An old Chinese proverb states that “A family in harmony will prosper in everything.” In the 21st century, harmony looks different in every family, especially in queer families, which do not always foster the harmony of heteronormative family structures. In her essay “With Friends Like These: The Liberalization of Queer Family Politics,” Angelia Ruth Wilson argues that in non-heterosexual relationships, “individual choice becomes the indispensable conduit to intimacy: “Individual autonomy is about identity and space, but it is also about intimate involvement. Through this you can become free” (58). This statement summarizes Wilson's assertion that queer relationships liberate families from the heterosexist normativeness that typically shapes family dynamics, as queer parents have the freedom to choose how to structure their families and raise their children. This individual choice appears in Shani Mootoo's Moving Forward Sideways Like a Crab, when India chooses to let Sydney care for her son, as well as in Maggie Nelson's The Argonauts, when Nelson chooses to be the primary caretaker of both her biological son Harry's than hers: both Many of these choices reject traditional family structures and therefore question heteronormativity, but they do so quite differently. An examination of these two texts through the lens of Wilson's “With friends like These: The liberalization of queer family policy” and Hannah Dyer's “Queer futurity and Childhood Innocence: Beyond the Damage of Development” reveals an inherent dissatisfaction with of the heteronormative family structure as well as a desire for its stability: the choices to conceive, birth, and parent a child in the midst of this non-heterosexual tension in these texts expose the different ways in which these couples challenge, with or without success, heteronormative family dynamics. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Although both India in Moving Forward Sideways Like a Crab and Nelson in The Argonauts choose to have a biological child, they do so neither in a traditional nor heterosexual way: both of these women choose to conceive via a sperm donor. In his essay, Wilson says, "The result of using donor insemination or self-insemination has meant almost endless permutations of family and parental relationships and structures that are experienced by many non-heterosexuals." These “chosen parents” have presented society with a “perceived threat to the conventional order of things that continues to limit possibilities, [and] provide an impetus to redefine the necessary practice of parenting (62). This statement suggests that, during the pregnancy, is traditionally a heterosexual act, the ability of non-heterosexual couples to conceive their own children challenges heteronormativity at its core: conception Heterosexual intercourse is typically the beginning of the heteronormative family structure, but sex and reproduction are not heterosexual are separated from each other. Introduction to Moving Forward Sideways Like a Crab, Sydney wonders, “in those months before her birth, when India asked us after our sexual intercourse, 'How did you know to do this? ' Does he need to know that he grabbed my shoulders and trembled? Or should he know? I wonder if he would believe it” (2). their sexual life before becoming parents, Mootoo confirms Wilson's idea that “the'generic restructuring of intimacy' has given rise to 'a situation in which a... relationship is undertaken for its own sake, for what can be gained by each person from an enduring association... which is continued only to the extent in which both parties believe it provides sufficient satisfaction for each individual to remain within it'” (54).The first relationship between Sydney and India highlights the importance of choice and pleasure in non-heterosexual relationships, because, as Wilson says, it's the only reason why people enter it. While relationships are born for their own sake, conceiving a child requires a much more conscious effort. In briefly describing the beginning of Sydney and India's relationship, Jonathan says that “sometime after meeting Sid, my mother decided to get pregnant through artificial insemination. After she got pregnant, Sid was by her side and… she was grateful for… the help…” (Mootoo, 203). Following the description of their sex life, this scene exemplifies Wilson's idea that “the decision…to undergo fertility treatment for a lesbian…is not a singular choice, or 'an accident.' As a result, these children of lesbian and gay parents are intrinsically singled out” (63). Wilson also mentions that some theorists argue that in addition to being completely separate from sex, non-heterosexual people's reproduction is also completely separate from their relationships, because they can choose to do so without their partner's consent. While Wilson argues that this certainly cannot be said of all relationships, it is also true of India and Sydney: this excerpt about India's choice to become pregnant makes it clear to the reader that it is an entirely personal choice (63). In sharing this information, Jonathan specifically says that his mother decided to do it herself – the choice was all hers and Sydney was simply there. Meanwhile, in The Argonauts, Nelson and Dodge challenge heteronormative thinking by choosing to stabilize their family through marriage. before having children. While the conception narrative shared by Jonathan is brief and apathetic, Nelson's discussion of his experience with artificial insemination. He introduces the conception narrative by saying, “Insemination after insemination, wanting our baby to be…. You hold my hand month after month, with devotion, with perseverance. They're probably whipping the egg whites, I said, tears welling up. Shhh, you whispered” (77). He goes on to describe the different processes and procedures and the final decision he makes to ask a friend for sperm instead of receiving anonymous donations. However, the most important is Harry's involvement in Nelson's choice to conceive a child: before this point, Nelson mentions their discussion about having a child several times, and although Harry is not physically involved, his emotional support is clear. This refutes Wilson's suggestion that non-heterosexual people's reproduction is also completely separate from their relationships, but confirms that it is completely separate from the sex between these two people. While this may seem to question heteronormativity less than India's independent decision to become pregnant, Nelson is challenging traditional family structures by rejecting biological familial bonds. Wilson points out that “The emphasis on the biological perpetuates a heterosexist assumption of the nuclear family rather than recognizing the 'social' parenting role of biological and nonbiological mothers and fathers” (68-69). Because the child Nelson conceives will have been fathered by a stranger or friend, and will not be biologically related to his father or half-brother. Like conception, there is an assumed heteronormativity withbirth; however, the birth narratives in Moving Forward Sideways Like a Crab and The Argonauts challenge this heteronormativity. A