Re: [lojban] gender

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

On 19 November 2011 17:28, vitci'i <celestialcognition@gmail.com> wrote:
> "By standard" means a *dimension* of sexuality,
> not a *means of inferring* a single dimension.

As far as the official gismu definitions are concerned, "standard"
generally means "frame of reference", or {manri}. Those places that go
by the phrase "by standard" can generally be replaced by a tag marked
by {ma'i}. I gave you concrete examples.

I would appreciate an elaboration on "a dimension of sexuality". How
is that different from cinse2?


> 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.

I did not say sexuality is only about sexual orientation. My point was
that the distinction between sexuality as a desire-driven activity
(you suggested "gledji") and gender as any sexual characterization can
be made within {cinse}, by the x2 and x3. True, there are different
senses for "sexuality": one has to do more with cinse2, the other with
cinse3, in my view. Consider the following examples:

  mi lo nu djica lo nu skori se lasna cu cinse lo [masochism]
  I'm a sexual masochist in that I have a desire for being rope-bound.

  mi lo nu djica lo nu ckabu se taxfu cu cinse lo [latex fetishism]
  I'm a sexual rubberguy in that I have a desire for being latex-clothed.

The x3 is whatever sexual quality or characterization you attribute to
the x1 based off the observation of the x2. The event or state
expressed by the x2 can be cognitive, genetic, social, linguistic,
etc. I'm limiting neither "sexuality" nor "gender" to "sexual
orientation". My suggestion is that {cinse} could cover the whole
practical spectrum of "sexual" stuff. Being attracted to feminity is
sexual; having a vagina is sexual; having a masculine suffix is
sexual; having a boner on being rope-bound or latex-clothed, too, is
sexual. And I would see reasonable convenience in {cinse} covering all
that.

"What is x's gender?" and "What is x's sexuality?" seem to belong to
the question of "What characterizes x's sexual function?" "The event
of being a biological female and being sexually attracted to
biological females" is a sexual function characterized by terms like
"lesbian". Likewise, "the event of being sexually excited by bondage
play" is a sexual function characterized by terms like "BDSM". BDSM
isn't about a male/female fancying males/females, but it is a sexual
trait that an entity exhibits in an event. And that's what {cinse}
could be about.


> A lojbanic view of sexual orientation should start with androsexual/gynosexual rather than heterosexual/homosexual.

That's quite irrelevant to my point. My comments have been neither for
nor against any of such schemes.


mu'o

-- 
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.