completely out of commission at the mo.

I didn't remember the three-days-for-minor-issues rule. It's possible that it's written down somewhere, although in my experience, minor issues simply get decided when somebody decides they're decided. (And sometimes major ones too. *holds up AVENues guiltily*) In any case, it really doesn't matter. Let's just get this thing fixed.

[Brodertun]

Yes, definitely go ahead and schedule something. The rest of the PT seems to be completely out of commission at the mo.

I didn't remember the three-days-for-minor-issues rule. It's possible that it's written down somewhere, although in my experience, minor issues simply get decided when somebody decides they're decided. (And sometimes major ones too. *holds up AVENues guiltily*) In any case, it really doesn't matter. Let's just get this thing fixed.

I'm a bit behind on things, so I'll schedule the PT one tomorrow. As well as putting up the criticism thread then

I'd like to have the general discussion with in the next 3 days

[kbrd143]

Things that I have pointed out in previous posts:

Lady Heartily's quote should have a "t" at the end of the "no". (This is a simple typo, using "no" instead of "not", and it wouldn't be caught by spell check.)

The section title "What Asexuality is Not?" irks me to no end, as this is not a proper grammatical arrangement. It is also not a complete thought, which means that it is not in need of an end of sentance punctuation mark.

In the masturbation section (if indeed it is even to remain), the phrase "masturbating asexuals" should be replaced with "asexuals who masturbate. The latter is an active construction, implying that the masturbation is going on right now; the latter is a passive construction, implying that the activity might go on at some time or another. Far more appropriate, in my opinion.

In addition, I would point out the the construction of the grammar in the "Am I Asexual?" section is very clunky. I have been trying to think of a way to rephrase the section so that slash marks and parenthesis are not used; however, I have not had the time, this week to really concentrate on this -- and this section will require much concentration.

I would also suggest that the "What is Asexuality?" should be shorter. As it is, it gives the definition and then introduces several side concepts which I believe would just be confusing to the average sexual person. Leave this sections short and sweet -- and then use more text in the next section. So far, the "Asexuality is not:" section only lists celebacy. But asxuality is also not repressed sexuality, abstinancy, an inability to achieve orgasm. . . . The list goes on. The second section needs to be long and developed. The first section needs to be short and sweet.

[spinneret]

Further driving home my point about organization, I'm seriously confused about where to discuss stuff. Here still? I think?

I'll address another issue, one listed in the "Pamphlet Critique" thread.

Re: content of text

First of all, I do think the masturbation section should go. Just go. If we must address the issue of sexual function, I'd just skirt it like so:

Is asexuality sexual dysfunction?

No. Asexuality is an orientation, not a physical state. Most asexuals experience normal sexual arousal or sex drive, just not sexual attraction.

Or some such. As KBRD's said, are we really obligated to answer their boorish questions?

However, before we decide to go back to the old text exactly as is, I'd like to bring up something that was mentioned to me by several of the foreign avenites who were helping with the pamphlets. The Italians, Dutch, and Germans all mentioned that the text in the old pamphlet was too defensive.

With all due appreciation for their concern (and casting no doubts on their fluency), I'd respectfully point out that their native language is not English and their cultures may have different attitudes towards sexuality. English-speaking areas have common roots in British culture and still share many social traits. I don't know how coverage in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, &c has gone, but in the US and British media I've seen we've consistently been put on the defensive. In that light I'd suggest that if anglophones like how the old English pamphlet was written, we keep the old text.

Alternatively, I'd also suggest looking taking selected text from the FAQs. These have been around for years and, expecially now on the wiki, have been continually tweaked and updated. They are refined and upbeat, and I don't think we could come up with anything more clear and concise from scratch.

I don't see why we need to try to reinvent the wheel when we've got such lovely examples all around us.

[Brodertun]

Keep in mind though, that since we all visit AVEN regularly we are apt to overlook things like how defensive the pamphlets appear to one who is just hearing about asexuality for the first time.

