I'm referring the specific convention, the specific resonating trope being discussed.
Your examples seem to be explicit subversions, and... well... exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, and all that. Subversions have supplanted tropes and become resonating tropes in their own right, but in this case you seem to describe them as exactly that: subversions and exceptions.
I thought I was always referring to literary tropes? Ah well, I shall take any compliments. Progress!
But no one else was, which is why I brought up the fact that we all seemed to be talking past each other or discussing different topics.
If we are simply referring to the belief that a character has to embody and be defined by their cultural gender role (i.e. Damsel = weak, passive woman), well then yes isn't that the very definition of sexist? Rather quick discussion if it ends there.
Yes! That is exactly the issue, the belief (and it's social convention, the industry standard that has arisen out of it) that Anita and most of her defenders here are talking about, and why so many of them seem confused at all the opposition. It does feel pretty clear cut. If the issue really is just coming down to using different definitions of the word, well...
Yeah. I guess it's at least pretty good we've figured that out. o_o
Well this is a clusterfuck... Worth reading over?
Does anybody think anything that has happened in the last six or so pages has any value?
The amount of confusion and talking past each other would indicate... no, it isn't worth reading over. It did have value, but that value can be summarized. A good chunk of the was based around around thinking we were discussing literary tropes rather than resonating tropes (genre and industry motiffs, conventions, and traditions).
The tropes Anita is critiquing are the resonant kind, not the literary kind. And there you go, six pages of value.