Should Dismissed Gender be taken to TRS?

Moving the discussion from the Tropes Needing TRS cleanup thread to here per suggestion.

I while ago I put on Tropes Needing TRS and since the tropes listed there are going through a cleanup, I decided to discuss its "TRS worthiness."

Dismissed Gender is basically a fucking mess. It was created in 2007 so that's probably why. It's a trope about "Concepts and situations in a work that would be problematic or more acceptable if the genders involved were switched around." So, let's see how many issues it has:

• It has non-standard formatting. The fictional examples aren't sorted by medium but are lumped all together.
• It has a "general" examples section which not only violates the Examples Are Not General rule but also lists situations that can go in the description itself.
• It only has 19 wicks for a trope that existed for 10+ years and...
• ...Cross-wicking examples is a problem since the on-page examples are all over the place. Some are about the audience's reaction, some are about a fictional work's pre-release decisions (trivia), and some are just ZCE.
• This trope speculates and is about audience reactions to certain elements, so it should probably be YMMV.

What should we do with it? Should it be put on the TRS Queue?

With 19 wicks, it's starving according to Wick, so it can easily be queued on not thriving grounds alone. The rest of the issues you describe are relevant enough for a TRS thread themselves as well. My opinion is that you should stick it on the queue

I mean, it has a bunch of issues, so a general "needs help" would cover them all.

Plus, is my understanding of the trope right and this should be YMMV or just a normal trope?

Ok. I will.

Edited by selkies on Jan 10th 2023 at 10:14:17 PM

I'll say this—Acebrock is right, a wick check isn't needed here. You can mention the other issues, but the fact that it isn't thriving alone is TRS material.

Go ahead and queue it up BTW—we just cleared a couple threads out.