On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Jonathan Jones= <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1= 0:15 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, I corrected myself. And I know it's specifically biological gender= .
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Jac= ob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12 July 2012 23:59, Jonathan Jo= nes <eyeonus@gmai= l.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:05 PM, vitci'i <celestialcognition@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/12/2012 09:56 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:52 PM, vitci'i
>> > <celestialcognition@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>> How about: x1 is the internal subjective iden= tity of x2 according to
>> >>>>> x3
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thus {tu'a lo nanmu mi ceinse} would be &= quot;I'm male-gendered" (I'm
>> >>>>> putting a tu'a in there because otherwise= I feel like I'm saying
>> >>>>> something more like {da poi nanmu zo'u da= mi ceinse}, which doesn't
>> >>>>> make sense.) and {tu'a lo tinbe mi ceinse= } could be used for "I'm a
>> >>>>> submissive" or {tu'a lo arxokuna mi = mi ceinse} for "I self-identify
>> >>>>> as a raccoon." (e.g. a furry).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That's actually too *narrow* -- it doesn'= t allow us to talk about how
>> >>>> we
>> >>>> gender inanimate objects and each other. (E.g., >> >>>> <http://is.gd/HXdBMy>,
>> >>>> <http://is.gd/aFzoSg>.)
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> The use of "gender" in that context is diff= erent than
>> >> self-identification;
>> >>> it's targeting based on gender, and that's a = tanru/lujvo.
>> >>
>> >> What would you tanru/lujvo together to convey that? sevzi= is
>> >> insufficient to distinguish gender identity from other ki= nds of
>> >> self-identification (e.g. nationality/culture); klesi and= le'e
>> >> likewise.
>> >> cinse is narrower, but as I've mentioned also means s= exual orientation,
>> >> and to distinguish which sense is meant we again need a w= ord that means
>> >> gender.
>> >>
>> >> (If we had a word for sex, gender could be constructed by= lujvo as "sex
>> >> stereotype". But we don't.)
>> >>
>> >
>> > If you mean sex as in "having this particular sexual chr= omosome pair",
>> > we
>> > have a lujvo for that:
>> > jbepibnafei<http://vlasisku.lojban.org/vlasisku/jbepibn= afei>
>>
>> (Technically it's a fu'ivla.)
>
>
> No, it's a lujvo. It's made by combining the rafsi of various = gismu and
> cmavo together. A fu'ivla is a foreign word.
>

It's definitely not a lujvo; I made the word with latro'= ;a. I should
know to which class it belongs.
I hope that anyone who's looked at this word has also looked at the
notes, which should have led the reader to read the lojban definition
as well, because the lojban definition is much clearer as to what
exactly should go in each place. {jbepibnafei} is a zi'evla based of the rafsi for jbena, plibu, nakni, and fetsi and is intended to be
used to talk about *biological sex* as in "the apparent genitalia
(hence plibu) at time of birth (hence jbena)".
<= /div>

=A0