










































Aisthesis      Volume 7,  201617

The Violence of Heteronormative Language Towards the 
Queer Community 

by Jessica King

Introduction
 The old adage goes, “Sticks and stones may break 
my bones, but words can never hurt me;” however, 
most people know this to be untrue..  Words have 
the unique power to create reality: they can be used 
both to empower and create change, and to form 
stereotypes and breed mistrust. More sinister uses of 
language include directly doing violence to others, 
or indirectly supporting violent societal structures 
through the normalization of the marginalization of 
some groups. 
 One social group particularly vulnerable to 
the violent effects of heteronormativity is the 
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning/
queer, intersex, and asexual/aromantic, (LGBTQIA) 
or queer, community—though the violent 
effects of heteronormativity are far-reaching.1 This 
article examines several different examples of 
heteronormative violence towards the LGBTQIA 
community through language: heteronormative 
violence inherent in the structure of the English 
language, the erasure of asexuals and bisexuals, 
and the violence of misgendering transgender 
people. The article will also address the effects of 
heteronormative language towards the cisgender 
heterosexual community, which in many ways 
parallels the effects on the LGBTQIA community; 
however, the article’s main focus will be on the queer 
community.

The Limitations of the English Language
 According to Katrina Kimport, heteronormativity is: 

The institutionalized expectation that 
bodies are constructed into oppositionally 
situated (sexual and social) categories… It is 
premised on the assumption that sex, gender, 
and sexuality are fixed and immutable. It 
assumes an a priori existence of sex, gender 
and sexuality that induces particular forms 

of expression (signs) that are interpreted 
as evidence of a subject’s sex, gender and 
sexuality (the signified). Further, one’s 
identity in one category is linked to one’s 
identity in another… Evidence of a body’s 
gender is taken as evidence of the body’s sex 
and sexuality as well (3-4).

 Many American (and, more broadly, Western) 
cultural institutions are based on heteronormative 
assumptions—they are so pervasive as to not even 
be noticeable in daily life. One of the reasons that 
heteronormativity has such a strong influence on 
how our culture behaves and constructs itself is that 
the language we use to create reality is inherently 
heteronormative. 
 The English language itself creates the expectation 
that sex ought to be on a binary through the use 
of “he” or “she” to describe human beings. This 
usage leaves no room for other options and makes 
it difficult for English speakers to conceive of any 
middle ground. While this is of little consequence to 
cisgender individuals—those whose assigned gender 
based on their biological sex at birth matches their 
gender identity—there are enormous consequences 
for gender non-conformists. Some people identify 
as agender (without a gender), as genderfluid (their 
gender identity is mutable and might change over 
a period of time) or as transgender (their gender 
identity is not the same as their assigned gender based 
on their biological sex at birth). With the English 
language as it is, these individuals are limited in their 
ability to express their identity. In circumstances 
where one is unsure of a subject’s gender, modern 
English dictates that one should write “he or she” 
(Cruz 215)
 Such language limits and excludes other 
identities and is a form of heteronormative violence, 
forcing everyone necessarily into the gender binary. 
These limitations take away autonomy from the 



The Violence of Heteronormative Language Towards the Queer Community 

Aisthesis      Volume 7,  201618

individual to decide how they would like to present 
to the world and how they think about their own 
identity. The ability to express a gender outside of 
heteronormative standards enables an individual to 
defy gender roles with ease; after all, why conform 
to the roles and standards of a gender you do not 
identify with? Using “he or she” does not allow for 
the full expression of some individuals’ identity, 
and thus limits their potential to self-actualize. 
Furthermore, the use of the gender-neutral “them” is 
often not accepted in formal writing in place of “his 
or her.” 
 Though some alternatives have been offered—
for instance zie and hir (“Need” 1)—these are 
not commonplace. The alternative to linguistically 
assuming a person’s gender, as the English language 
stands right now, is to call someone an “it,” a title 
usually reserved for the non-human, especially 
inanimate objects, as we will generally assign animals 
genders. Addressing someone in such a way is equally 
as violent and disrespectful as assuming someone’s 
gender; the implication of using these words is that 
those who do not conform to heteronormative 
gender expectations are less than human. If our 
language does not allow for divergent identities, 
how can we expect society to accept or respect such 
identities?