I think a defensive approach to initial literature can end up doing more harm than good. We want to appear established, and well informed of our topic, not appear as constantly batting other opinions away. I think the foreign lanugages avenites removal from our site make them more like to view these pamphlets the way a person who has never heard of asexuality will.

*All the information in the new pamphlet comes from the FAQ and the old pamphlet, spin. For example the "what is asexuality" section is an overview of the summary page. None of the text in the new pamphlet came from scratch. Sam did re-word some but not so much so that one can't see where it came from

[Brodertun]

Further driving home my point about organization, I'm seriously confused about where to discuss stuff. Here still? I think?

In order to prevent hopeless chaos and utter confusion it was necessary to seperate the different topics under discussion. We would run significant risk of overlooking valid concerns on the pamphlets if people had to sort through discussions to see where the concerns were identified. Just as it would be nearly impossible to determine the setup of the group meetup if people had to look between information about the pamphlet to find informations on the meeting.

Really this thread should have been locked, but since not everyone will be able to attend the group chat a place is needed where people can discuss the identified concerns, so it stays up while the concerns are identified separately (we mentioned we were going to do this 2? days ago in this thred - the fact that you seem not to remember seeing that is support for why it is necessary to have separate threads for separate issues)

But if you can find a better way to state how things are broken up than is shown below feel free to do so. Because I can't think of a better way to identify where each aspect is welcome than specifically stating what conversation is encouraged where in a place where everyone who visits the thread in questions should see quite easily

Please do not discuss these issues here, as that will lead to the possibility of areas of concern being overlooked. If you want to discuss them but cannot attend the GROUP CHAT (date tba) please post your comments HERE.

This thread is for determing the setup, time and date of the group chat. Please click HERE for a list of the issues under consideration at the group chat. If you can not atted the group chat, but would like to comment on the issues, you may discuss them HERE.

For this thread (though you are the one who will have to post it)

This thread is for discussing concerns under consideration in the GROUP CHAT (date tba). Please check the list HERE to verify that your concern is under consideration. If you're concern is not on the list, please make a post in that thread describing what your concern is

[spinneret]

Perhaps. However, they're also coming at it from their own discourse on asexuality. Here's an idea, have you asked anyone at your LGBT to read through drafts or give suggestions on design? There'd be people with distance from the AVEN discourse and some experience and authority on what to say and how to present it to our intended audience.

If this pamphlet's text all pulled from the old pamphlet and the FAQs, why are we so defensive about changing it? But I was referring to how we're trying to write sections from scratch in this thread. I think we can work from existing materials instead. However, looking more carefully through the FAQs some of them (like some of the sections you picked, as KBRD's pointed out) are in need of more polishing than I thought. :?

on pictures again, since this issue's listed on the new page:

I really don't think we need a picture of COTL in feminine clothes. While I'm all about queering the pamphlet up a little, I worry about sending mixed messages about asexuals' gender. I understand the point is that people of any gender identification can ID as asexual, but asexuality is not about gender and I think in the context of explaining asexuality to people who are unfamiliar with the concept, the picture is just confusing.

As for the quotes pictures, I don't feel that the quotes should be attributed with AVEN handles or real names, let alone a few pictures. I think as in NZ pamphlet quotes would be best; they express the asexual experience and are clearly personal, but don't bring up questions of who the hell these people are and why we should care. They just are.

[retrophile]

I really don't think we need a picture of COTL in feminine clothes. While I'm all about queering the pamphlet up a little, I worry about sending mixed messages about asexuals' gender. I understand the point is that people of any gender identification can ID as asexual, but asexuality is not about gender and I think in the context of explaining asexuality to people who are unfamiliar with the concept, the picture is just confusing.

How about under "What Asexuality Is Not", something like "asexuality is not androgyny or lack of gender identification, although some asexuals do identify androgynous or non-binary" - or something to that effect. That's a way I see "asexual" misused a lot, to mean a-gendered.

Also, it's NOT "just a phase" - can we add that too?