key difference between these two texts is the fact that the former is narrated by the child being born, while the latter is narrated by the mother who gave birth, which contributes to the fact that Jonathan's narrative is extremely sparse in detail compared to Nelson's. , both of these texts reveal different ways in which the heteronormative narrative of birth can be challenged. Jonathan says that: “When I was born, the attending nurse wrapped me in a towel and handed it to Sid. Sid took me to my mother, who said she would wait to hold me until I was cleaned up. I know because India told me” (Mootoo, 204). India's immediate disinterest in her son is shocking to the reader, but it also represents a clear rejection of heteronormative family roles. At this point in the novel, India establishes herself as the distant mother despite having just given birth to him. As with the conception narrative, the discussion of Jonathan's birth is brief and direct, and contrasts profoundly with the lengthy account of Nelson's birth. Nelson describes her birth experience for several pages, focusing so much on herself and the baby that at times it seems like no one else is present (and, at times, no one else is present). However, he concludes with a warm observation that “When his first child was born, Harry cried. Now he holds Iggy close and laughs sweetly into his little face” (133). Her narrative emphasizes the union between her and Iggy, but this shift of focus towards her husband and son contrasts perfectly with that of Johnathan. Despite having a clear interest in being a mother figure, Nelson allows her partner to hold the baby immediately after giving birth. While Sydney has not fallen into a stereotypical parental role for Jonathan, both he and Harry are challenging heteronormativity by observing their children immediately after their birth. Although pregnancy and birth narratives convey some ways in which non-heterosexual couples challenge heteronormativity, it is ultimately their roles as parents that confirm their success or otherwise as a non-heterosexual family. When considering Mootoo's Moving Forward Sideways Like a Crab, it's important to consider the role of the workforce in the character's life: both India and Sydney have unconventional jobs as writers and artists, still having careers when Jonathan is born and when he grows up . on. Since India is Jonathan's biological mother, a heteronormative family structure would require her to be the most active parent in her son's life. However, as a queer parent, India chooses her own family structure and rejects traditional motherhood to remain an active writer and lets Sydney take care of raising her son. However, Jonathan states that “Sydney has been like a father to [him] since the day [he] was born,” but by heteronormative standards, this statement contradicts other anecdotes (Mootoo, 116). When Jonathan says: Sid's willingness to take care of me allowed India to immediately return to writing. When his book was published three years later, it was a finalist for three major awards. She kept busy with event after event, with interviews, tours around the country, and trips abroad, and Sid and I became a team (Mootoo, 204) Sydney identified as both masculine and feminine when Jonathan was growing up: Although she is not Jonathan's biological mother, she had a more stereotypical maternal position and therefore did not fit the heteronormative role of mother or father. Hannah Dyer who uses the term queer both to "(a) categorize thesexuality is (b) to refer to deviance from cultural norms,” would say that Jonathan's unique and somewhat traumatic upbringing has “queerized” him, and he carries that queerness into adulthood (4) . This has a strong impact on his relationship with Sydney and India, also a queer person, Dyer says: Adults, for example, sometimes find it difficult to expose the child's aggression and negative emotional responses because these reactions are often excessive compared to the narratives. of childhood innocence. The adult homosexual, therefore, must return to childhood and rework his childhood memory to clarify the appearance of the inversion. In this scheme, what is at stake is the adult's memory of childhood, not the child's present (5).These relationships challenge heteronormativity because all parties involved have been queer, albeit in different ways. Because Jonathan is telling the story as an adult, he can reveal to himself how the end of India and Sydney's relationship had a impact on him, e his anger towards both can be explained by their strangeness. Being the product of artificial insemination and being a lesbian, Jonathan's chances of having a heteronormative father were slim. However, being abandoned by his queer father figure to be raised by his queer mother is what ultimately makes him a queer individual: his “reactions… in excess of narratives of childhood innocence” are about the difficulty of being part of a family that challenges heteronormativity by rejecting anything approaching a traditional family dynamic. In her essay, Wilson highlights the fact that many issues are unaddressed in feminist theory, arguing that “Giddens (a queer theorist) fails to consider the impact of institutionalized heterosexism/homophobia and the fluidity of gender and sexual identity ”. (61). Institutionalized heterosexism, homophobia, and the fluidity of gender and sexual identity are all present in The Argonauts. One scene that features institutionalized heterosexism is when Nelson describes their experience at the restaurant where the waiter refers to the four of them as "sir" even though Harry and his son identify as male. Harry tells his son that they are not all women, but does not explain further: he only says that the girls are very beautiful. Nelson identifies herself as his stepmother, but her memoirs make it clear that she raised him – so while Harry may say that no, they are not women, it is up to Nelson at some point to explain to Harry's son that they were the victims of heterosexism: The waiter is clearly discriminating against Nelson's family because Harry is a trans individual. Although Nelson has the choice to reject heteronormative family structures as a queer woman, she instead chooses to redefine the maternal role. As a stepmother first and then a mother, she is aware not only of the heterosexism she experiences outside the home, but also of the ways in which heterosexism impacts her choice and ability to parent. Wilson states that “the centrality given to biological parenthood necessarily imposes heterosexist limitations on parental choices, giving priority to the 'natural' caring role of the natural mother” (69). The beginning of Nelson's memoir introduces the question of biology that is also prominent in Moving Forward Sideways Like a Crab: Harry's son, whose identity is kept secret, has another parent deeply unhappy with Nelson's involvement in his life. At the time Harry's mother was first diagnosed with breast cancer, Nelson notes that "custody of [Harry's] son ​​remained uncertain, and the specter of a homophobic or transphobic judge deciding his fate, the fate of our family, transformed our days into a tornado.