This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Gender binary Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Gender binary |
The contents of the Gender binarism page were merged into Gender binary on 5 February 2019 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
I've never, ever seen "genderism" used in this sense. In my experience as a transgender self-advocate, the conflation of sex and gender is generally referred to by trans* and genderqueer self-advocates as "cissexism" (which I think was coined by Julia Serano); reluctance to comply with non-binary gender people's self-identification, and/or the belief/assumption that there are/should be only 2 genders, is generally referred to as "binarism" by non-binary self-advocates. The only way I've ever seen or heard "genderism" used is as an alternative term to "sexism" which never seems to have caught on, intended to resolve the latter's implied cissexism. 31.55.6.133 ( talk) 22:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Having "gender binarism" in bold as an alternate title in the first sentence is problematic, since Gender binarism currently redirects to Gender binary (an article whose first sentence also contains "gender binarism" in bold). Should this article be merged into that one? - dcljr ( talk) 02:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
This article displays clear evidence in bias and gives the impression that genderism is wholly transphobic et cetera while acknowledging unilaterally. There is not one sentence which does not overwhelmingly give the impression that genderism is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.129.176 ( talk) 17:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Your article is well written but could you add more information on how the youth activism in LGBT communities is moving toward more acceptance of all non-heterosexual individuals. Ava Christine ( talk) 14:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Could you cite where you got the definition for genderism? Ava Christine ( talk) 14:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I propose that Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons be merged into Genderism as both pages are basically talking about the same fact. Indeed, Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons can easily be a section of Genderism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaddyCell ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I'm aware – disallowed on Wikipedia articles though not Wikipedia talk pages. If you're interested, a quick search yielded a result, which talks about radical feminism and trans activism. "To be gender-critical is to doubt the belief, which its critics call ′genderism,′ that gender is some sort of irreducible essence, wholly distinct from biological sex or socialization." That is radical feminist jargon. 77.127.33.23 ( talk) 01:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe that doing this would have a very negative impact on the fact that there are only 2 genders.Gender discrimination is very different from this form of "discrimination", that only 2 genders exist, which is an undoubted fact. So, no, the pages should remain separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.74.14.30 ( talk) 15:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@
DaddyCell,
Flyer22 Reborn,
Trankuility, and
Sakura Cartelet:
Perhaps we can reboot the discussion with a modified merge proposal (below), and see if a consensus develops this time.
I've boldly flipped the sense of the template on the article page from {{ merge from}} to {{ merge to}}. (If there are objections to this, we can revert back.) The reason for this was mostly, as various commenters have mentioned above, because there's more than one meaning or interpretation for "Genderism", so it makes more sense to merge content from this article elsewhere, perhaps to the original article named in the template, Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons, which has the advantage of being an unambiguous title.
For me, the main sense of Genderism is as a synonym for Gender essentialism. Had Genderism been written as I expected, we'd be talking about a merge to Gender essentialism instead, but for whatever reason, the article didn't end up that way or even mentioning essentialism at all, which I find perplexing. Given the current state of the article, however, most of the material belongs to Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons which is why I left that article as the merge target. So, in a nutshell:
Merge proposal 2: Merge the content of Genderism into Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons, and recast this article as a disambig page, to accommodate the multiple senses.
Mathglot ( talk) 08:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I support both merge proposals: The content of this article doesn't match its title. I've never heard of "genderism" applied solely to trans-identity (do the sources in this article even support that claim?), but rather "genderism" is a broader term, to include belief in any gender-based ideology (ie, Gender essentialism). This appears to be stalled now for six months. What's the next step to get either merge done? A145GI15I95 ( talk) 04:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Just a note that this edit actually added sources using the term genderism. The student commented below, in the #New Additions section. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Mathglot, perhaps you want to better explain this revert of the editor? The article is full of original research/synthesis. At least sources that the editor included actually use the term genderism. Did you read the sources and see original research/synthesis with regard to the editor's wording? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 08:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Notes
Off-topic post hidden per
WP:TPOC
|
---|
It is clear that genderism is an outflow of the theory of social and philosophical constructivism. A theory developped by, among others, Searle, Berger and Luckmann. Basically, it claims that most social institutions and ideas have no relation to natural or God-given facts, but are ideas which have been developped arbitrarily by various societies and cultures. Now we have to ask ourselves why this theory has only led to de-constructing classical gender concepts. The reason is, of course, that genderism was highly influenced by feminist thought. But there is no logical reason why it should stop there. There are lots of other, equally arbitrary social ideas which need to be de-constructed. For example, our notion of law, justice, and morals in itself (not only their various manifestations in different societies) bears no relationship to any observable facts. It is a social construct, in its entirety. What is more, even the distinction between man and beast is a social construction - of which we are not aware because we have become used to it in the course of millenia. This leads to questions of high social importance. In most western liberal democracies, homosexual men and women are nowadays allowed to marry. But it remains a sign of oppression and discrimation, that men cannot marry their favorite pets, their goldfish, or their dog. The logic at the ground of genderism absolutely demands this to be made possible. In this alone, the high scientific value of genderism, and its inner common sense, find a convincing proof. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C07:EEC0:38E5:7D16:F447:4F91 ( talk) 09:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I would like to add three new headings under the last LGBT community post. The first one will be about genderism and its use with transphobia. The second one will be about genderism and its implementation of other societies. Lastly, there will be an example of a previous scale used in some research. I would also like to tweak and add to some existing information on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyoung11 ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The Transphobia section is based on the former last paragraph of the lead in the previous version of the article, and adds one new paragraph. A major concern was the unexplained removal of four reliable sources from the content ( Steinberg 2009, Beemyn 2011, Wing Sue 2010, Lau Chin 2004). This is grounds for an immediate revert, which I did here, but then undid later in response to this request of yours at my talk page, so that we could have this discussion about it.
