Talk:Gender binarism

[Untitled]

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)

I've seen 'genderist' used by trans exclusionary radical feminists to describe people who are not gender abolitionists. Shiningroad (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Gender binarism

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)

dcljr, the Genderism article, which is a WP:Neologism matter, should be merged into the Gender binary article. As seen with this edit, I stated, "Baeddel, and that is exactly why this article should be merged with the Gender binary article. It is a redundant WP:Content fork." So it should be merged with the Gender binary article per WP:Neologism and WP:Content fork. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

[Untitled]

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)

Clarification of Youth Activism

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)

Cite Definition

Could you cite where you got the definition for genderism? Ava Christine (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

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)

DaddyCell, regarding this, per what I stated above, this article should probably be merged into the Gender binary article. That is, anything that is not redundant to that article. This article states, "Genderism, or gender binarism, is the social system or cultural belief that gender is a binary." The Gender binary article states, "The gender binary, also referred to as gender binarism (sometimes shortened to just binarism), is the classification of sex and gender into two distinct, opposite and disconnected forms of masculine and feminine."

That stated, the topic of the "gender binary" isn't supposed to be mostly about discrimination towards non-binary gender persons...while the topic of "genderism" is mostly supposed to be about that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn , what I undestand about genderism is that it is a particular type of transphobia towards those transgender individuals who do not identify with either binary gender. I would not merge it with gender binary, as there are societies with a gender system that accepts other genders besides male and female, but where transgender people do face discrimination. That is, there are societies which are not binary, but where genderism is present. Although I also think the introduction of genderism should be corrected in order to to be precise.DaddyCell (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

DaddyCell, I don't see that genderism is simply a type of transphobia. It's about more than that. If it was mainly or solely about transphobia, it would be a section of the Transphobia article. Then again, I don't see a lot of sources using the term genderism and explaining what it is. This article is a neo, synthesis and content fork violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22 Reborn on Genderism being a neologism. I would suggest merging this article with Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons, as the title of that page is more clear and descriptive. Trankuility (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I've seen the term "genderism" being used in a completely different sense by radfems. They use it to mean the support of gender socialization and the resulting culture-specific sex roles. That has little to nothing to do with "[d]iscrimination towards. . .persons [with] non-binary gender [identities]," and thus would not be very compatible with the merger of this article into Gender binary or anything of the sort. 77.127.33.23 (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this assertion? "I've seen" or "I've heard isn't really allowable under Wikipedia policy concerning original research and reliable sourcing. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 00:52, 29 September 2017 (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)

Disagree

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)

You HAVE TO UNDERSTAND: Being a normal heterosexual being is BAD, WICKED, AMORAL! If you want it or not, being so is transporting the ideology that transgenders and other progressive human beings are not morally superior to "normals". This is reactionary! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:120b:2c07:eec0:d5fe:ee14:e88e:14c5 (talk • contribs) 13:15, October 25, 2017 (UTC)

Merge redux

@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)

Listed this discussion at WT:LGBT and WT:GS. Mathglot (talk) Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I stand by what I stated above. It should most likely be merged into the Gender binary article since it is about gender binarism. I disagree with merging it into the Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons article. And merge discussions on barely-watched talk pages are usually fruitless. So I would start an RfC on whether it should be merged into the Gender binary article or the Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

As one of the top 10 editors of Chelsea Manning, I have become interested in transgender issues, including discrimination. However, the concept of genderism is new to me. So please have patience as I try to understand. Wikipedia's article is very short—just four paragraphs—and states that genderism may (my emphasis) "reinforce negative attitudes, bias, and discrimination," and underlies transphobia and trans bashing. Those are obviously bad things. By contrast, the Wiktionary definition is non-judgmental: "The belief that gender is a binary, comprising male and female, and that the aspects of a person's gender are inherently linked to their sex at birth." Mathglot's Merge proposal 2 asks us to enforce the pejorative meaning of genderism by formally ostracizing it to the ghetto of discrimination. Must Wikipedia be roped into such an inflexible, one-dimensional view? I wonder if it isn't possible to embrace the belief (wrongheaded as it may be) yet oppose discrimination. Creationism can reinforce negative attitudes, bias, and even discrimination—as in the 1925 prosecution of Tennessee high school teacher John T. Scopes—yet Wikipedia still has an article devoted to it. KalHolmann (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Kal, you misunderstand, I think; I believe we agree on substance. I don't want to "enforce" a pejorative meaning, Wiktionary's definition is correct, and the article's is wrong (or fringe). And I agree that the "may" that you emphasized above is key, because I think this whole article is kind of fringe, since what it describes is really gender essentialism, and not genderism. Gender essentialism is a neutral concept (whether one agrees with it or not), and has been around since before Plato. Wiktionary doesn't have "wikt:gender essentialism" ^{[ blue? ]} yet, but defines "wikt:genderism" as a synonym of it. The current content of Genderism which defines it as a synonym of gender essentialism without even mentioning the term, and then links it to discrimination or trans-bashing is a kind of fringe essay; it's both a fringe usage of the term, as well as an opinion piece about its effects.

