You know, the thing that struck me about that wedding article is that the New York Times actually used the word 'heterosexist'.
I don't know that I feel comfortable with their mention of trans people. It's meant to be an example of the "norm-flouting" nature of gay marriage. While it can obviously be argued that both gay marriage and being trans are norm-flouting in the sense that most people are straight and not trans, it reads like they're implying that gay people getting married or people transitioning are acts undertaken to flout norms. It also locates trans-ness as a specifically queer issue, as if trans people are all attracted to people of the gender they were assigned at birth. All that said, it's a point in favour of the wedding magazine that they wrote the article in the first place.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-07-16 12:45 pm (UTC)I don't know that I feel comfortable with their mention of trans people. It's meant to be an example of the "norm-flouting" nature of gay marriage. While it can obviously be argued that both gay marriage and being trans are norm-flouting in the sense that most people are straight and not trans, it reads like they're implying that gay people getting married or people transitioning are acts undertaken to flout norms. It also locates trans-ness as a specifically queer issue, as if trans people are all attracted to people of the gender they were assigned at birth. All that said, it's a point in favour of the wedding magazine that they wrote the article in the first place.