From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Apr 20 17:50:54 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:50:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Lw4CM-0004xr-CU for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:50:54 -0700 Received: from web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.121]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Lw4CH-0004sA-F8 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:50:54 -0700 Received: (qmail 56771 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Apr 2009 00:50:43 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1240275043; bh=VKXbRtmV46rukTmsMmEcZTV093h1+WpVRhcld/Y8R5w=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=tcpDFaB7pxnyFJMgq6VrOHnIrSnYBv2BXfC+nLyhS/dk3RXzF8+34XpU4mt7PcjYw1X7jrceifZ9q163AGePX3XQ80kPF9+RIQ0xaZlz280+r+L7y5htum3fe5egFdihsMgRPerCjL+z7CWO5O5gtWzZJbgemuGF+Ksw2ofFgoU= 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=B16yIyr3v/5k0TPvvD1QYbPILwOtubffncn1mm5V6T7mYYUG1UFwkIX/AK2/Gvwna9ouzXd9mloBlai/1tSHrvdT7PzhkuoJaJ77y8gMcx6UKt47FreW28M6xlEhCKofr0nB5HR1QAnqdUKT6DFjPzxHEtb1qjxr9/fR81EemVc=; Message-ID: <141885.53454.qm@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: oOqJqa4VM1kHbVtmbpwStlCpBlOQxNYTCX1Cb.4D93vUiyz2mFIf09MXROZ1ROSGFntOOM2MXkRMe0ZThng0cdw8snfr.RfcmEkbHS.HQX1ijh9bYG3u1nluQOpjSZauApv55Eii1JfLiW7LZJvE8crEF5iHqj.Kk7L9rIICCcQC92XLlnrwCAn.gyj6479dTvbXVj2SC0KRGnWZ5iaYzjs8Svjmt55S1qfMOMHM9Ze1S01x3V.Kgj48wMjjSFxar.mXLGIFLcgWIN3ADOUp9sun5727.qXapxn4ojA92AvVXPQolOHLdk4ys5brGoodqtoZkX96LdYbecwTqBoxyl4- Received: from [24.207.224.145] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:50:42 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1277.35 YahooMailWebService/0.7.289.1 References: Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:50:42 -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="0-1228577877-1240275042=:53454" X-archive-position: 15488 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 --0-1228577877-1240275042=:53454 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii between 3 and 10% of the time apparently, though lesws often if you broaden the range of possibilities and the specification of biological gender. ________________________________ From: "MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 7:26:46 PM Subject: [lojban] Re: Gender neutrality? In a message dated 4/20/2009 16:36:14 Eastern Daylight Time, danny.piccirillo@gmail.com writes: Yes, but in conversation people often like to say, "Did you see that girl?" instead of "Did you see that person?". Things like that. My request is that lujvo for gender identities should replace words meaning biological sex in casual conversation since it will come up. Can that happen? Does anybody else see this as something that should happen? I don't think it should. But it's always an option for individuals. How do you know the mental gender identity of a given person? How often does it not correspond with a person's biological gender, assuming that to be a simple male/female dichotomy? stevo --0-1228577877-1240275042=:53454 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
between 3 and 10% of the time apparently, though lesws often if you broaden the range of possibilities and the specification of biological gender.

From: "MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com" <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 7:26:46 PM
Subject: [lojban] Re: Gender neutrality?

In a message dated 4/20/2009 16:36:14 Eastern Daylight Time, danny.piccirillo@gmail.com writes:


Yes, but in conversation people often like to say, "Did you see that girl?" instead of "Did you see that person?". Things like that. My request is that lujvo for gender identities should replace words meaning biological sex in casual conversation since it will come up. Can that happen? Does anybody else see this as something that should happen?


I don't think it should.  But it's always an option for individuals.  
How do you know the mental gender identity of a given person?  How often does it not correspond with a person's biological gender, assuming that to be a simple male/female dichotomy?

stevo

--0-1228577877-1240275042=:53454-- 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.