Heteronormative Violence in Media and Towards 
the Heterosexual Cisgender Community
 Aside from the gendered limitations of the 
English language, there also exist very obvious ways 
of doing violence through words that embody and 
encourage violence. As Kristin Myers points out 
in her 2012 study, a common form of humor that 
appears early in the cultural life of an individual 
via media directed at children is the presentation of 
males in feminized ways.  
 Such a presentation leads to “fag talk;” that is, insults 
based on the degradation of males by calling them 
females or homosexuals. This language by extension 
is also degrading to women and the queer community. 
The use of words like “fag,” “pussy,” “gay,” and “girl” 
to police boys’ gender performances both explicitly 
and implicitly encourages sexism and homophobia, 
and what Myers calls “compulsory heterosexuality” 
(127). This language simultaneously creates, reifies and 
indicates heteronormativity in American culture. 

 Myers’ study of children’s television programming 
revealed that this problem is extensive. It found that 
ideas of compulsory heterosexuality were presented 
rapid-fire in a space of between 20 and 30 minutes. The 
most sinister aspect of compulsory heterosexuality 
revealed by the study is the presentation of violent 
ideas of women as weak beings to be preyed on 
and of men as natural predators. One character on 
a children’s television show describes approaching 
women with the following metaphor: “When the 
lions are out hunting gazelles, they don’t attack the 
strong healthy ones. Oh no. They attack the weak 
ones. The ones crying and eating ice cream” (135). 
By putting the language of violence in the forms of 
jokes, not only is heteronormativity enforced, but 
also the social norms that arise from such language 
are trivialized and normalized. By joking about the 
hunting of women and the jeering at boys who fail to 
live up to masculine standards, media tells children 
“This behavior is what is normal and acceptable.” 
 Kristin Myers and Laura Raymond’s 2010 study 
demonstrates that elementary girls are also aware of 
heteronormative pressures and create heteronormative 
spaces and roles amongst themselves. In their study, 
Myers and Raymond found that the girls used words 
such as “appropriate,” as well as “gay” and “lesbian” 
pejoratively to police each other’s behavior in a 
way similar to the media norms described above. 
The use of the word “appropriate” is indicative of 
how our culture creates femininity in opposition to 
masculinity. 
 The cultural use of the word “appropriate” is 
violent in that it can delegitimize or stigmatize 
girls’ feelings or desires, especially if those break 
with heteronormativity—for example, homosexual 
feelings or desires or a desire for sex that is considered 
uncharacteristic of someone performing femininity 
properly. Discussions of what is “appropriate” is 
closely related to slut-shaming, a form of violence 
in which women who have a number of sexual 
partners deemed too high are mocked and degraded. 
The discussion of “appropriate” is violent on the 
individual level, but also has consequences as far-
reaching as the political discussion of birth control 
and abortion. Beginning at a young age, women 
are told what are “appropriate” ways to conduct 
themselves, particularly sexually (where women are 
expected to be chaste and men are encouraged to be 



The Violence of Heteronormative Language Towards the Queer Community

Aisthesis      Volume 7,  201619

sexually predatory), which creates an environment 
where rape is allowable and, I would argue, encouraged 
through the language used to teach young girls and 
boys. By bringing the conversation around to whether 
women’s actions, dress, et cetera were “appropriate,” 
our culture takes the onus of blame for violence away 
from the perpetrators and places it on the victim. 
 Similarly, the use of violent words like “crush,” “hit 
on” and “mine” to describe romantic relationships 
with others exemplify violence that is condoned in 
society, and which promote a culture of violence, 
often against women, as women are expected to 
conform to someone else’s prescribed standards of 
behavior (Myers and Raymond 176-8). These words 
create relationship dynamics that use physically 
violent words to describe romantic feelings towards 
another, and then a dynamic of ownership after a 
couple has formed. This use of language has the effect 
of normalizing violence or the idea of violence in 
the context of a romantic relationship. Rape follows 
from this, as violence (particularly against women) is 
normalized and seen as permissible, especially if the 
woman was not behaving “appropriately.” 