Let's talk about the first paragraph, whose content predates your edit, so was not initially your responsibility. But since you moved it to a new section in the body (and replaced the four sources with one of your own) to some extent you own it now. The first paragraph states some generalities about Genderism, and makes some unsupported assertions about parallels between Transphobia/homophobia, and genderism/heterosexism. It uses the term gender bashing without explanation or citation. (Try this one, or perhaps restoring the removed one(s).)
In the second paragraph, the first two sentences are unsupported generalities about transphobia. They are true enough, and could easily be sourced, but I don't see the point, as a simple link to the Transphobia article would suffice. The last two sentences of paragraph two finally get around to talking about the connection between transphobia and genderism, and could be relevant to this article if a case were made for it. However, they cite a 2005 study, and in this fast-moving field, this is pretty old. For example: this study uses terms which now range from fading but still in use (transsexual) to cringeworthy (transgenderists). The former of the two sentences says, Those who are genderist believe that people who do not conform to sociocultural expectations of gender are unnatural. That's a believable statement, but I don't see how this journal article about coming up with scales to try and find correlations between transphobia and genderist attitudes supports this assertion. If this is just a restatement of what genderism is, taken from the lead of the article by way of introduction to the meat of the argument, then it can just be dropped. As for the latter of the two sentences: Genderism Scales can be used to identify the stance one takes on masculinity and femininity associated with anti-trans sentiments and behaviors, I simply don't know what that sentence is trying to say.
Finally, I think the Transphobia section is missing what could be an interesting addition to the article: namely the fact that a large number, very possibly the majority of transgender people who seek sex reassignment surgery also have what could be labeled a genderist attitude. People seeking surgery often buy into the gender binary for themselves, even if they are open to it in others. Bear in mind that older terms for transsexuals labeled them "mtf" or "ftm" and there was no middle ground, nor did they fight for one. The Wikipedia subarticles on SRS are still labeled this way ( mtf, ftm). If you wanted to add a discussion about that, the section title Transphobia would no longer be appropriate and would need to be changed to something that would encompass this, but I think that genderism among transgender individuals could be an interesting addition to the article.
Note: Detailed comments about the other two sections ( Bathroom Controversy and Drag) at a later time; spoiler: the content mostly or entirely belongs somewhere else; relevance to this article has not been demonstrated. Pinging Shalor (Wiki Ed). Mathglot ( talk) 23:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed those sections, since there was no further discussion. Mathglot ( talk) 10:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The articles Gender binary and Genderism currently appear to be describing much the same thing. Proposal is to merge content of current Genderism into Gender binary. This proposal will coincide with a proposal to move Genderism (disambiguation) to Genderism.
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Genderism (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 04:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The revision history for this page clearly does not match the content. This needs the attention of an admin to unscramble this. It appears to be the result of some pages moves that were not executed corectly.
Relevant discussions:
Other pages:
Redirects:
Involved editors:
Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
{{admin help}}
request was here.)
Mathglot (
talk) 19:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC) updated by
Mathglot (
talk) 22:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Huon, the "pagetype" issue is still there (the type is still "redirect") but I'm not clear if this is part of the same problem, or completely unrelated. Does it even matter?
