Lojban In General

Sure, it can be done (I leave it to those more up-to-date on the relevant rafsi to add), but why bother? It would seem that the totally neutral terms are to be preferred almost always. An MTF, say, usually would prefer to be treated — and spoken of — as just female, without the intricate details (say, to what extent the identification had be incarnated). And, except in a small range of cases, the gender or gender identity of a person is just irrelevant. On the rare occasions when the need arise, lujvvo — or probably only tanru — are readily available.

From: Danny Piccirillo <danny.piccirillo@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 12:33:36 AM
Subject: lojban Gender neutrality?

Still a n00b, so i'm just looking for some clarification on this. One of the many many reasons lojban appeals to me, is that it is supposed to be gender neutral, but one thing still bothers me. If there are terms for boy, man, girl, and woman, there are surely terms for one who identifies as masculine or feminine, or androgynous, genderqueer, etc and those are the terms i think should be preferred in common conversation when talking about someone who has a gender identity (all humans). Is this do-able~ an idea the can be spread to all lojbanists?

Posted by Minimiscience on Mon 20 of Apr, 2009 14:02 GMT posts: 3588

de'i li 20 pi'e 04 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Danny Piccirillo .fy. cusku zoi
skamyxatra.
> If there are terms for boy, man, girl, and woman, there are surely terms for
> one who identifies as masculine or feminine, or androgynous, genderqueer, etc
> and those are the terms i think should be preferred in common conversation
> when talking about someone who has a gender identity (all humans).
.skamyxatra

If you mean words that are suitable for individuals regardless of their gender
identities, yes, there are words for those. "Human" is "{remna}," and "person"
(not necessarily human) is "{prenu}." "Child" is "{verba}," "offspring" is
"{panzi}," "parent" is "{rirni}," "sibling" is "{tunba}," "uncle/aunt" is
"{famti}," et cetera.

mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.

--
le munje vi smaji

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by adamgarrigus on Mon 20 of Apr, 2009 17:08 GMT posts: 92

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Danny Piccirillo <
danny.piccirillo@gmail.com> wrote:

> Still a n00b, so i'm just looking for some clarification on this. One of
> the many many reasons lojban appeals to me, is that it is supposed to be
> gender neutral, but one thing still bothers me. If there are terms for boy,
> man, girl, and woman, there are surely terms for one who identifies as
> masculine or feminine, or androgynous, genderqueer, etc and those are the
> terms i think should be preferred in common conversation when talking about
> someone who has a gender identity (all humans). Is this do-able~ an idea the
> can be spread to all lojbanists?

The previous respondents are correct. I just wish to clarify that Lojban was
not designed to be gender neutral. It was designed to be "culturally
neutral", but there is some debate as to what exactly that means.

mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan.

Posted by rlpowell on Mon 20 of Apr, 2009 17:14 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 02:00:26PM +0000, Minimiscience wrote:
> de'i li 20 pi'e 04 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Danny Piccirillo .fy. cusku zoi
> skamyxatra.
> > If there are terms for boy, man, girl, and woman, there are surely terms for
> > one who identifies as masculine or feminine, or androgynous, genderqueer, etc
> > and those are the terms i think should be preferred in common conversation
> > when talking about someone who has a gender identity (all humans).
> .skamyxatra
>
> If you mean words that are suitable for individuals regardless of their gender
> identities, yes, there are words for those. "Human" is "{remna}," and "person"
> (not necessarily human) is "{prenu}." "Child" is "{verba}," "offspring" is
> "{panzi}," "parent" is "{rirni}," "sibling" is "{tunba}," "uncle/aunt" is
> "{famti}," et cetera.

And, in fact, most of us use {remna} or {prenu} almost all of the
time (that is, except when a distinction is important). I prefer
{remna}, because I wish to reduce confusion when our future robot
overlords arrive, but most people use {prenu}.

-Robin

--
They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons."
And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something
other than the default outcome?" — http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by DPic on Mon 20 of Apr, 2009 20:16 GMT posts: 40

No, i mean words that instead of meaning that someone is a boy, it means
that they are mentally a boy. Everyone is used to using words that describe
what people are biologically, but we should be talking about gender identity
unless we really do want to talk specifically about their biological sex.
So, the terms that mean identify as male, female, genderqueer, etc, should
always be preferred when talking about humans (or even bots/androids that
are supposed to have a gender since they don't have a biological sex).