Bisexual Erasure
 Another way heteronormative language is violent 
is its erasure of asexuals and bisexuals. Bisexuality is 
better known from popular media than asexuality; 
however, both are often overlooked when referring 
to non-heteronormative sexualities. Because of the 
aforementioned tendency of the English language 
to divide abstract concepts into binaries, English 
speakers can easily conceive of a gay/straight binary. 
It is more difficult for them to understand sexualities 
that fall in-between or outside of that binary, who I 
will refer to as “non-binary” sexualities.  The erasure 
of bisexuals is evident in the way broader society 
discusses the queer community. The fight for equal 
treatment for the LGBTQIA community is often 
termed “gay rights,” with homosexuality being the 
“natural opposite” of heterosexuality (Yoshino 389-
391). There is little discussion of rights for bisexuals, 
and almost no discussion of asexuality at all. 
 Kenji Yoshino’s 2000 study posits that one 
explanation for the invisibility of bisexuals is that 
all monosexuals (that is, those who are attracted to 
only one sex) are threatened by bisexuals because by 
being attracted to both sexes, bisexuals deconstruct 

the idea of sex. Sex distinctions are inherently tied 
to sexual orientation, and both heterosexuals and 
homosexuals benefit from having labels. The label of 
heterosexual, for instance, is useful in a court of law. 
Yoshino’s study finds that in sexual harassment suits 
involving two males, if one can present his behavior 
as homosocial (read: just “horseplay” or “boys being 
boys”), rather than homoerotic, he is unlikely to face 
punishment (49). By destabilizing the distinctions 
between hetero- and homosexuals, bisexual visibility 
in law would eliminate this exception. This 
example is interesting because it is an instance of 
heteronormative language (the language used to 
describe cisgender heterosexual men’s violence 
towards one another as playful and in good fun, even 
though the other individual feels harmed) that erases 
bisexuals harming not bisexuals, but heterosexuals. 
The elimination of such language, and the visibility 
of bisexuals in the language of the law would have 
benefits beyond the queer community.
 The label of homosexual is equally as important. 
Heterosexuals may erase bisexuals’ experiences by 
calling bisexuality “trendy.” For example, in 2008, 
Katy Perry’s popular song “I Kissed a Girl” expressed 
bicuriousity on a national platform. At nearly the 
same time, Lady Gaga announced her bisexuality 
publicly. Homosexuals and heterosexuals will also 
sometimes argue that bisexuals have “one foot in 
the closet,” implying that bisexuals’ experiences 
are not real, and that bisexuals are all actually just 
homosexuals who have not embraced their identity. 
A 2013 Pew Research Center study showed that only 
28% of bisexuals had come out to most or all of the 
important people in their life, compared to 71% and 
77% for lesbians and gay men, respectively (Alpert 
1). Alpert’s article in the Los Angeles Times features 
a number of bisexual individuals who have had 
their identity invalidated by both the heterosexual 
and homosexual community. This erasure helps 
homosexuals by swelling their numbers in their 
movement to be treated equally, according to 
Yoshino (20-7). 
    However such erasure of bisexuals’ existence is 
violent in that it effectively silences bisexuals and 
delegitimizes their experiences. By saying “you 
do not exist,” whether saying so results from the 
straight/gay binary that is taught to us or whether 
saying so results from an explicit or implicit desire 



The Violence of Heteronormative Language Towards the Queer Community 

Aisthesis      Volume 7,  201620

to retain privilege, society does violence to the 
bisexual and the rest of the non-binary group 
within the LGBTQIA community (Asexual 1). 
By not including bisexuals and other non-binary 
sexualities in our cultural discussions of sexuality, 
our culture effectively says to those individuals, “You 
are unimportant and your experiences as you explain 
them did not happen. You are incorrect, and we will 
tell you what actually happened.” Such a narrative is 
harmful and suppresses individuals who have a non-
binary sexuality.  

