On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:43 PM, vitci'i
<celestialcognition@gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/13/2012 10:49 AM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> I think you want to come up with a different definition. Stereotypes are
> most definitely not deserving of words.
But we can have gismu (with short rafsi!) for specific cultures? Just
because something's essentially imaginary doesn't mean we get to ignore it.
Stereotypes aren't imaginary. They're derogatory, insulting, and WRONG.
Here's some stereotypes:
All Mexicans are thieves.
Women are weaker than men.
Blondes are stupid.
Irish people are alcoholics.
I could go on, but I think this shows my point well enough.
On 07/13/2012 01:16 PM, John E Clifford wrote:
> Just back from the General convention of the Episcopal Church, so I
> have heard "gender" up to here. From all of that, I gather that it
> might be more useful to search for a number of particular terms,
> rather than a general one like "gender". Leaving aside sex (at least
> two definitions, one genetic with about a half dozen slots, one
> plumbing with an at least two dimensional field with countless
> cluster points) and sexual orientation (presented as a linear array
> with about a half dozen cluster points, but also implicitly two such
> arrays, differing loosely by sex), there remain gender roles
> (differing from one micro society to another and covering areas from
> personal hygiene to crafts and beyond) gender roling (conforming to
> some roles -- a matter of degree as well which areas), gender
> identity (what you say you are -- there seem to be at least five easy
> categories here), gender _expression_ (what you look to be to others --
> it's not clear whether this includes pseudos or that is just a
> byproduct of ineptness -- at least as many categories as identity)
> and gender status (what you can get the government, etc., to say you
> are). I'm sure I missed some, but this is enough to start, not
> merely looking for terms to match these but also specify at least
> some of the cluster points in the various maps (some of these
> clusters are rather small but often the more interesting for al
> that).
It is precisely because this is so complicated that we must not try to
create separate gismu for everything. The right solution is to create a
small set of broad but orthogonal words that can be used as components
in lujvo.