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:00, Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com>wrote:

> de'i li 20 pi'e 04 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Danny Piccirillo .fy. cusku zoi
> skamyxatra.
> > If there are terms for boy, man, girl, and woman, there are surely terms
> for
> > one who identifies as masculine or feminine, or androgynous, genderqueer,
> etc
> > and those are the terms i think should be preferred in common
> conversation
> > when talking about someone who has a gender identity (all humans).
> .skamyxatra
>
> If you mean words that are suitable for individuals regardless of their
> gender
> identities, yes, there are words for those. "Human" is "{remna}," and
> "person"
> (not necessarily human) is "{prenu}." "Child" is "{verba}," "offspring" is
> "{panzi}," "parent" is "{rirni}," "sibling" is "{tunba}," "uncle/aunt" is
> "{famti}," et cetera.
>
> mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.
>
> --
> le munje vi smaji
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>
>

Posted by rlpowell on Mon 20 of Apr, 2009 20:21 GMT posts: 14214

It hasn't come up. Unless I need to talk about whether someone
actually has a penis or vagina, I use {remna}. Or, you know, their
name. If it comes up in conversation for you, I suggest you
invent some lujvo.

-Robin

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 04:12:16PM -0400, Danny Piccirillo wrote:
> No, i mean words that instead of meaning that someone is a boy, it
> means that they are mentally a boy. Everyone is used to using
> words that describe what people are biologically, but we should be
> talking about gender identity unless we really do want to talk
> specifically about their biological sex. So, the terms that mean
> identify as male, female, genderqueer, etc, should always be
> preferred when talking about humans (or even bots/androids that
> are supposed to have a gender since they don't have a biological
> sex).
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:00, Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > de'i li 20 pi'e 04 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Danny Piccirillo .fy. cusku zoi
> > skamyxatra.
> > > If there are terms for boy, man, girl, and woman, there are surely terms
> > for
> > > one who identifies as masculine or feminine, or androgynous, genderqueer,
> > etc
> > > and those are the terms i think should be preferred in common
> > conversation
> > > when talking about someone who has a gender identity (all humans).
> > .skamyxatra
> >
> > If you mean words that are suitable for individuals regardless of their
> > gender
> > identities, yes, there are words for those. "Human" is "{remna}," and
> > "person"
> > (not necessarily human) is "{prenu}." "Child" is "{verba}," "offspring" is
> > "{panzi}," "parent" is "{rirni}," "sibling" is "{tunba}," "uncle/aunt" is
> > "{famti}," et cetera.
> >
> > mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.
> >
> > --
> > le munje vi smaji
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
> >
> >

--
They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons."
And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something
other than the default outcome?" — http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by Minimiscience on Mon 20 of Apr, 2009 20:31 GMT posts: 3588

de'i li 20 pi'e 04 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Danny Piccirillo .fy. cusku zoi
skamyxatra.
> No, i mean words that instead of meaning that someone is a boy, it means
> that they are mentally a boy.
.skamyxatra

Technically, "{nanla}" and the like do not assert any specific way in which an
individual has a given gender trait, and so they are equally acceptable for
referring to individuals who are male/female/whatever in different ways. In
fact, the {gismu} for "male" & "female" ("{nakni}" & "{fetsi}") do not mandate
that one be biologically/genetically/anatomically male/female (and even if they
did, {xorlo} would allow a way around it), and their x2 places can be used to
specify exactly how an individual is masculine or feminine.

> Everyone is used to using words that describe what people are biologically,
> but we should be talking about gender identity unless we really do want to
> talk specifically about their biological sex. So, the terms that mean
> identify as male, female, genderqueer, etc, should always be preferred when
> talking about humans (or even bots/androids that are supposed to have a
> gender since they don't have a biological sex).

Why can't we just move past that and refer to everyone as "{prenu}" as they
truly are? All forms of gender identity are equally irrelevant.

mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.

--
do la terjvi ganai pensi gi fliba

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by seryf on Mon 20 of Apr, 2009 20:31 GMT posts: 71

i never intend on calling anyone any other gender than what they are. when robots come along intelligent enough to maybe identify with a gender, i will make an exception and call them that.