Asexual Erasure
 Asexuality is a spectrum that is characterized by 
a lack of sexual attraction to other people; asexuals 
might still experience romantic attraction to others, 
or they might not, in which case they would also be 
aromantic. In attempting to “explain” their sexuality 
in ways that fit heteronormative standards, asexuals 
can unintentionally contribute to their own erasure. 
     Common ways of trying to make asexuality 
accessible to a heterosexual audience include saying 
that “asexuals are just like everyone else, but without 
the sex” or explaining asexuality in terms of food—
for example, some people like and crave cake, while 
others do not. This metaphor is problematic as 
it implies that asexuality is only a minor aspect of 
one’s personality, as easily removed or overlooked 
as one’s food preferences. Similarly problematic are 
discussions of sexual attraction in society at large 
(particularly in the context of masculinity) that 
assert that attraction is a necessary part of the human 
experience. 
 These kinds of definitions put asexuals in an 
uncomfortable spot. Under heteronormativity, 
they would not be considered “normal” and might 
not easily fit into other heteronormative categories 
(for example, an asexual could be transgender and 
homoromantic, and thus would not easily fit into 
the heteronormative mold). For this reason, asexuals 
feel the need to liken themselves to heterosexuals 
and prove that they are “normal” and can fit in. The 
implications of such statements are that everyone 
else in the queer community is somehow abnormal 
or not like “everyone else.” 
     Such analogies present asexuality as a watered-
down version of another sexuality—heterosexuality 
lite, so to speak—erasing asexual experiences. This 

is a form of heteronormative language violence, as 
it can cause asexuals to be pushed away from the 
broader queer community because their deviance 
from the heteronormative standard may not be as 
immediately obvious as, for example, a homosexual 
transgender person’s might. In addition, as a result of 
the language above, “gate-keeping” within the asexual 
community can arise, where some are excluded 
because they do not seem “queer enough”—for 
example, a heteroromantic demisexual (a sexuality 
on the asexual spectrum where one can feel sexual 
attraction to another ONLY after a strong emotional 
bond has been formed) could “pass” as straight, and 
thus might be seen as not needing the support of 
the community (Asexual 1).  After all, if they were 
“just like everyone else” then why would they need a 
special community for support? 
 Though isolated from the LGBTQIA community 
(a community perhaps best suited to understand 
the experience of living in a world that sets a certain 
pattern of behavior and feelings that they do not share 
as “normal”) asexuals will not necessarily find the 
support they need in the broader heteronormative 
context of society.
 Heteronormative language is violent, as it 
diminishes the identity of bisexuals and asexuals 
while limiting their ability to find support within the 
communities that are best suited to their experiences. 
Heteronormative language also denies asexuals the 
ability to express their experiences without being 
questioned, and invalidates the asexual identity—a 
form of violence. Similar to the argument that 
bisexuals are “confused” or “halfway in the closet,” 
the oversimplification of the asexual identity 
through cute analogies implies that asexuality is a 
quirk or a phase, rather than a valid identity and a 
major part of a person’s personality.  Language that 
trivializes asexuality limits the ability of asexuals 
to express themselves, their experiences and their 
sexuality without fear of repercussions, whether that 
is not being taken seriously or being treated as an 
outsider. It normalizes the idea that heterosexuality 
is “normal” and preferable to any other orientation, 
to the point where those who identify differently 
must prove how like heterosexuals they are to be 
afforded respect. Thus, the erasure of asexuals and 
bisexuals is a form of heteronormative language 
violence. (Asexual 1)



