Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of alexkoz@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c00::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c00::231;
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 01:02:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alexander Kozhevnikov <alexkoz@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Gender vs. Sex. Culture vs. nature.
In-Reply-To: <CAO7bV+gyZG1zO0DU7QWvNeiMack-2yF3Lxvf1NehSUjvToBm-g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LN8.2.00.1410132019490.13455@jEEED>
References: <CAO7bV+gyZG1zO0DU7QWvNeiMack-2yF3Lxvf1NehSUjvToBm-g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LN8 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

As someone who identifies as pansexual [1] and polyamorous, I find this=20
line of questioning both interesting and important. It's rather=20
disappointing to me that virtually no activity has happened on this thread=
=20
since it came up, despite the mailing list being generally active.

[1] For casual discussion purposes, you may treat this as bisexual - the=20
way I distinguish the two is outside of the scope of this discussion,=20
though I'll happily elaborate if anyone's curious.

Anyway, here's my perspecive on the gismu and examples you brought up, as=
=20
a non-fluent lojban newb who hopes lojban would prove superior to natural=
=20
languages in general, this aspect of communication/though included.

On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> cinse =3D x1 in activity/state x2 exhibits sexuality/gender/sexual
> orientation x3 (ka) by standard x4. Also: x1 courts/flirts; x3 could be a
> ka <gender or role>, ka <attraction to a gender>, or ka <type of activity=
>,
> etc.; (adjective:) x1 is sexual/sexy; x1 is flirted with/courted by x2 (=
=3D
> cinfriti, cinjikca).

I don't know what the 'discussed in the past' pertaining to {cinse} refers=
=20
to, so going to this statement a bit blind here: To me, the x4 makes it=20
good, since it means the definition recognizes that claims about=20
sexuality/orientation/gender are almost always going to be limited to some=
=20
sort of subjective standard. To me this intuitively suggests that it would=
=20
be easy enough to disambiguate cultural/speceist/otherwise-biased-or-=20
skewed notions of what implies what gender/sex/attraction/etc, as when=20
discussing the examples you provided.

In fact, from the same consideration, every other word mentioned annoys me=
=20
precisely because they lack the equivalent of this one's x4.

On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> fetsi =3D x1 is a female/doe of species x2 evidencing feminine trait(s) x=
3
> (ka); x1 is feminine
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> ninmu =3D x1 is a woman/women; x1 is a female humanoid person [not
> necessarily adult].

I find both of these to be rather unsatisfying, precisely because they=20
seem to be based on a partially-scientifically-informed, common-human-=20
experience-skewed notions of what sex (biological or otherwise) is.

The only way I can rationalize the definition of {fetsi} being 'good' is=20
if x3 is understood in context of x1. I.e. what's a "feminine" or=20
"masculine" (or neither) trait will be specific to the species (sidenote,=
=20
boundaries between genus/species/subspecies aren't even perfectly clear=20
and as I understand it are actually under some debate (the shorthand I=20
think is used most is that species are distinguished by their inability to=
=20
interbreed succesfully - but some pairings of different species can still=
=20
produce genetically viable and fertile hybrids, throwing a spanner into=20
those works). So that meaning only produces sentences which are true=20
in any real way when used almost tautologically.

To say that some x1 is {fetsi} of species of x2 because it exhibits trait=
=20
x3 is for me going to boil down to implicitly saying it is so by {some=20
arbitrary cultural standard/notion of what is meant by 'feminine' in this=
=20
context which I have to guess or ask for clarification}, at which point I=
=20
will personally reject the validity of any standard in that context=20
besides one defined by that species itself. E.g. being bigger and=20
stronger is only masculine if in that species that is typically a=20
thing that males display.

Okay, I actually admit that sometimes one can generalize by wider patches=
=20
than 'species' - there are many traits common to wider categories, e.g.=20
true for most sea-horses, true for most arachnids, etc. But either way,=20
the point is it's still circular: it's "feminine" in that species because=
=20
that given species or set of species to which it belongs typically has=20
that trait in their females - but how did we decide such and such was male=
=20
or female? In some sense we base it on the biology of who produces the egg=
=20
and who produces the thing that fertilizes the egg... which of course is=20
largely based on what we as humanity found to be common based on taking=20
our existing cultural notions and then figuring out where the underlying=20
differences were in us.

And then {ninmu} is even more fuzzy/blurred. As brought up, what about XXY=
=20
humans? What about intersex people who are XY or XX but still come out=20
with ambiguous or dual genitalia? Is an XYY or XYYY male more 'male' than=
=20
an XY male (evidence that I know of suggests that they are only slightly=20
so in some biological aspects, but mostly not really notably so)? I=20
suspect transgendered people will find words like 'ninmu' unhelpful and=20
problematic.