---Original Message---
From: Danny Piccirillo <danny.piccirillo@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 2:12 pm
Subject: lojban Re: Gender neutrality?

No, i mean words that instead of meaning that someone is a boy, it means that they are mentally a boy. Everyone is used to using words that describe what people are biologically, but we should be talking about gender identity unless we really do want to talk specifically about their biological sex. So, the terms that mean identify as male, female, genderqueer, etc, should always be preferred when talking about humans (or even bots/androids that are supposed to have a gender since they don't have a biological sex).?

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:00, Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com> wrote:

de'i li 20 pi'e 04 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Danny Piccirillo .fy. cusku zoi

skamyxatra.

> If there are terms for boy, man, girl, and woman, there are surely terms for

> one who identifies as masculine or feminine, or androgynous, genderqueer, etc

> and those are the terms i think should be preferred in common conversation

> when talking about someone who has a gender identity (all humans).

..skamyxatra

If you mean words that are suitable for individuals regardless of their gender

identities, yes, there are words for those. ?"Human" is "{remna}," and "person"

(not necessarily human) is "{prenu}." ?"Child" is "{verba}," "offspring" is

"{panzi}," "parent" is "{rirni}," "sibling" is "{tunba}," "uncle/aunt" is

"{famti}," et cetera.

mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.

--

le munje vi smaji

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org

with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if

you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by DPic on Mon 20 of Apr, 2009 20:36 GMT posts: 40

Yes, but in conversation people often like to say, "Did you see that girl?"
instead of "Did you see that person?". Things like that. My request is that
lujvo for gender identities should replace words meaning biological sex in
casual conversation since it will come up. Can that happen? Does anybody
else see this as something that should happen?

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 16:19, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
> wrote:

> It hasn't come up. Unless I need to talk about whether someone
> actually has a penis or vagina, I use {remna}. Or, you know, their
> name. If it comes up in conversation for you, I suggest you
> invent some lujvo.
>
> -Robin
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 04:12:16PM -0400, Danny Piccirillo wrote:
> > No, i mean words that instead of meaning that someone is a boy, it
> > means that they are mentally a boy. Everyone is used to using
> > words that describe what people are biologically, but we should be
> > talking about gender identity unless we really do want to talk
> > specifically about their biological sex. So, the terms that mean
> > identify as male, female, genderqueer, etc, should always be
> > preferred when talking about humans (or even bots/androids that
> > are supposed to have a gender since they don't have a biological
> > sex).
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:00, Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > > de'i li 20 pi'e 04 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Danny Piccirillo .fy. cusku zoi
> > > skamyxatra.
> > > > If there are terms for boy, man, girl, and woman, there are surely
> terms
> > > for
> > > > one who identifies as masculine or feminine, or androgynous,
> genderqueer,
> > > etc
> > > > and those are the terms i think should be preferred in common
> > > conversation
> > > > when talking about someone who has a gender identity (all humans).
> > > .skamyxatra
> > >
> > > If you mean words that are suitable for individuals regardless of their
> > > gender
> > > identities, yes, there are words for those. "Human" is "{remna}," and
> > > "person"
> > > (not necessarily human) is "{prenu}." "Child" is "{verba},"
> "offspring" is
> > > "{panzi}," "parent" is "{rirni}," "sibling" is "{tunba}," "uncle/aunt"
> is
> > > "{famti}," et cetera.
> > >
> > > mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.
> > >
> > > --
> > > le munje vi smaji
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
> lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> > > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or
> if
> > > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons."
> And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something
> other than the default outcome?" — http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre
> http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>
>

Posted by rlpowell on Mon 20 of Apr, 2009 20:39 GMT posts: 14214

Umm. I don't think I even know what it means. If I say "Did you
see that woman?", I mean "Did you see that human with female
secondary sexual characteristics?"; I'm probably only bothering to
say "woman" because I found them attractive. I have no idea what
"replacing words meaning biological sex with words for gender
identities" would entail in that conversation, let alone why I would
want to do that.

FWIW, as others have said nanmu/ninmu can mean looks like an X,
thinks like an X, acts like an X, considers themselves an X, is
considered by others an X, etc, etc; it's up to context to make the
distinction.