The Violence of Heteronormative Language Towards the Queer Community  

Aisthesis      Volume 7,  201621

The Violence of Misgendering Transgender Individuals
 Misgendering transgender people by calling a 
transgender person anything but their preferred 
gender pronouns is violent in much the same 
ways that asexual and bisexual erasure is violent—
misgendering invalidates their identity. The 
implication inherent in misgendering is that 
personal identification as a certain gender is 
ultimately meaningless and gender is a truth that 
can be discovered by discerning a person’s biological 
sex at birth (Schilt and Westbrook 453). This limits a 
transgender person’s ability to decide independently 
how they would like to present to the world and 
how they would like to identify.  Such word choice 
reifies the idea that gender is fixed, immutable and 
decided at birth, a biological fact rather than a social 
construction. The limiting of a person’s ability to be 
who they would like to be is a form of violence.
 The misgendering of transgender individuals in 
casual conversations has effects beyond the possibility 
of hurt feelings of the individuals involved in the 
conversation. The way society comes to a consensus 
about certain truths necessarily has an impact on the 
way the judicial system addresses those truths. The 
misgendering of transgender individuals perpetuates 
the myth that gender is a “truth” that one can suss out 
if given information about an individual’s biology. 
This is a violent way of thinking, as evidenced by the 
case of Karen Ulane (Cruz).
 Karen was an Eastern Airlines employee who 
openly transitioned to female. After her transition, 
she was fired from her job. She attempted to sue 
Eastern Airlines for sex-based discrimination, but 
she was found to have been fired not because she 
was female, but because she was transgender (206). 
Ulane’s story exemplifies how the court punishes 
those who do not conform to their assigned gender 
based on their sex at birth. By deciding to allow 
Eastern Airlines to discriminate based on gender 
identity (in that Karen’s clearly did not match the 
one she was assigned based on her biological sex at 
birth), the courts have ensured that transphobia is 
not only socially encouraged, but also institutionally 
sanctioned. The distinction between cisgender 
female and transgender female is made clear through 
the court’s decision, and by saying that Karen Ulane’s 
case was not one of sex-based discrimination, the 
courts have said “trans women are not women.” 

Heteronormative Violence in Court Language
 Through the heteronormative language of 
their decisions, the courts pass judgments on what 
lifestyles, identities, and experiences are valid and 
acceptable. Those who fall outside of what the court 
has interpreted to be acceptable, such as gender 
nonconformists, are unable to enjoy full legal rights 
as US citizens. Heteronormative language violence 
in the courtroom is not, of course, restricted to 
transgender individuals. The language of one court 
decision, which Cruz’s study examines, says:
 

Sex is clearly an essential determinant of the 
relationship called marriage because it is 
and has always been recognized as the union 
of man and woman. It is the institution on 
which family is built, and in which the 
capacity for natural heterosexual intercourse 
is an essential element (205, emphasis added).

 The court’s language raises the question of what 
constitutes a man and a woman—a question which the 
court seems to have answered with “only those whose 
gender identity matches the biology they were born 
with and very occasionally those who have had sex 
reassignment surgery.” 
 
 In addition to raising the question of what qualifies 
one to be a man or woman, the court’s language also does 
violence to other groups. The first way it does so is by 
asserting that marriage is an unalterable institution, 
rather than a changeable social construct (“is and has 
always been”). The court’s language also defines legitimate 
marriage by the capacity for and actual occurrence of 
heterosexual intercourse, which is violent to those in 
the LGBTQIA community are or can be married but 
who may not have heterosexual intercourse. This 
constitutes a large portion of the LGBTQIA community, 
as it includes any gay cisgender couples, some 
bisexual couples, some transgender pairings and 
asexuals. These strict definitions of what constitutes 
an acceptable gender identity and the policing of what 
a relationship should look like are violent because they 
punish those who do not conform by denying them legal 
protections offered to their conforming peers.



