Heteronormative Crusader is a confusing trope

When I first came across a trope named "Heteronormative Crusader", I was hoping to see a well-written article that I could expect from TV Tropes' standards. While most pages I had seen before had a mostly neutral point of view (with some minor exceptions that I might edit slightly to make a little more neutral), this page felt kind of...wrong in a way. As I read through the main page again, along with the Laconic and Playing With pages, I came to the conclusion that perhaps the page contains Unfortunate Implications, and is as well confusing and difficult to understand. Because I, myself, am a Heteronormative Crusader (by the more general definition of the Playing With article), I was a bit disappointed about this. I will explain my reasoning not by defending my morality, but rather by explaining why the page may be slightly harmful to TV Tropes itself in a way.

---

Is Heteronormative Crusader a character, or a character interpretation?

First off, before immediately considering the trope description as offensive, I need to ask a question before I can reach an answer. First of all, I need to identify how Heteronormative Crusader is used as a trope. If the trope is indeed an interpretation, then it is about how the person is portrayed. If it is about the character, however, it can refer to people both inside and outside of Real Life, making it a more sensitive trope that should be payed more attention to (especially considering its negative-sounding attitude that I will discuss more later). To determine this, I will check the Laconic page as a quick reference that will perhaps help me.

That is kind of a vague description that does not help me. Well, Laconic let me down, so how about I check the actual trope description and interpret that for myself?

From what I read, this about the character themselves. However, before I come to the conclusion, I shall check out the Basic Trope section of the Playing With page.

Because of the key word "someone", and this so-far consistent definition, 'I have concluded that this trope is about a character, not a character interpretation.

Before I move on, I should note that in all stories, all characters are technically "interpretations" by definition. However, what makes this important to note is that Real Life people can indeed be represented by this trope, meaning that if the wiki represents them badly, it represents an entire group of real people badly. That causes controversy, which is something that the wiki usually tries to avoid.

Are Heteronormative Crusaders by definition harmful people?

After the first question and answer, we can conclude that this specifically refers to a character. However, how does this character act, in what ways? Is the character specifically a hateful discriminator? If so, I may be fine in the way the trope description is written. Before we move on, we need to examine this to make sure that the wiki is indeed portraying these people badly before I make accusations. While I would have checked the Laconic definition first, the Laconic definition is, as I said, a rather unclear one, so I will skip that for now.

The first thing I would like to take note of is the term "bad". The definition of it I searched up^note I know, searching up dictionary definitions probably sounds silly, but with how confusing this trope is, I kind of need to do this to understand its definition further. is "evil; sinful", which I myself as a Heteronormative Crusader (by definition in the "Playing With" page) is indeed true. I do believe that homosexuality is sinful. However, believing that something is a sin does not make a Heteronormative Crusader an inherently harmful person (or, as harmful as some of the implications of the trope state they are). Somebody can believe somebody is a sinner without hating them.

The next word is of "unnatural". Whether or not homosexuality is "natural" or not depends on your interpretation of the word. ^note I believe it is human nature to sin, and homosexuality is sin, therefore it is human nature to sin. However, the nature intended of us is not that of human nature, but of a holy nature. Ultimately, believing homosexuals are "unnatural" (using Scare Quotes because of the specific meaning implied in the article which I am using here) does not particularly mean you hate them or discriminate against them, similarly to the word "bad" as explained above.

This is where this starts to get trickier. "Suppress" means trying to stop something by force. Should people try to suppress others into not sinning? No, because no matter what we will do, we will sin, and that nature will not never be completely be destroyed (at least in life on earth), though it can conquered sometimes. By the definition here, I agree with the page's implication(?) that that kind of suppression is not good. However, the trope has a vague definition, so I shall look closer until I get the answer to this question.

Wow, by this definition, along with those many negative indexes, this shows rather clearly that Heteronormative Crusaders are harmful people, therefore I really should not be defending my stance on this trope. Right? Well, not quite. The Playing With page is still left.

Finally, a detailed neutral view. I have to wonder why this passive-sounding definition is on the Playing With page, yet the main page contains lots of stuff about them being "hateful" or "violent". I will discuss this in more detail later, however.

