As the
Library Journal noted,
The Trouble With Normal was sometimes construed as a straightforward response to
Andrew Sullivan's 1995
Virtually Normal. David Bell, in
Contemporary Sociology, accordingly characterized
The Trouble with Normal as a move in the "
assimilationist debates", over the extent to which gay people should aspire to 'normality', that characterized 1990s and 2000s gay rights activism. In these debates Warner was ranged against Andrew Sullivan and Larry Kramer, who argued that the most radical goals the movement could seek were the acceptance of gay life into the political and cultural mainstream, through rights like marriage. Warner insisted that, on the contrary, queer people were ideally positioned to critique and challenge mainstream institutions and should not settle for mere tolerance. The debate was impassioned; Warner told the
Guardian that "This Fifties version of how gay life should be that we've been handed is actually not making a lot of people happy", while Sullivan asked "What could be more boring than to still be referring to yourself as "queer"?" In 2003 the
Library Journal described Warner's book as a classic in the field of the debate on normalcy. Queer theorist
Judith Butler, with whose idea of the necessarily transgressive nature of queerness Warner takes issue, called the book "brave and timely", applauding its analysis of sexual shame and noting that "one may not concur with every word, but everyone will attest to the power and necessity of the invaluable critical voice offered here." The philosopher
Martha Nussbaum, writing in
The New Republic, praised the book's moral opposition to "the domination of the 'normal': "Warner is a deft and thoughtful writer who turns his own experience of the margins into a source of genuine understanding about America and its sexual politics...what Warner's book finally demands of us is...genuine reflection." Nussbaum later called the book "clearly written and argued, insightful about human life, and valuable both in its theoretical analysis and its recommendations for practice."
Kirkus Reviews praised the "
lapidary skill" with which the book criticized heteronormativity, but objected to its emphasis on the need for an already marginalized gay community to change: "Telling gay people that, for various ethical reasons, they shouldn't even want to marry, when they already can't, does not change the fact that laws that enfranchise some while disenfranchising others are discriminatory. Warner's rhetoric persuasively reveals the hierarchical parameters of marriage and the constraints of normalcy, but a more universal approach to his topic would delineate the limitations of marriage for all people, not just queer people. In the end, his polemic leaves standing discriminatory treatment of queers for the sake of a theoretical attack on normalcy." ==Release details==