Implementing proposal 2 would in no way "enforce the pejorative meaning of genderism"; on the contrary; the reason is because the merge would apply to content, and the redirect to the title, and they would go in opposite directions. The merge portion of the proposal, would move content out of this article and into the "Discrimination" article, minus the word "genderism" which should be excised as a fringe meaning of the term, and replaced with essentialism, which is not ambiguous and doesn't have fringe meanings. (I should have said so in the earlier post.)

The theory of the social construction of gender came about via opposition to gender essentialism in second-wave feminism. An unintended side-effect of the development of these theories was some of the internal struggles that feminism later went through; notably the one that divided feminists (especially radical feminists) insofar as their attitude towards trans women, that some other feminists viewed as discriminatory. This story should be better explained. Although both the Radical feminism article as well as the Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people deal with feminist attitudes towards trans women, neither article mentions gender essentialism, and I'm not sure they need to. The story could be told either in the Gender essentialism article or in the Discrimination article, and probably better the latter, both for chronological reasons, and also because such discrimination has many roots, of which gender essentialism is only one.

A proper execution of Proposal 2 would not link the word 'genderism' to Discrimination in any way. Often, in a merge, the title of the old article (here, that would be 'Genderism') would be redirected to the new one, but precisely for the reasons you object to, I do not want to do that. I want it turned into a disambig page (or alternatively, you could argue for a redirect to Gender essentialism). A proper content merge and edit would keep that in line with your desires.

The only thing I disagree with in what you said is the last part, since Wikipedia shouldn't get roped into anything, including non-discrimination, because we don't embrace any beliefs at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we merely report beliefs, including hateful ones, not embrace them. (There are, after all, articles about any number of atrocious philosophies and movements.) Other than that, I believe that Proposal 2 is completely in line with your stated objective.

I'll think about the Rfc issue, but wanted to taste the waters, first. Perhaps we'll figure it out here, and won't need one. The locus of an Rfc shouldn't matter if it's properly linked from relevant projects and pages, and a merge (if properly tagged) automatically has links from both, but if there's a better place for it, I have no objection, when the time comes. Mathglot (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot, when you stated "[t]he locus of an Rfc shouldn't matter if it's properly linked from relevant projects and pages," were you referring to where we have the RfC? Ideally, the RfC should take place here at the article's talk page. As for WikiProjects, yeah, it's standard to notify relevant WikiProjects of the RfC. One thing I like about RfCs, though, is that they pull in a broader audience, meaning not just those tied to the relevant WikiProjects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification – When I commented, "I wonder if it isn't possible to embrace the belief…yet oppose discrimination," I did not mean that Wikipedia should embrace anything, but rather that believers in genderism do not necessarily practice or endorse discrimination. In which case, Genderism should remain as a standalone page, albeit rewritten per WP:WEIGHT to give a more balanced presentation. Meanwhile, if Mathglot wants to merge Genderism into Gender essentialism, he should craft it as merge proposal 3 and leave Discrimination against non-binary gender persons out of it. KalHolmann (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

KalHolmann, what do you think of merging the article into the Gender binary article? I'm still not seeing any valid reason why it should not be merged there, given what both articles state and that one article is using the term gender binary and the other gender binarism, which mean the same thing. On a side note: No need to ping me to this talk page since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the Gender binary article is also using the term gender binarism in the lead of its article as a WP:Alternative term. Having two articles using that alternative title is problematic. I cannot help but see the Genderism article as an unnecessary WP:Redundant fork and/or WP:POV fork. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Kal, Yes, I was referring to where to have the Rfc; here, or at the merge target talk page which has more views. And thanks for the clarification, I understand what you meant, now.