[Brodertun]

Also, it's NOT "just a phase" Also, it's NOT "just a phase" - can we add that too?

I definately agree with this. I'll let the members hash out their opinion on the other things stated since I last posted here

[Omnes et Nihil]

I was very sad at the heteronormativity embodied in the pamphlet. Part of why I didn't bring it up was that if this is what AVEN is about these days... then I don't belong here. (I raised very similar concerns in detail about the draft.) But since I'm not the only person who had problems with the pamphlet...

The best I can do it to get someone to photograph me standing in front of a pride flag tomorrow (even though I look really straight, and white which doesn't help the diversity) so you can add that to the collection and either use it or don't. I don't do the couple thing, so I can't give a photo of a queer couple or anything like that...

And if you're looking for some less couple-focused quotations... I cracked up a table of [queer] sexual folks at a conference the other day by saying something to the effect of: "I thought sex was just something that people did-- like playing tennis or eating broccoli. I never had a clue that anyone literally experienced sexual attraction."[/b]

[Brodertun]

I was very sad at the heteronormativity embodied in the pamphlet. Part of why I didn't bring it up was that if this is what AVEN is about these days... then I don't belong here. (I raised very similar concerns in detail about the draft.) But since I'm not the only person who had problems with the pamphlet...

As said many times before throughout the creation of the pamphlet, as long as members are adament that only member provided pictures be included the pamphlets are going to appear heteronormative because thats the only kind of pictures members have been willing to provide. We can't have it both ways - either we have all member provided materials, as previously "demanded" or we incorporate some stock photos that accurately reflect our member make-up. Either way, as the comments indicate, most people are going to be against the result.

We can't simply just remove couple photos either, because one of the most common initial beliefs about asexuality is that asexuals aren't interested in, or aren't capable of having relationships so they're needs to be visual counter to this.

The best I can do it to get someone to photograph me standing in front of a pride flag tomorrow (even though I look really straight, and white which doesn't help the diversity) so you can add that to the collection and either use it or don't. I don't do the couple thing, so I can't give a photo of a queer couple or anything like that...

I'm afraid such a picture would have to be rejected on the basis of the pride flag being included. There is a large segment of the queer population that still hasn't accepted asexuals as being queer, and it would be presumptious of us to give them materials that indicate otherwise, and might end up hurting the cause some what, ie "Who are these people to tell us what it means to be queer?" Using another groups symbol before we are widely accepted in that group is not a wise idea. Maybe in another year or two.

And if you're looking for some less couple-focused quotations... I cracked up a table of [queer] sexual folks at a conference the other day by saying something to the effect of: "I thought sex was just something that people did-- like playing tennis or eating broccoli. I never had a clue that anyone literally experienced sexual attraction."[/b]

We have a lot of Un-couple quotes - Paul's quote, and possibly blue-beryls depending on your initial take, are the only couple quotes. What we are looking for are quotes by gay or bi asexuals that indicate their gay or bi-ness as Ajay's indicates his straightness. So far, I've recently been sent one quote to do this, but the initial take on it by "test viewers" is that it makes the person seem asexual in a deliberate attempt to prove feminism as a strong stance, and not a natural occurence. (though I'm sure once I get a chance to sit down and speak with her about initial reactions, she will be willing to re-word her quote to remove the feminism position from it)

[Omnes et Nihil]

As said many times before throughout the creation of the pamphlet, as long as members are adament that only member provided pictures be included the pamphlets are going to appear heteronormative because thats the only kind of pictures members have been willing to provide.

The pictures aren't the cause. They are only part of the problem, and not even the largest part.

There's a difference between heterosexuality and heteronormativity. Heteronormativity is the belief or undercurrent that heterosexuality is the most normal or moral or superior way to be. This includes presumed heterosexuality. It relies heavily on the normative institution of marriage. It is the system through which some relationships and people are legitimized and made visible while others are minimized and marginalised.