This straight (heh) example provides some more evidence of Heteronormative Crusaders being more passive people rather than the violent and aggressive examples provided on the main page. If you replaced "Bob" with my name, I would even fit this example.

This is confusing. The trope keeps going back from "person who believes homosexuality is wrong" to "person who believes homosexuality is wrong and harasses homosexuals for it". Some people not notice it, but there is a big difference between the two. For this trope, that is an important distinction to make.

Wait, what? This is the same example as that former subversion example. Is this a zig-zag or a subversion? Something else I find strange is that this contains a Pot Hole to Rainbow Morality, even though I find that view to be a reasonable one (you know, being the same view I have myself). Does this demonstrate of an example of the trope, or not? It is quite unclear.

This part is a little bit more interesting. It starts off painting the Heteronormative Crusader as a passive person, then links to Troubled Sympathetic Bigot. That trope is defined as "[somebody who] is genuinely sympathetic, but [whose] opinions are not". Sounds rather opinionated, in my opinion.

What I have gathered from this is that there are two types of Heteronormative Crusaders: the "passive" type, and the "extreme" type. The Heteronormative Crusader, through all its definitions I could find, were either stated to be one or the other, no in-between. Because the main article is probably what the majority of users will see of that trope, it paints an exaggerated, misleading(?) image of the trope. If the trope really is only supposed to be about "extreme" examples, it does not explain why the Playing With page shows many passive examples.

Are Heteronormative Crusaders portrayed positively or negatively in the wiki?

It depends. Nowhere in those three articles could I find a positive portrayal. The main article appears to be written in a negative point of view, filled with Scare Quotes (which is described as a "Sarcasm Mode", meaning that the page is written from the point of view of the troper who wrote it). It also describes Heteronormative Crusaders as "violent" and "hateful". The Playing With page, however, describes them more neutrally (and with a more general definition), giving me the implication that I am "violent" and "hateful" purely because of my opinion on homosexuality?

Something else I referenced earlier but never really expanded on are the indexes. How about we take a look on them?

• This Index Means Trouble: This index implies that we are specifically looking for trouble. The description on that index is "If you're anything but straight, this person will ruin your day at best and your life at worst."
• Prejudice Tropes: Implies Heteronormative Crusaders are bigots. While they can be, they are not always. Some note about this would be appreciated.
• The War on Straw: Implies that we misrepresent homosexuals, although I will give this index some credit for that its tropes are not always strawmen (indeed, Heteronormative Crusaders can be strawmen sometimes)
• The Only Righteous Index of Fanatics!: Again, can apply, but not always.
• Villains: Self-explanatory.

Should Heteronormative Crusaders be portrayed positively or negatively in the wiki?

Neither. Or both. If we want this wiki to be the best it can be, we need to view things either from a neutral angle, or multiple angles. If we view from only one angle, we will miss certain information or otherwise make us sound like a biased wiki which will be taken less seriously. The thing wrong with the Heteronormative Crusader trope descriptions in my opinion is that not only is it confusing (or, at least confusing enough to take multiple hours to fully analyze), but it appears to be written from mainly a negative point of view. If it is supposed to be balanced, it should either present both positive and negative views, or otherwise just have a neutral view. Our job is to showcase tropes and media, not opinions.

Now in Laconic edition!

• The definition of Heteronormative Crusader is unclear: Is it only extreme examples, or does it include passive examples?
• The Heteronormative Crusader main page appears to be opinionated and fuel for controversy.
• The way Heteronormative Crusader is referred to gives Unfortunate Implications.

You're overanalysing it. I mean, it's a two-page post about a two-paragraph article.

The trope is about a character who, through various means, is shown to reject non-heterosexual characters and do something about them. Just having an opinion isn't enough for this trope. That's the heart of the trope. The exact means and the way it plays out can vary.

The Playing With pages and Laconics aren't meant to be absolute definitions of the trope. The former is meant as a guide for how different ways of playing the trope can appear (and is not an exhaustive list), and the latter is meant to give you an idea of the overall trope, without going into details.