Not asking you to take this on, you've already done enough; but can you point me in the right direction? If this requires admin help, I'll add a {{Help me}}.. thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 01:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I suspect some of the WikiProject assessments currently located here belong at Talk:Gender binary, and ditto the WikiEd course announcements, but this should be looked at carefully before moving anything so they're moved to the right place. Mathglot ( talk) 09:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I believe that all necessary clean-up and housekeeping after the rescue have now been completed. If there are any remaining tasks that still need doing, please list them here. Mathglot ( talk) 13:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Gender binary Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Gender binary |
The contents of the Gender binarism page were merged into Gender binary on 5 February 2019 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
I've never, ever seen "genderism" used in this sense. In my experience as a transgender self-advocate, the conflation of sex and gender is generally referred to by trans* and genderqueer self-advocates as "cissexism" (which I think was coined by Julia Serano); reluctance to comply with non-binary gender people's self-identification, and/or the belief/assumption that there are/should be only 2 genders, is generally referred to as "binarism" by non-binary self-advocates. The only way I've ever seen or heard "genderism" used is as an alternative term to "sexism" which never seems to have caught on, intended to resolve the latter's implied cissexism. 31.55.6.133 ( talk) 22:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Having "gender binarism" in bold as an alternate title in the first sentence is problematic, since Gender binarism currently redirects to Gender binary (an article whose first sentence also contains "gender binarism" in bold). Should this article be merged into that one? - dcljr ( talk) 02:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
This article displays clear evidence in bias and gives the impression that genderism is wholly transphobic et cetera while acknowledging unilaterally. There is not one sentence which does not overwhelmingly give the impression that genderism is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.129.176 ( talk) 17:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Your article is well written but could you add more information on how the youth activism in LGBT communities is moving toward more acceptance of all non-heterosexual individuals. Ava Christine ( talk) 14:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Could you cite where you got the definition for genderism? Ava Christine ( talk) 14:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I propose that Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons be merged into Genderism as both pages are basically talking about the same fact. Indeed, Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons can easily be a section of Genderism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaddyCell ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I'm aware – disallowed on Wikipedia articles though not Wikipedia talk pages. If you're interested, a quick search yielded a result, which talks about radical feminism and trans activism. "To be gender-critical is to doubt the belief, which its critics call ′genderism,′ that gender is some sort of irreducible essence, wholly distinct from biological sex or socialization." That is radical feminist jargon. 77.127.33.23 ( talk) 01:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe that doing this would have a very negative impact on the fact that there are only 2 genders.Gender discrimination is very different from this form of "discrimination", that only 2 genders exist, which is an undoubted fact. So, no, the pages should remain separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.74.14.30 ( talk) 15:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@
DaddyCell,
Flyer22 Reborn,
Trankuility, and
Sakura Cartelet:
Perhaps we can reboot the discussion with a modified merge proposal (below), and see if a consensus develops this time.
I've boldly flipped the sense of the template on the article page from {{ merge from}} to {{ merge to}}. (If there are objections to this, we can revert back.) The reason for this was mostly, as various commenters have mentioned above, because there's more than one meaning or interpretation for "Genderism", so it makes more sense to merge content from this article elsewhere, perhaps to the original article named in the template, Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons, which has the advantage of being an unambiguous title.
For me, the main sense of Genderism is as a synonym for Gender essentialism. Had Genderism been written as I expected, we'd be talking about a merge to Gender essentialism instead, but for whatever reason, the article didn't end up that way or even mentioning essentialism at all, which I find perplexing. Given the current state of the article, however, most of the material belongs to Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons which is why I left that article as the merge target. So, in a nutshell:
Merge proposal 2: Merge the content of Genderism into Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons, and recast this article as a disambig page, to accommodate the multiple senses.
Mathglot ( talk) 08:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I support both merge proposals: The content of this article doesn't match its title. I've never heard of "genderism" applied solely to trans-identity (do the sources in this article even support that claim?), but rather "genderism" is a broader term, to include belief in any gender-based ideology (ie, Gender essentialism). This appears to be stalled now for six months. What's the next step to get either merge done? A145GI15I95 ( talk) 04:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Just a note that this edit actually added sources using the term genderism. The student commented below, in the #New Additions section. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Mathglot, perhaps you want to better explain this revert of the editor? The article is full of original research/synthesis. At least sources that the editor included actually use the term genderism. Did you read the sources and see original research/synthesis with regard to the editor's wording? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 08:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Notes
Off-topic post hidden per
WP:TPOC
|
---|
It is clear that genderism is an outflow of the theory of social and philosophical constructivism. A theory developped by, among others, Searle, Berger and Luckmann. Basically, it claims that most social institutions and ideas have no relation to natural or God-given facts, but are ideas which have been developped arbitrarily by various societies and cultures. Now we have to ask ourselves why this theory has only led to de-constructing classical gender concepts. The reason is, of course, that genderism was highly influenced by feminist thought. But there is no logical reason why it should stop there. There are lots of other, equally arbitrary social ideas which need to be de-constructed. For example, our notion of law, justice, and morals in itself (not only their various manifestations in different societies) bears no relationship to any observable facts. It is a social construct, in its entirety. What is more, even the distinction between man and beast is a social construction - of which we are not aware because we have become used to it in the course of millenia. This leads to questions of high social importance. In most western liberal democracies, homosexual men and women are nowadays allowed to marry. But it remains a sign of oppression and discrimation, that men cannot marry their favorite pets, their goldfish, or their dog. The logic at the ground of genderism absolutely demands this to be made possible. In this alone, the high scientific value of genderism, and its inner common sense, find a convincing proof. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C07:EEC0:38E5:7D16:F447:4F91 ( talk) 09:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I would like to add three new headings under the last LGBT community post. The first one will be about genderism and its use with transphobia. The second one will be about genderism and its implementation of other societies. Lastly, there will be an example of a previous scale used in some research. I would also like to tweak and add to some existing information on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyoung11 ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The Transphobia section is based on the former last paragraph of the lead in the previous version of the article, and adds one new paragraph. A major concern was the unexplained removal of four reliable sources from the content ( Steinberg 2009, Beemyn 2011, Wing Sue 2010, Lau Chin 2004). This is grounds for an immediate revert, which I did here, but then undid later in response to this request of yours at my talk page, so that we could have this discussion about it.