Regarding where, or whether to merge, Flyer are you proposing a merge to Gender binary?. Genderism is a short article, and even in the merge case, I don't expect much of the content to survive a relevance and redundancy check but if there's anything salvageable I'd be okay with a merge; and I would also be fine with no merge (i.e., just jettisoning the content) and simply recasting the article as a disambig page, or if the consensus is that genderism has only one meaning, then a redirect. Mathglot (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The lead's third sentence begins: "Gender binary is one of the core principles of genderism…." If Gender binary (B) is a subset of Genderism (A), it's logical to merge (B) into (A), not the other way round. But we already have two merge proposals in this thread, and I wish we could dispose of merge proposal 2 before moving onto yet another. KalHolmann (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot, yes, a merge to the Gender binary article is my suggestion. I suggested that earlier on above on the talk page. KalHolmann (let me know if you don't want me to keep pinging you), the wording "gender binary is one of the core principles of genderism" is unsourced. "Gender binary" is a very WP:Notable topic in its own right. By contrast, genderism is a neologism and Wikipedia cautions against articles on neologisms per WP:NEO. I don't see how how "gender binary" and "genderism" are truly being distinguished, except for genderism referring to the criticism aspect of the gender binary. And the Gender binary article does have criticism in it. Furthermore, it also seems to be the case that there are sources in the Genderism article that don't use the term genderism.

There is also the option of splitting up content so that it is merged to different articles -- to the articles the content is most relevant to. The term genderism is not needed for the "In the LGBT community" content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The article Genderism not only overlaps with Gender essentialism and Discrimination against non-binary gender persons, but also with Gender binary, which has Binarism as an alternative title. However, genderism/gender essentialism/binarism does not only affect non-binary people, but also all trans people and also intersex people, and to some extent all gender-nonconforming people (especially strongly gender-nonconforming people), even if they're technically cis and identify as such.

Pure gender essentialism which is accepting of gender-atypical expression mainly affects trans, nonbinary and intersex people, but if gender essentialism is combined with sexism ("girls/women are bad at maths", "men are bad at childrearing", "men are predatory and can't control themselves" etc.), often with pseudo-scientific justifications, and in practice it's common for people to be theoretically accepting of gender-nonconformity but only to a limited extent in practice, then gender essentialism affects everyone.

Curiously, genderism could be described as an auto-antonym because gender essentialists sometimes use the term as a shorthand for "gender ideology", that is, the stance that transgender and non-binary identities are equally valid as cisgender identities. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2018 (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)

A145GI15I95, we can present merge options in a WP:RfC and see what consensus decides. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:05, 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)

@Flyer22: Thanks; I've restored the student edit for now, and will explain better in the section below. Mathglot (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Sources and logical consequences of genderism

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)

New Additions

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)

This edit by Lyoung11 added three new sections to the article. I have some specific comments about each section. In general, I think all three sections should be cut back or removed as not relevant to the article, although they very likely would be relevant elsewhere. Also, it's better to do a series of smaller, incremental edits, rather than a big one with three new sections, especially for a brand new editor. Detailed comments below, by section. Mathglot (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Transphobia

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)

• With what you've written here, I definitely endorse a removal of the content. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lyoung11: Are you planning to respond here? I can go into details about the other two sections if you are interested, but don't want to waste my breath if not. My default action if there is no response from anyone after a reasonable interval would be to remove these sections. Mathglot (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed those sections, since there was no further discussion. Mathglot (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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.

Move discussion in progress

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)

Revision history lost

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:

• Talk:Genderism#Requested move 29 January 2019 # move proposal
• Talk:Genderism#Move_and_merge # discusses reverted move
• #Merger proposal # above
• #Move_discussion_in_progress # above

Other pages:

• Gender binarism_(temporary) # now red; apparently part of a round-robin move?
• Gender binary # now an article, as before, but briefly a redirect page
• Genderism # now a disambig page
• Genderism (disambiguation) # deleted
• Genderism (genderism) # deleted

Redirects:

• rdcheck Gender_binary # a dozen redirects
• Gender binarism is a redirect; (to Gender binary), but:
• Talk:Gender binarism (this page) has content, does not redirect, but has pagetype 'redirect'. (Currently: {{pagetype|Talk:Gender binarism}}=redirect)

Involved editors:

• in move: @StraussInTheHouse, JHunterJ, and A145GI15I95:
• Other interested @Flyer22 Reborn: (add yourself)

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot, oops, my bad. I think this will require a histmerge so you might want to upgrade it to admin-help. Thanks, SITH (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(The {{admin help}} request was here.) Mathglot (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding involved: @RHaworth and Discospinster:. Mathglot (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

This is something of a mess created by repeated page moves; apparently at some point the talk page wasn't moved along with the article. It will take some time to figure out which article's talk page this is supposed to be; I'll take a look. Huon (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the following happened:

1. "Genderism (disambiguation)" was a disambiguation page that got moved to "Genderism (genderism)" where it was deleted.
2. "Genderism" had some genuine content; the page was moved to "Gender binarism (gender binarism)" where it was deleted. The content was merged into Gender binary, apparently. This needed to be fixed because we need to attribute the original authors of the content.
3. "Gender binarism" was a redirect to gender binary; it got moved to "Genderism (disambiguation)" where it was deleted.
4. This talk page was a cut-and-paste move (called a "merger") from what was once "Talk:Genderism". (which got deleted along with the parent page, of course).