I'm not at all clear on which case you think should be deprecated.

-Robin

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 04:34:40PM -0400, Danny Piccirillo wrote:
> Yes, but in conversation people often like to say, "Did you see
> that girl?" instead of "Did you see that person?". Things like
> that. My request is that lujvo for gender identities should
> replace words meaning biological sex in casual conversation since
> it will come up. Can that happen? Does anybody else see this as
> something that should happen?
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 16:19, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
> > wrote:
>
> > It hasn't come up. Unless I need to talk about whether someone
> > actually has a penis or vagina, I use {remna}. Or, you know, their
> > name. If it comes up in conversation for you, I suggest you
> > invent some lujvo.
> >
> > -Robin
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 04:12:16PM -0400, Danny Piccirillo wrote:
> > > No, i mean words that instead of meaning that someone is a boy, it
> > > means that they are mentally a boy. Everyone is used to using
> > > words that describe what people are biologically, but we should be
> > > talking about gender identity unless we really do want to talk
> > > specifically about their biological sex. So, the terms that mean
> > > identify as male, female, genderqueer, etc, should always be
> > > preferred when talking about humans (or even bots/androids that
> > > are supposed to have a gender since they don't have a biological
> > > sex).
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:00, Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > de'i li 20 pi'e 04 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Danny Piccirillo .fy. cusku zoi
> > > > skamyxatra.
> > > > > If there are terms for boy, man, girl, and woman, there are surely
> > terms
> > > > for
> > > > > one who identifies as masculine or feminine, or androgynous,
> > genderqueer,
> > > > etc
> > > > > and those are the terms i think should be preferred in common
> > > > conversation
> > > > > when talking about someone who has a gender identity (all humans).
> > > > .skamyxatra
> > > >
> > > > If you mean words that are suitable for individuals regardless of their
> > > > gender
> > > > identities, yes, there are words for those. "Human" is "{remna}," and
> > > > "person"
> > > > (not necessarily human) is "{prenu}." "Child" is "{verba},"
> > "offspring" is
> > > > "{panzi}," "parent" is "{rirni}," "sibling" is "{tunba}," "uncle/aunt"
> > is
> > > > "{famti}," et cetera.
> > > >
> > > > mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > le munje vi smaji
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
> > lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> > > > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or
> > if
> > > > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons."
> > And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something
> > other than the default outcome?" — http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre
> > http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
> >
> >

--
They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons."
And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something
other than the default outcome?" — http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by DPic on Mon 20 of Apr, 2009 20:43 GMT posts: 40

<<In fact, the {gismu} for "male" & "female" ("{nakni}" & "{fetsi}") do not
mandate that one be biologically/genetically/anatomically male/female>>Ah,
didn't realize that. Nevermind then!

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 16:38, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
> wrote:

