Heteronormativity remaining the underlying standard in a society increasingly diversified by differing sexualities and identities seems, at the very least, paradoxical and counterproductive. Examples that display a societal attitude regarding nature and the “natural” order of things are affluent, but why would one play this card in some situations in which it applies and not others? Many of these attitudes are reflected in social habits and attitudes rather than tangible legal mandates, meaning that condemning heteronormative ideas on the basis of cold, hard fact becomes difficult. However, if we take a homosexual relationship, for instance, one party is still expected to be the “man” and one the “woman,” despite their biological genders. Based on this observation, it may safely be assumed that this traditional idea of heteronormativity is being projected even onto things that contradict its definition in the most literal way.
Many like to come to the defense of heteronormativity and the rigid gender roles it assigns for the perceived fact that these beliefs are natural. Considering this logic, these people should also argue against the consumption of synthetic food products and the wearing of man made fabrics. This means that the argument for heteronormativity is merely a socially constructed belief, and those playing the “natural” card in its condemnation are merely picking and choosing a convenient time for their logics to be applied. Should it be that society truly does only include room for heterosexual, masculine men and heterosexual, feminine women, surely the validity of this claim must be based on a piece of information other than the hollow opinion that it is simply the natural way.
It should also be mentioned that this heteronormative view includes a condemnation of femininity in men, setting masculinity as the ideal standard that, if unreached, compromises a man’s ability to be called what he is: a man. This view assigns a connotation to femininity that implies weakness and claims, whether explicitly or not explicitly, that femininity is something to be feared and avoided. Even if this heteronormative viewpoint is only arguing that this is true for femininity in men, this cannot be mutually exclusive from femininity in women. In arguing that femininity is an undesirable trait in a man, the term must retain its negative connotation when applied to a woman as well. How does it make sense for a word of concrete definition to be deemed positive for one gender and negative for the other? While men and women retain indisputable biological differences, femininity has never been deemed a biological trait and thus automatically becomes eligible to be applied equally to people of either gender.
Shifting focus away from expectations traditionally assigned exclusively to men or exclusively to women can ensure that the value of individuals of either gender is fully recognized and appreciated. In the same way that femininity in women made them subordinate in traditional societies, this same trait in men may sometimes put them even below feminine women in these same societies. Similarly, masculinity in women has also been highly discouraged and condemned, for reasons suggesting that a woman displaying masculine traits is either undesirable or threatening or often both. Why must this be the case? Why must these people who go against our traditional definitions of man and woman be disallowed from reaching their own intellectual potential and thus contributing to society’s betterment and progress? A focus on upholding these rigid definitions is dangerous, and it provides an immovable barrier to intellectual progress and success until it can be disregarded.