I've fixed this as follows:

1. The page "Genderism" which was created by A145GI15I95 (talk · contribs) and basically only edited by them was deleted; I've undeleted "Genderism (genderism)" and moved it to Genderism.
2. The page "Gender binarism" which was created by A145GI15I95 and basically only edited by them was deleted; I've undeleted "Gender binarism (gender binarism)", moved it to Gender binarism" title, turned it into the redirect and will note at Talk:Gender binary where the merged content came from.
3. I'll create a redirect from "Genderism (disambiguation)" to Genderism.
4. I've do some histmerging regarding the talk pages Talk:Gender binarism (this one) and Talk:Genderism (the talk page of the disambiguation page). Of course I have also moved the talk pages along with the underlying articles.

The net effect is:

1. "Genderism (disambiguation)" got moved to Genderism.
2. "Genderism" got merged into "gender binary", the page history got moved to "Gender binarism" which redirects to that page.
3. The old "Gender binarism" was a redirect with no significant page history. It doesn't require rescuing.
4. There's a new "Genderism (disambiguation)" which is a redirect.

That should fix things and re-establish all relevant page histories. Pinging Mathglot, StraussInTheHouse. Huon (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Huon:, thank you so, so much for your wizardry and your time. I really appreciate it, and I'm sure others (@A145GI15I95, StraussInTheHouse, JHunterJ, and Discospinster:) do, too. Consider this a voucher for a free scut-work volunteer effort, if you ever need someone to look at 2-300 pages that might need systematic jiggering somehow that requires manual intervention; I've been involved in something like that before, and happy to take that off your hands in the future, if something like that comes along that you need help with, don't hesitate to ask me. No expiration date. Thanks again! Mathglot (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I apologize. After move request discussion closed, another editor swapped articles opposite to consensus. I read the docs and re-attempted the round-robin, apparently and inadvertently not handling history completely. I'm new to Wikipedia syntax. Current article locations and content appear correct following your work. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. A145GI15I95 (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Pagetype

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?

Currently: {{pagetype|Talk:Gender binarism}} = redirect

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)

Mathglot, may I ask please where is pagetype found (where do you see it)? A145GI15I95 (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@A145GI15I95:, at the core of it, Pagetype is a Lua module: Module:Pagetype. It is invoked using Template:Pagetype, which is a wrapper for it. You can see what the module does on the doc page, in section Examples: basically, it returns a string, like article, page, file, redirect, etc. This page should return article, because it is the Talk page of an article, but it returns redirect instead. It seems likely that this is a result of some of the recent page moves, which involved creating or moving redirects as well.

As far as what first tipped me off about a possible problem, it was the word "redirect" which you can see at the top of this page, once each in the banner for the WikiProjects, and in the banner for the Wiki Education courses: each banner has a sentence, which starts off, "This redirect is...", whereas they should say: "This article is...". HTH, Mathglot (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a feature, not a bug. The page Gender binarism is a redirect (to gender binary). Thus the WikiProject banners should say it's a redirect when referring to that page, even if the talk page is not itself a redirect. Huon (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

D'oh! (facepalm) Of course; I got so caught up in the details of a long Talk page, I forgot the nature of the page itself. Thanks, again. Mathglot (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

WkiProject assessments and WikiEd course announcement location

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)

They came from "Talk:Genderism"; that article was merged into "Gender binary". I'm not sure what to do about te WikiEd announcements; the content got merged, but the page history that shows what those editors did is now here. The WikiProject assessments should probably be changed to reflect that this page now is a redirect. Huon (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the assessments to "Redirect". Two WikiProjects apparently don't have that rating and rate everything that's not an article as "NA". Huon (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Re: the WikiEd courses: Talk:Gender binary has two out of three of them, and this page and that one each have one unique; I'll merge them, so there will be four there, none here. Mathglot (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)  

 Done Mathglot (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Post move-rescue housekeeping status and To-do

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)

Nothing listed; I think we can consider this completely  Done now. Mathglot (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)