While it's important to follow the trope description while checking if an example fits, Tropes Are Not Narrow (you probably should read this page). There are variations of them. If there are ten different traits mentioned in the description, an example doesn't need to follow all of them (unless explicitly stated, which isn't the case here). As such, getting hung up on singular words as defining everything is a bit much.

You definitely shouldn't compare yourself to a trope (or vice versa), since tropes are meant to be applied to fictional characters, and not real people. Real people have far more depth than any character. When you create a character you use shortcuts to portray certain traits, which is something that just doesn't exist in real life.

Finally, yes, we're here to document tropes. Sometimes we document tropes that have Unfortunate Implications in them, or tropes that are frequently used with them. That can certainly appear in the description, which is only proper when that's how they're used.

Check out my fanfiction!

Neither Laconic or Playing With pages can be relied upon to accurately reflect a trope. If their ever appears to be a conflict in interpretations, the actual page is right.

The negative behaviors are an inherent part of the trope. Someone who doesn't approve of non heterosexual activities but doesn't make an active effort to discourage others is not this trope.

The Crusader in the title should have been the first clue to that.

Thinking back to the post, I kind of agree that it was a bit overly formal and analytical (although it is kind of my thing to overthink things). I might, however, broaden Heteronormative Crusader's description slightly if the trope is indeed as flexible as you say. In my opinion, a trope page should be clear of different ways it can be used, as overly vague or overly specific information can confuse readers.

The Playing With page is intended to demonstrate through example the many ways a trope can be used. While descriptions being slightly off is not a horrible crime, it only makes sense for a page like that to represent the trope as accurately as possible. While I agree that the main page should be considered the most important page, the Playing With and Laconic are important too, as I sometimes check them out to get a quick taste of what a trope is.

If you make such a change, you might want to run it by this thread or something, since while minor edits aren't a problem, anything that changes the definition, especially if it's to make the trope wider or narrower, can snowball and mutate into something it wasn't originally.

Check out my fanfiction!

Must the work portray the Heteronormativity of the Heteronormative Crusader to be a negative thing?

No.

Check out my fanfiction!

If you're looking to change the definition, shouldn't this be in TRS?

That's why I suggested bringing it here first, so we can determine whether it's a change or a clarification.

Check out my fanfiction!

Not sure how this could ever be a positive character, or portray the bias as a positive thing. It is like expecting an article on racism to have a positive angle on the issue.

I am sure there are people who espouse racism and het-normativity as valid positions, but we are under no obligation to host their justifications.

edited 23rd Jan '16 7:37:25 AM by eyebones

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H.L. Mencken

There is a difference between treating a character with a judgmental viewpoint and the character merely existing within the work. It's kind of similar to You Are a Credit to Your Race, most of the characters who say such things are often depicted as having good qualities despite having notably un-P.C. attitudes.

edited 23rd Jan '16 12:16:25 PM by KJMackley

To expand on what I said before, it doesn't have to be a negative trait or character, because that's not part of the definition. It probably will be, but that's more a matter of the prevalent social beliefs of today than by definition of the trope. Values Dissonance is also a thing.

Check out my fanfiction!

It depends on whether the work itself considers heteronormativity as being good. In today's age, you won't see a lot that play it straight unless they're straight up propaganda pushing that viewpoint (coughcough Chick Tracts coughcough), but back in the day when that behavior really wasn't the norm, the heteronormative crusader was probably seen in a much more noble light.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

Huh. So that means the more modern examples (with extreme exceptions) lean toward the negative side, while older works do portray the Heteronormative Crusader as someone doing the right thing? How many positive-portrayal examples does the Heteronormative Crusader page have?

I've always thought You Are a Credit to Your Race usually appears in context of Fantastic Racism - that is, portraying a Noble Bigot.

edited 24th Jan '16 4:27:02 AM by hellomoto

Oh, I was getting the question wrong. Sure, you could have someone who is this type of bigot who otherwise has some positive attributes. Kind to animals, pays his taxes, helps little old (straight) ladies when crossing the street...

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H.L. Mencken