Re: [lojban] Gender, yet again.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, I corrected myself. And I know it's specifically biological gender.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12 July 2012 23:59, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:05 PM, vitci'i <celestialcognition@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/12/2012 09:56 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:52 PM, vitci'i
>> > <celestialcognition@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>> How about: x1 is the internal subjective identity of x2 according to
>> >>>>> x3
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thus {tu'a lo nanmu mi ceinse} would be "I'm male-gendered" (I'm
>> >>>>> putting a tu'a in there because otherwise I feel like I'm saying
>> >>>>> something more like {da poi nanmu zo'u da mi ceinse}, which doesn't
>> >>>>> make sense.) and {tu'a lo tinbe mi ceinse} could be used for "I'm a
>> >>>>> submissive" or {tu'a lo arxokuna mi mi ceinse} for "I self-identify
>> >>>>> as a raccoon." (e.g. a furry).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That's actually too *narrow* -- it doesn't allow us to talk about how
>> >>>> we
>> >>>> gender inanimate objects and each other. (E.g.,
>> >>>> <http://is.gd/HXdBMy>,
>> >>>> <http://is.gd/aFzoSg>.)
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> The use of "gender" in that context is different than
>> >> self-identification;
>> >>> it's targeting based on gender, and that's a tanru/lujvo.
>> >>
>> >> What would you tanru/lujvo together to convey that? sevzi is
>> >> insufficient to distinguish gender identity from other kinds of
>> >> self-identification (e.g. nationality/culture); klesi and le'e
>> >> likewise.
>> >> cinse is narrower, but as I've mentioned also means sexual orientation,
>> >> and to distinguish which sense is meant we again need a word that means
>> >> gender.
>> >>
>> >> (If we had a word for sex, gender could be constructed by lujvo as "sex
>> >> stereotype". But we don't.)
>> >>
>> >
>> > If you mean sex as in "having this particular sexual chromosome pair",
>> > we
>> > have a lujvo for that:
>> > jbepibnafei<http://vlasisku.lojban.org/vlasisku/jbepibnafei>
>>
>> (Technically it's a fu'ivla.)
>
>
> No, it's a lujvo. It's made by combining the rafsi of various gismu and
> cmavo together. A fu'ivla is a foreign word.
>

It's definitely not a lujvo; I made the word with latro'a. I should
know to which class it belongs.
I hope that anyone who's looked at this word has also looked at the
notes, which should have led the reader to read the lojban definition
as well, because the lojban definition is much clearer as to what
exactly should go in each place. {jbepibnafei} is a zi'evla based of
the rafsi for jbena, plibu, nakni, and fetsi and is intended to be
used to talk about *biological sex* as in "the apparent genitalia
(hence plibu) at time of birth (hence jbena)".

Honestly, I think {jbeplibu to se smuni lodu'u ko'a jbena fi'o plibu ko'e toi} would've been enough. Also, including nakni and fetsi at least implicitly restricts it to (some combination of) two genders- that is, that while a person can be, for example, XX, XY, X, XXY, XYY, etc., they can't be XT, to make up a gender gene.