Okay, to b= e philosophical, stereotypes are not necessarily derogatory and they are no= t categories. They are correlations between categories: Xs are Y.&nbs= p; They are not even all false, for that matter, though the contrary cases = are accidental. "Imaginary category" is pleasantly ambiguous; I suppo= se you mean a category that doesn't actually categorize anything, but that = is hard to do, unless you slide over to a category of imaginary things.&nbs= p; What you want is a failed correlation.

On the more general question of what the Hell gender is, = while a final answer eludes me, the basic material to be dealt with are plu= mbing sex (and maybe sexual orientation thrown in) and societal expectations correlated with that. How these all play out in different areas (not to mention different societies) is the pr= oblem. I think that dealing with this interplay in more particular ca= ses is going to be easier, especially given the inevitability of engineerin= g solutions to word construction. Artistic solutions might clear the = ground a bit, but we just aren't artistic.

From: vit= ci'i <celestialcognition@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Gender, ye= t again.

On 07/13/2012 09:00 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 = at 6:03 PM, vitci'i
> <celestialcognition@gma= il.com>wrote:
>> On 07/13/2012 04:57 PM, Jonathan Jones wro= te:
>>> Stereotypes aren't imaginary. They're derogatory, insul= ting, and
>>> WRONG.
>>
>> What's the differ= ence between something that's imaginary and
>> something that's no= t true?
>
> I will not be dragged into a philosophical debate.=

I wasn't trying to be philosophical. Let me try again: would you pl= ease
clarify the nature of your objection to the construction "imaginary=
category" to mean stereotype? It seems to me a fairly accurate descript= ion.

>>> Except that's not the way we do things. The me= aning of the
>>> English
>> "gender"
>>> is so broad it covers /completely unrelated/ conc= epts.
>>>
>>> There is nothing wrong with having a= word in Lojban that covers a
>>> wide berth- that's what the i= ntention of the gismu is, after
>>> all.
>>>
&g= t;>> But we do /not/ have words that cover multiple concepts. That>>> defeats the purpose of the language.
>>
>>= What set of words do you suggest?
>
> As I've said previously= , I don't consider any of the concepts
> important to /need/ a word, = but I would suggest those of you that do
> to use the list John Cliff= ord posted.

I think it's a bad idea to try to exhaustively list all = the different
angles on this, because our idea of what the list contents= should be is
likely to change. It would be better to have a single broa= d word that
captures what they have in common, and then tanru/lujvo down from there.

On 07/14/2012 12:23 AM, MorphemeAd= dict wrote:> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at
8:03 PM, vitci'i <celestialcognition@gmail.com>wrote:
> Many kinds of= things can be not true without being imaginary:
> opinions, sentence= s, stereotypes,

Opinions and sentences are generally na'e jetnu, nei= ther true nor false
(though sentences often express propositions that ar= e true or false).
Stereotypes, on the other hand, are generally to'e jet= nu, factually
incorrect.

--
You received this message because= you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this= group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubsc= ribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, v= isit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.