> Umm. I don't think I even know what it means. If I say "Did you
> see that woman?", I mean "Did you see that human with female
> secondary sexual characteristics?"; I'm probably only bothering to
> say "woman" because I found them attractive. I have no idea what
> "replacing words meaning biological sex with words for gender
> identities" would entail in that conversation, let alone why I would
> want to do that.
>
> FWIW, as others have said nanmu/ninmu can mean looks like an X,
> thinks like an X, acts like an X, considers themselves an X, is
> considered by others an X, etc, etc; it's up to context to make the
> distinction.
>
> I'm not at all clear on which case you think should be deprecated.
>
> -Robin
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 04:34:40PM -0400, Danny Piccirillo wrote:
> > Yes, but in conversation people often like to say, "Did you see
> > that girl?" instead of "Did you see that person?". Things like
> > that. My request is that lujvo for gender identities should
> > replace words meaning biological sex in casual conversation since
> > it will come up. Can that happen? Does anybody else see this as
> > something that should happen?
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 16:19, Robin Lee Powell <
> rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > It hasn't come up. Unless I need to talk about whether someone
> > > actually has a penis or vagina, I use {remna}. Or, you know, their
> > > name. If it comes up in conversation for you, I suggest you
> > > invent some lujvo.
> > >
> > > -Robin
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 04:12:16PM -0400, Danny Piccirillo wrote:
> > > > No, i mean words that instead of meaning that someone is a boy, it
> > > > means that they are mentally a boy. Everyone is used to using
> > > > words that describe what people are biologically, but we should be
> > > > talking about gender identity unless we really do want to talk
> > > > specifically about their biological sex. So, the terms that mean
> > > > identify as male, female, genderqueer, etc, should always be
> > > > preferred when talking about humans (or even bots/androids that
> > > > are supposed to have a gender since they don't have a biological
> > > > sex).
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:00, Minimiscience <
> minimiscience@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > de'i li 20 pi'e 04 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Danny Piccirillo .fy. cusku
> zoi
> > > > > skamyxatra.
> > > > > > If there are terms for boy, man, girl, and woman, there are
> surely
> > > terms
> > > > > for
> > > > > > one who identifies as masculine or feminine, or androgynous,
> > > genderqueer,
> > > > > etc
> > > > > > and those are the terms i think should be preferred in common
> > > > > conversation
> > > > > > when talking about someone who has a gender identity (all
> humans).
> > > > > .skamyxatra
> > > > >
> > > > > If you mean words that are suitable for individuals regardless of
> their
> > > > > gender
> > > > > identities, yes, there are words for those. "Human" is "{remna},"
> and
> > > > > "person"
> > > > > (not necessarily human) is "{prenu}." "Child" is "{verba},"
> > > "offspring" is
> > > > > "{panzi}," "parent" is "{rirni}," "sibling" is "{tunba},"
> "uncle/aunt"
> > > is
> > > > > "{famti}," et cetera.
> > > > >
> > > > > mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > le munje vi smaji
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
> > > lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> > > > > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/,
> or
> > > if
> > > > > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons."
> > > And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something
> > > other than the default outcome?" — http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre
> > > http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
> lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> > > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or
> if
> > > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons."
> And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something
> other than the default outcome?" — http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre
> http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>
>

Posted by Minimiscience on Mon 20 of Apr, 2009 20:45 GMT posts: 3588

de'i li 20 pi'e 04 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Danny Piccirillo .fy. cusku zoi
skamyxatra.
> Yes, but in conversation people often like to say, "Did you see that girl?"
> instead of "Did you see that person?".
.skamyxatra

How would they know how an arbitrary individual identifies themselves sexually?
They would most likely be making an inference based solely on that individual's
outward appearance & mannerisms, and no amount of carefully-crafted {lujvo} can
save them from making an incorrect statement.

> My request is that lujvo for gender identities should replace words meaning
> biological sex in casual conversation since it will come up. Can that happen?

As has been stated, the gender-based {gismu} make no assertions about the way
in which an individual is associated with a given gender, and there should be
no problem with using them for more varied purposes.

mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.

--
noda makfa bu'u le vi munje

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by stevo on Tue 21 of Apr, 2009 00:29 GMT posts: 381

In a message dated 4/20/2009 16:36:14 Eastern Daylight Time,
danny.piccirillo@gmail.com writes:

> Yes, but in conversation people often like to say, "Did you see that
> girl?" instead of "Did you see that person?". Things like that. My request is
> that lujvo for gender identities should replace words meaning biological sex
> in casual conversation since it will come up. Can that happen? Does
> anybody else see this as something that should happen?
>

I don't think it should. But it's always an option for individuals.
How do you know the mental gender identity of a given person? How often
does it not correspond with a person's biological gender, assuming that to be
a simple male/female dichotomy?

stevo

between 3 and 10% of the time apparently, though lesws often if you broaden the range of possibilities and the specification of biological gender.

From: "MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com" <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 7:26:46 PM
Subject: lojban Re: Gender neutrality?

In a message dated 4/20/2009 16:36:14 Eastern Daylight Time, danny.piccirillo@gmail.com writes:

Yes, but in conversation people often like to say, "Did you see that girl?" instead of "Did you see that person?". Things like that. My request is that lujvo for gender identities should replace words meaning biological sex in casual conversation since it will come up. Can that happen? Does anybody else see this as something that should happen?

I don't think it should. But it's always an option for individuals.
How do you know the mental gender identity of a given person? How often does it not correspond with a person's biological gender, assuming that to be a simple male/female dichotomy?

stevo