The Violence of Heteronormative Language Towards the Queer Community The Violence of Heteronorma-

Aisthesis      Volume 7,  201622

Conclusion
    Heteronormative violence is present in the 
cisgender heterosexual community beginning from 
a young age. The gender policing and the teaching of 
strict gender roles to children have harmful effects 
for cisgender, heterosexual children by establishing 
gender roles that create violent, hypermasculine 
men. Importantly, this policing and teaching also 
have violent effects on the queer community. The 
erasure of asexuals and bisexuals, the misgendering 
of transgender individuals, and the violence done 
to the queer community in the courtroom can all 
be connected to the language we use to enforce 
heteronormativity in our everyday lives. 
    Just as violence is connected to heteronormative 
language, violence has the potential to be undone 
through the use of sensitive and inclusive language. 
Taking steps such as not assuming others’ gender 
pronouns, including categories like asexual and 
bisexual when discussing sexualities and being aware 
of the gendered connotations and implications of 
words we use daily can help to reduce the violence 
of heteronormativity. I, personally, am a strong 
proponent of defying English norms—if you want to 
be gender-inclusive and use “they” (which I tend to 
favor over zie or hir simply because “they” is already a 
broadly accepted English word and therefore is easier 
to work into most contexts) to refer to an individual, 
do it. The incredible thing about language is its 
flexibility; language use and grammar rules change 
all the time; however, this change does not happen 
without speakers being active and intentional in 
their word choice. “All members of a violent society, 
not only the topdogs, contribute to its operation and 
hence are all responsible as they can shake it through 
their non-cooperation” (Galtung, 180). We are all 
implicit in heteronormative violence; the good news 
is that we each have the ability to end it.

1 Violence will here be defined using Johan Galtung’s 
definition, provided in his article “Violence, Peace, 
and Peace Research”: “Violence is present when 
human beings are being influenced so that their 
actual somatic and mental realizations are below 
their potential realizations… Violence is here defined 
as the cause of the difference between the potential 
and the actual, between what could have been and 
what is” (168).

Works Cited
Alpert, Emily. “Why Bisexuals Stay in the Closet.” 

Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 14 July 
2013. Web. 22 Nov 2015.

Asexual Agenda. Asexuals Aren’t “Just Like Everyone 
Else, Minus the Sexual Attraction.” 5 Apr. 2014. Web. 
27 Feb. 2015. 

Cruz, David. “Getting Sex ‘Right’: Heteronormativity 
and Biologism in Trans and Intersex Marriage 
Litigation and Scholarship.” Duke Journal of 
Gender Law and Policy 18.203 (2010): 203-222. 
Web. <http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1187&context=djglp>

Galtung, Johan. “Violence, Peace, and Peace 
Research.” Journal of Peace Research 6.3 (1969): 
167-191. Print.

Kimport, Katrina. “Remaking the White Wedding? 
Same-sex Wedding Photographs’ Challenge to 
Symbolic Heteronormativity.” Gender & Society 
(2012): 874-899. Sage Journals. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.

Myers, Kristen. “‘Cowboy Up!’: Non-Hegemonic 
Representations Of Masculinity In Children’s 
Television Programming.” Journal of Men’s Studies 
20.2 (2012): 125-143. Sage Journals. Web. 2 Mar. 
2015.

Myers, Kristin, and Laura Raymond. “Elementary 
School Girls and Heteronormativity: The Girl 
Project.” Gender and Society 24.2 (2010): 167-88. 
Sage Journals. Web. 2 Mar 2015.

“The Need for a Gender Neutral Pronoun.” Gender 
Neutral Pronoun Blog. N.p., 24 Jan. 2014. Web. 28 
Apr. 2015.

Schilt, Kristen, and Laurel Westbrook. “Doing 
Gender, Doing Heteronormativity: ‘Gender Normals,’ 
Transgender People, and the Social Maintenance 
of Heterosexuality.” Gender and Society 23.4 
(2009): 440-464. Web. Sage Journals. 2 Mar 2015.

Yoshino, Kenji. “The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual 
Erasure.” Stanford Law Review 52.2 (2000): 
353-353. Web. 28 Apr. 2015. <http://www.
kenjiyoshino.com/articles/epistemiccontract.
pdf>


