On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:43 PM, vitci'i <celestialcognition@gmail.com> wrote:

On 07/13/2012 10:49 AM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> I think you want to come up with a different definition. Stereotypes a= re
> most definitely not deserving of words.

But we can have gismu (with short rafsi!) for specific cultures? Just=
because something's essentially imaginary doesn't mean we get to ig= nore it.

Stereotypes aren't imaginary. They= 9;re derogatory, insulting, and WRONG.

Here's some stereotypes:<= br>
All Mexicans are thieves.

Women are weaker than men.

Blon= des are stupid.

Irish people are alcoholics.

I could go on, b= ut I think this shows my point well enough.
=A0

On 07/13/2012 01:16 PM, John E Clifford wrote:
> Just back from the General convention of the Episcopal Church, so I > have heard "gender" up to here. =A0From all of that, I gathe= r that it
> might be more useful to search for a number of particular terms,
> rather than a general one like "gender". =A0Leaving aside se= x (at least
> two definitions, one genetic with about a half dozen slots, one
> plumbing with an at least two dimensional field with countless
> cluster points) and sexual orientation (presented as a linear array > with about a half dozen cluster points, but also implicitly two such > arrays, differing loosely by sex), there remain gender roles
> (differing from one micro society to another and covering areas from > personal hygiene to crafts and beyond) gender roling (conforming to > some roles -- a matter of degree as well which areas), gender
> identity (what you say you are -- there seem to be at least five easy<= br> > categories here), gender expression (what you look to be to others --<= br> > it's not clear whether this includes pseudos or that is just a
> byproduct of ineptness -- at least as many categories as identity)
> and gender status (what you can get the government, etc., to say you > are). =A0I'm sure I missed some, but this is enough to start, not<= br> > merely looking for terms to match these but also specify at least
> some of the cluster points in the various maps (some of these
> clusters are rather small but often the more interesting for al
> that).

It is precisely because this is so complicated that we must not try t= o
create separate gismu for everything. The right solution is to create a
small set of broad but orthogonal words that can be used as components
in lujvo.