1) Three of the AVEN member quotations makes explicit reference to normative heterosexuality (Ajay self-identifies as straight, Lady Heartilly talks about being told to wait until marriage for sex; Paul's quotation is beside the picture of a hetero couple). None of the quotations make either explicit or implicit reference to being gay, lesbian, bi or otherwise queer.

2) Implicit heteronormativity in content:

a) Biggreenmonkey mentions sex ed which is overhwlemingly exclusive of everything non-heterosexual and heteronormative. It is possible that her particular sex ed class talked about non-heterosexual sexuality... but most do not-- and even programs that do address non-heterosexual sexuality and relationships typically do so in a heteronormative manner... either presuming heterosexuality first, or legitimizing that and (hetero) marriage above all else.

B) The expression "fall in love" is intrinsically tied to the happily ever after of marriage. For most people, heterosexuality is evoked first. Even in the context of two women in love or two men in love, this particular expression very strongly evokes a certain prototype of romantic love based on the heterosexual marriage or something that approaches that as the ideal. This is bolstered by the comment in the text that the only two references to romantic-ish relationships are "date" or "an exclusive life-long partner". Yes, this is implicitly heteronormative, but it does grant a relationships based on marriage highest standing when read in a standard cultural context.

c) The abstinence-only feel of the cover. I'm not an image expert, but it feels like that and most people I've shown it to get that feel from it. Abstinence-only education is a prominent feature of current (often Christian oriented) culture: it's really "abstinence until marriage" education. Powerfully heteronormative, and often blatantly hostile to any non-heterosexual existence.

d) The pink and blue colouring (which I see has been now been changed) picks up on the cultural symbology of "blue for boy, pink for girl" and "boy and girl together". It's a powerful marker of hetero superiority even though I am quite certain it's not meant that way.

e) Yes, the fact that there are exactly 4 pictures which show two people, and all of them portray a heterosocial pairing.

3) Gender neutrality of language:

This is a good feature about the pamphlet. It means that heterosexuality isn't necessarily embedded everywhere else. But given the powerful heteronormative content discussed above, this isn't enough. The most explicit reference to non-hetero attraction is the "particular gender(s)" and that still is very subtle. This just falls painfully short of making up for so much heteronormativity.

I'm afraid such a picture would have to be rejected on the basis of the pride flag being included. There is a large segment of the queer population that still hasn't accepted asexuals as being queer, and it would be presumptious of us to give them materials that indicate otherwise

I AM queer, and that is the pride flag I sit in front of every week, in one of MY queer spaces. I am asexual and otherwise non-denomenational queer. I am not straight. The rainbow flag DOES represent ME. I get that it does not at this point represent all asexual... but none of the other pictures are expected to represent ALL asexuals.

Many straight people don't accept that asexuals can be straight... that didn't stop Ajay from declaring it. Many couples don't accept that asexuals can be couples... that doesn't stop the pictures or quotations about asexual coupledom from being legitimate.

I can't give you a nice neat same-gender attraction quotation. I cannot honestly say that I've ever met anyone with the same gender as me, let alone that as a rule I am attracted to such people. I know that I look straight. I look like a lot of things I'm not. A pride flag with me is probably the most accurate image you're going to get. There are many reasons you might not want to include a picture of me in the pamphlet, with or without a pride flag. But it would be hypocritical to reject such a picture outright because of the rainbow when the rainbow DOES represent the person in it.

What's wrong with showing our diversity here? Isn't that the point? Or do we need to hide that some asexuals are queer, some are feminist, some have non-normative gender identities, while we are showcasing that some asexuals are straight and some are involved in couple relationships?

I believe you're not deliberately trying to hide the fact that some asexuals are ALREADY out there under the rainbow... but that's what you would be doing, especially if you accept that some asexuals are already out there being straight or being couples.

It really isn't so surprising that no non-hetero couples want to submit pictures or no non-hetero asexuals want to submit quotations about same-gender attractions. The heterosexism runs far deeper here than the pamphlet. I really wouldn't want to be in a pamphlet that is as powerfully heteronormative as the one that exists at the moment.

