Re: [lojban] gender

[vitci'i <celestialcognition@gmail.com>]

On 11/19/2011 05:16 AM, tijlan wrote:
> On 19 November 2011 04:04, vitci'i <celestialcognition@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/18/2011 06:21 PM, tijlan wrote:
>>> On 18 November 2011 22:14, vitci'i <celestialcognition@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm actually talking about making {cinse} less general -- it already
>>>>>> means gender; I just want to make it not also mean sexuality.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you understand the term "sexuality" in the definition of
>>>>> {cinse}? What is the sort of ka that you don't want the x2 to exhibit?
>>>>
>>>> I understand it to mean, and don't want it to mean, gledji.
>>>
>>> What would be an example bridi with {cinse} in that sense? And how
>>> would that possibility be a trouble?
>>
>> jbovlaste gives "x1 is sexy" as a possible meaning, so {cinse} could
>> actually qualify.
>>
>> It's a problem because if I want to unambiguously mean "sexuality" then
>> I can say "gledji" but if I want to unambiguously mean "gender" then I
>> have no good options.
> 
> But "gledji" and "gender" can already be separated into the x2 and x3.
> For example:
> 
>   lo ninmu lo nu gledji lo fetsi po'o cu cinse lo ka [lesbian]
>   The woman, in the state of sexually desiring females only, exhibits
> the quality of lesbianism.
> 
> This allows the x3 to always mean "gender" (whatever characteristics
> used to distinguish between sets of sexual entities in whatever
> dimension -- genetic, phenotypic, social, cultural, linguistic, etc.).
> So it seems we can use {cinse} to unambiguously mean "gender".
> 
> 
>>>> Possible x4s might include gender of
>>>> identification (sevzi), gender performance, sex/gender assigned at
>>>> birth, anatomical sex, and chromosomal sex.
>>>
>>> According to the current definition, the x4 is the standard by which
>>> the x3 is deduced from the x2. How would "gender performance" etc. be
>>> such a reference frame? Sounds more like the x2, the event in which a
>>> gender is exhibited.
>>
>> I think you're reading cinse4 differently than I am. As far as I can
>> tell, the entirety of the actual definition is "by standard"; I had read
>> that to mean something like "in dimension/attribute/respect".
> 
> "by standard" is also a keyword for "ma'i" of "manri". Eliminate
> cinse4 and we could still express it through "ma'i":

>   cinse lo nu prami gi'u gledji vau lo fetsi .e lo nakni kei lo ka
> [bisexual] kei ma'i mi
>   The state of loving females and males, whether or not wanting to
> have sex with them, is bisexual, as far as I can tell.
> 
>   lo nanmu cu cinse fi lo ka [homosexual] kei ma'i lo certu .enai vo'a
>   The man is gay according to the expert but not himself.
> 
> Consider also the difference between pluja2 ("in aspect") and pluja3
> ("by standard"). A standard in this sense is a rule by which x1 can be
> determined to broda, not a dimension in which x1 brodas. In the case
> of {cinse}, such a dimension is referred to by the x2.

You seem to be working with a very limited concept of gender and
sexuality. Sexuality includes not just sexual orientation, but a variety
of fetishes such as latex and bondage. A lojbanic view of sexual
orientation should start with androsexual/gynosexual rather than
heterosexual/homosexual. "By standard" means a *dimension* of sexuality,
not a *means of inferring* a single dimension. Your entire perspective
on this problem is inextricably rooted in wrongheadedness, and I no
longer care about your opinion.

-- 
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 unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.