It seems to me that the notion of woman/female and man/male is something=20
that for most humans consists of almost entirely cultural baggage. There=20
are obviously biological differences between different sexes in most=20
species, but the supposed mental/cognitive differences are insufficiently=
=20
proven at best, and even the biological differences are only clearcut when=
=20
you don't start running into all of the cornercases. Which would be fine,=
=20
IF the definitions we had in lojban acknolwedged these issues by adding a=
=20
"by standard x#" to the word. But as is it's the same ambiguous blob=20
likely to draw in the same cultural and unfounded=20
associations/beliefs/baggage as woman/man in English.

To be clear and summarize, I am saying two different criticisms for fetsi=
=20
and ninmu: fetsi, I claim, is flawed because there is no good default=20
standard for masculinity/maleness vs femininity/femaleness vs neitherness=
=20
for species in general, besides what is already defined as being that for=
=20
that species - so x3 of fetsi strikes me as useless and the entire word=20
unhelpful for precise discussion, unless it has an x4 like cinse does. On=
=20
the other hand, I claim ninmu is flawed not in its meaning itself, but in=
=20
the fact that the meaning will map so closely to typical man/woman words=20
for most people that use of the word will always be muddled with deeply=20
embedded baggage (and incidentally, an x2 like the x4 of cinse would also=
=20
help remedy this, in my opinion).

On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> ganti =3D x1 is a/the testes/ovary/testicle/scrotum/balls/gonad/stamen/pi=
stil
> [body-part] of x2, gender x3.

I think this is okay, because it just basically means it's a sexual organ=
=20
producing the reproductive cells. I think the gender part is liable to the=
=20
same flaw as the meaning of fetsi though. By what criteria is an ovary an=
=20
ovary and a testicle a testicle? It gets back into the whole issue where=20
the very notion of gender is not cleanly defined, and I think is only=20
sensible when a standard can be specified.

On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> Who are Annelida? Are they nakni or fetsi? They are hermaphrodites.
> Some male mammals breastfeed their babies. Do they evidence fetsi3 this
> way?

I would argue it ought not be so if it had to boil down to a yes/no,=20
because this fact inherently proves that breastfeeding is not an inately=20
feminine trait. I think this also perfectly demonstrates my argument that=
=20
fetsi should have a fetsi4 which would specify by what standard that trait=
=20
is feminine (then I imagine it would be trivial to say that they exhibit=20
fetsi3 by the standard of things-which-are-feminine-in-humans, but that=20
they don't exhibit fetsi3 by the standard of their-species).

On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> Is ninmu bound to gender and fetsi to sex?

The boundaries between these two are fuzzy. Biological gender (aka 'sex')=
=20
is obviously strongly correlated with (and intuitively, likely has some=20
causal effect on) psychological gender - but I would argue that=20
psychological gender is virtually entirely sociologically conditioned from=
=20
birth, and a society less focused on drawing the distingtions most do=20
would yield way less defined psychological genders. Furthermore, I suspect=
=20
that if I were to say I am a {ninmu}, the fact that I am really in any way=
=20
a {fetsi} would make most people reject that claim. My perception is that=
=20
{ninmu} is roughly {fetsi} with fetsi2 filled as 'human', since fetsi3 is=
=20
to me intuitively broad enough that any sociological/cultural aspects can=
=20
go in it.

So my vote would be no - I think the distinction between biological and=20
psychological gender ought to be left to a slot clarifying specifically in
what standard/meaning of gender the staement means, which gets back to why=
=20
I think fetsi and ninmu (and all other terms which have gender/sex of any=
=20
sort at the core of their meaning) need such a 'by standard' argument.

On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> What about people with XXY chromosomes? Are they semi-fetsi?
> Is Conchita Wurst a ninmu? a fetsi?

I think this question is only resolvable conveniently if we acknolwedge=20
that there ought to be such a 'by standard' argument for both fetsi and=20
ninmu. Because as it stands humanity has no real consensus on this matter,=
=20
same as with all intersex humans or with gender in general.

Any hardcoded meaning on that front does a disservice to the language and=
=20
its ability to aid communication, I think.

On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> Where is the border between allegedly cultural LGBT in humans and alleged=
ly
> natural behavior in animals like shown here:=C2=A0http://9gag.com/gag/aZP=
2zgz ?

(I enjoyed that little strip of explanations - knew most of it, but the=20
format was nice.)

Anyway I think this is just more of the same: humanity has no conclusive=20
answer currently. Either way I think the language ought to just let the=20
seemingly existing mechanism of specifying by what standard one means=20
something apply here, allowing this to be a 'runtime' consideration which=
=20
can be readily adjusted mid-convesration, rather than a 'compiletime'=20
consideration which is stuck rigidly forever (or worse, open to=20
interpretation like this).

Regards,
mu'o mi'e .aleksandr.kojevnikov. do'u

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.