From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Apr 20 05:59:32 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Lvt5w-0007K2-2q for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:59:32 -0700 Received: from web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.120]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Lvt5t-0007JY-Ce for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:59:32 -0700 Received: (qmail 81330 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Apr 2009 12:59:23 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1240232363; bh=ydpSVDOMXHEbMP0NRMtOMNcb3kAl5IwPFbslgcaEztc=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=z0wa1LRe18ME43RWG73nLLjFC0BTn9mL+51L/dHCY/4nze8JY3jVimDWCcTs5cQJhnFfDTjOn/xfS/xyDyXPapvA/jtc20w7A/2PxjIRB2t3ZT99WDLjul9+Cs3FqrpLmwUItN6wmvMzowztQqKbozGLx9lp1RlkSNuTRhbYX3I= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=S2XAKb/kMTwoXG5hDTLtNtGkTxH9KGrRdwp+qP66FpDEpjSW6G2WlXQxim0yCb3T075RySKmJXR0Im1sS3zwLHEPZzsVQi2wsIbsKU3U6IgLLndJV1DNkJ5Xj1OF4WJe4R9f7xfV2uhl7Oo+ejltd2iatpyZQnaOQZlgExt2knc=; Message-ID: <144018.80762.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: 0LQJBnEVM1kSmfJyeAD97kL5u8776B9k5wM2ShQ_jIu87ZBFY8QU3R9L.1CBzR44NmOLXnAR9ybBRmDYT8iwsJGwGvmdwRuuDxwW_.dGmxgqSbGOQfp_mwPhCQfd4dmoPf_AzKs2ZgKULqfiNkNCLLnCWgqDGBqZ3WCZDl5f_ZN1xP3xlApONJVOqTd8QywEQW_H1ZfP2wtP8aPJs79n78gfQagFRy7B6xCKt1l8GJf4xVGb5Gzm2.PqDpya0tXeeOmxxndU6i.0LLL9RfWGT1QPBxWvUC.x4QQnNGYLr1RLu3L_vdJrsgsXWF866MkZoKNsdV3KmaUBS26u4.Bflc4- Received: from [24.207.224.145] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:59:22 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1277.35 YahooMailWebService/0.7.289.1 References: Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:59:22 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: Gender neutrality? To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1665779729-1240232362=:80762" X-archive-position: 15474 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --0-1665779729-1240232362=:80762 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sure, it can be done (I leave it to those more up-to-date on the relevant rafsi to add), but why bother? It would seem that the totally neutral terms are to be preferred almost always. An MTF, say, usually would prefer to be treated -- and spoken of -- as just female, without the intricate details (say, to what extent the identification had be incarnated). And, except in a small range of cases, the gender or gender identity of a person is just irrelevant. On the rare occasions when the need arise, lujvvo -- or probably only tanru -- are readily available. ________________________________ From: Danny Piccirillo To: lojban-list Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 12:33:36 AM Subject: [lojban] Gender neutrality? Still a n00b, so i'm just looking for some clarification on this. One of the many many reasons lojban appeals to me, is that it is supposed to be gender neutral, but one thing still bothers me. If there are terms for boy, man, girl, and woman, there are surely terms for one who identifies as masculine or feminine, or androgynous, genderqueer, etc and those are the terms i think should be preferred in common conversation when talking about someone who has a gender identity (all humans). Is this do-able~ an idea the can be spread to all lojbanists? --0-1665779729-1240232362=:80762 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Sure, it can be done (I leave it to those more up-to-date on the relevant rafsi to add), but why bother?  It would seem that the totally neutral terms are to be preferred almost always.  An MTF, say, usually would prefer to be treated -- and spoken of -- as just female, without the intricate details (say, to what extent the identification had be incarnated).  And, except in a small range of cases, the gender or gender identity of a person is just irrelevant.  On the rare occasions when the need arise, lujvvo -- or probably only tanru -- are readily available.

From: Danny Piccirillo <danny.piccirillo@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 12:33:36 AM
Subject: [lojban] Gender neutrality?

Still a n00b, so i'm just looking for some clarification on this. One of the many many reasons lojban appeals to me, is that it is supposed to be gender neutral, but one thing still bothers me. If there are terms for boy, man, girl, and woman, there are surely terms for one who identifies as masculine or feminine, or androgynous, genderqueer, etc and those are the terms i think should be preferred in common conversation when talking about someone who has a gender identity (all humans). Is this do-able~ an idea the can be spread to all lojbanists? 

--0-1665779729-1240232362=:80762-- To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.