Let's talk about the first paragraph, whose content predates your edit, so was not initially your responsibility. But since you moved it to a new section in the body (and replaced the four sources with one of your own) to some extent you own it now. The first paragraph states some generalities about Genderism, and makes some unsupported assertions about parallels between Transphobia/homophobia, and genderism/heterosexism. It uses the term gender bashing without explanation or citation. (Try this one, or perhaps restoring the removed one(s).)
In the second paragraph, the first two sentences are unsupported generalities about transphobia. They are true enough, and could easily be sourced, but I don't see the point, as a simple link to the Transphobia article would suffice. The last two sentences of paragraph two finally get around to talking about the connection between transphobia and genderism, and could be relevant to this article if a case were made for it. However, they cite a 2005 study, and in this fast-moving field, this is pretty old. For example: this study uses terms which now range from fading but still in use (transsexual) to cringeworthy (transgenderists). The former of the two sentences says, Those who are genderist believe that people who do not conform to sociocultural expectations of gender are unnatural. That's a believable statement, but I don't see how this journal article about coming up with scales to try and find correlations between transphobia and genderist attitudes supports this assertion. If this is just a restatement of what genderism is, taken from the lead of the article by way of introduction to the meat of the argument, then it can just be dropped. As for the latter of the two sentences: Genderism Scales can be used to identify the stance one takes on masculinity and femininity associated with anti-trans sentiments and behaviors, I simply don't know what that sentence is trying to say.
Finally, I think the Transphobia section is missing what could be an interesting addition to the article: namely the fact that a large number, very possibly the majority of transgender people who seek sex reassignment surgery also have what could be labeled a genderist attitude. People seeking surgery often buy into the gender binary for themselves, even if they are open to it in others. Bear in mind that older terms for transsexuals labeled them "mtf" or "ftm" and there was no middle ground, nor did they fight for one. The Wikipedia subarticles on SRS are still labeled this way ( mtf, ftm). If you wanted to add a discussion about that, the section title Transphobia would no longer be appropriate and would need to be changed to something that would encompass this, but I think that genderism among transgender individuals could be an interesting addition to the article.
Note: Detailed comments about the other two sections ( Bathroom Controversy and Drag) at a later time; spoiler: the content mostly or entirely belongs somewhere else; relevance to this article has not been demonstrated. Pinging Shalor (Wiki Ed). Mathglot ( talk) 23:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed those sections, since there was no further discussion. Mathglot ( talk) 10:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The articles Gender binary and Genderism currently appear to be describing much the same thing. Proposal is to merge content of current Genderism into Gender binary. This proposal will coincide with a proposal to move Genderism (disambiguation) to Genderism.
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Genderism (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 04:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The revision history for this page clearly does not match the content. This needs the attention of an admin to unscramble this. It appears to be the result of some pages moves that were not executed corectly.
Relevant discussions:
Other pages:
Redirects:
Involved editors:
Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
{{admin help}}
request was here.)
Mathglot (
talk) 19:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC) updated by
Mathglot (
talk) 22:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Huon, the "pagetype" issue is still there (the type is still "redirect") but I'm not clear if this is part of the same problem, or completely unrelated. Does it even matter?
Not asking you to take this on, you've already done enough; but can you point me in the right direction? If this requires admin help, I'll add a {{Help me}}.. thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 01:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I suspect some of the WikiProject assessments currently located here belong at Talk:Gender binary, and ditto the WikiEd course announcements, but this should be looked at carefully before moving anything so they're moved to the right place. Mathglot ( talk) 09:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I believe that all necessary clean-up and housekeeping after the rescue have now been completed. If there are any remaining tasks that still need doing, please list them here. Mathglot ( talk) 13:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)