I'm not trying to blame anyone or accuse anyone of having malicious intentions. I just wanted to point out what nobody seems to have said.

How can we possibly expect sexual people to come to accept asexuality when as a community of asexuals we can't even recognise our own diversity?

[retrophile]

Honestly I don't see the word "marriage" as heteronormative. I know lots of gay people who are married. Their unions are not recognized as of yet (here in the backwards ol' US of A) but for all intents and purposes they ARE married.

Neither is mentioning sex-ed in itself heteronormative. Yes, sex-ed is (often explicitly) homophobic in content. It is also infamously biased, at least here in the States, against proper education about STDs and contraception and towards a ridiculous expectation of abstinence-only. It's deeply imperfect on many levels. Nevertheless, it's an experience that most of us have had and including a quote from an asexual about the experience of sex-ed gives the reader sort of an "a-ha" moment. It shouldn't be purged from the pamphlet just because it references a flawed system. By that logic we shouldn't be allowed to talk about the US government at all, ever.

Sadly, if we remove everything that's heteronormative (or gender-binary-normative for that matter) from everything, we're left with....nothing. I agree that it's important to be conscious about normativity in language but I also don't believe in censorship or mincing words in order to avoid it entirely.

[KAGU143]

Personally, I think that having a member photographed in front of a pride flag would be an excellent idea - for the same reasons that I think that AVEN's logo's resemblance to the inverted triangle used by other sexual minorities is a good idea.

Whether or not ALL GLBT groups are willing to embrace asexuals isn't really the issue. (Many are, and the number is steadily increasing.) If an asexual feels comfortable in identifying with the pride movement then that should be sufficient reason for such a photo.

Even better: it stresses the fact that asexuality is a minority orientation, and not a pathological condition.

-GB

[Brodertun]

Personally, I think that having a member photographed in front of a pride flag would be an excellent idea - for the same reasons that I think that AVEN's logo's resemblance to the inverted triangle used by other sexual minorities is a good idea.

Whether or not ALL GLBT groups are willing to embrace asexuals isn't really the issue. (Many are, and the number is steadily increasing.) If an asexual feels comfortable in identifying with the pride movement then that should be sufficient reason for such a photo.

Even better: it stresses the fact that asexuality is a minority orientation, and not a pathological condition.

-GB

It will be discussed in the group and pt chats

[Hallucigenia]

It will be discussed in the group and pt chats

:? :? Does that mean we can't discuss it here? :? :?

I see no problem with discussing stuff as much as possible on these boards that (unlike the chats) everyone can get to, in order to get as much of a set of AVEN opinions as possible to use in the chats...

[Brodertun]

It will be discussed in the group and pt chats

:? :? Does that mean we can't discuss it here? :? :?

I see no problem with discussing stuff as much as possible on these boards that (unlike the chats) everyone can get to, in order to get as much of a set of AVEN opinions as possible to use in the chats...

Nope, you can discuss it here, as well as anything else you care too. It just means its under consideration as apossibility.

Sorry for the ambiguouty. I'm trying to keep abreadst of this in the midst of catching up on my school work.

[Hallucigenia]

Oh, sure. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Omnes et Nihil]

Sadly, if we remove everything that's heteronormative (or gender-binary-normative for that matter) from everything, we're left with....nothing. I agree that it's important to be conscious about normativity in language but I also don't believe in censorship or mincing words in order to avoid it entirely.

I'm not suggesting we remove everything heteronormative about the pamphlet. I don't think that's even possible. I just think it's important to recognise the fact that it IS heteronormative, that it will have a certain impact, and that we add things to reduce the impact of the heteronormativity.

We need to do more than the gender non-specific language and an "s" on the end of gender of attraction. Those are good things, but aren't enough when in the same pamphlet as all of that other heteronormative stuff. Above I was just pointing out how much hteronormativiy is really in the already... because it often goes unnoticed.