On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:17 PM, vitci'i
<celestialcognition@gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/12/2012 11:46 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> I'm saying that the English word "gender" is too broad to be one Lojban
> word, and that the only portion of it that is important is biological.
> Societal gender is not, to me, important at all. It doesn't matter to me
> what gender- in any sense of the word- a person is, except in the
> biological sense, and even then, only for reasons of biological/medicinal
> purposes. (Like if I want to have kids, or I need to treat a relevant
> illness.)
Even if you personally don't care about societal gender, it's still a
thing that a lot of people care about and are affected by. You don't get
to delete words from the dictionary just because they aren't to your taste.
Firstly, it's not a matter of deletion. They don't exist.
Secondly, it's not a matter of taste. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking. It's a matter of importance. Societal gender is nothing more than a means of classifying- and thus segregating- people who don't fit some "norm".
Thirdly, I have yet to see a definition of "Societal Gender" that isn't so horrendously broad as to be essentially meaningless, which may in fact be part of the reason why it's so difficult for you to find a Lojban word.
How about, instead of arguing about the importance or lack thereof of such a word, you divide the uber-concept into it's constituent pieces.