- Home
- Get A Printable Dictionary
- Search Best Words
- Recent Changes
- How You Can Help
- valsi - All
- valsi - Preferred Only
- natlang - All
- natlang - Preferred Only
- Languages
- XML Export
- user Listing
- Report Bugs
- Utilities
- Status
- Help
- Admin Request
- Create Account
|
Discussion of "dinti"
Comment #1:
Affirmatively non-binary or more generalized?
|
Curtis W Franks (Wed Nov 9 05:15:08 2022)
|
In English "non-binary" often means "affirmatively non-binary" and is an identity which is distinct from and possibly even mutually exclusive with beibg transgender, agendered, intersex, neuter(ed), neutral, etc. We should decide whether we want to make this word inclusive of all of these options (in other words: anything which is not exactly one of the traditional (European) binary genders of masculine or feminine) or restricted to just the English interpretation of "affirmatively non-binary". The current definition is inclusive, but that is a lot of range for one word and, arguably, implicitly bins everyone into masculine, feminine, or 'the third option' (the 'else') in a way which is not natural, representative, fair, considerate, or helpful. However, each of these options could be considered as sub-options of this one with their own descriptive words being derived from this word but via semantically restrictive tanru. If, instead, we make the definition narrow (referring only to affirmatively non-binary individuals), then each of these other options/categories deserves a co-equal word. Not only is that a lot of words for this single concept, but it also would probably have to generalize to many other gendered meanings.
(Note: There are always completely general terms which do not reference gender at all in Lojban (such as "zukte" for "dinti" and its ilk, or "rirni"/"rorci" for "mamta" and "patfu" and "preri" etc.), which can take the role of the inclusive umbrella term for the respective meanings).
Furthermore, the wording of the original definitions of related words, each of which was in English, all said "non-binary". Because this was in English, this implies that narrower "affirmatively non-binary" meaning, which excludes the other options. I was actually going through those definitions, editing them in order to make this aspect of them clear, until I hit this word and realized that there are nonparallelities in the definitions and that some choice has to be made. It would be best, I think, to make them all mutually parallel.
|
-
Comment #2:
Re: Affirmatively non-binary or more generalized?
|
Curtis W Franks (Wed Nov 9 05:31:07 2022)
|
krtisfranks wrote: > In English "non-binary" often means "affirmatively non-binary" and is an > identity which is distinct from and possibly even mutually exclusive with > beibg transgender, agendered, intersex, neuter(ed), neutral, etc. We > should decide whether we want to make this word inclusive of all of these > options (in other words: anything which is not exactly one of the > traditional (European) binary genders of masculine or feminine) or > restricted to just the English interpretation of "affirmatively > non-binary". The current definition is inclusive, but that is a lot of > range for one word and, arguably, implicitly bins everyone into masculine, > feminine, or 'the third option' (the 'else') in a way which is not > natural, representative, fair, considerate, or helpful. However, each of > these options could be considered as sub-options of this one with their > own descriptive words being derived from this word but via semantically > restrictive tanru. If, instead, we make the definition narrow (referring > only to affirmatively non-binary individuals), then each of these other > options/categories deserves a co-equal word. Not only is that a lot of > words for this single concept, but it also would probably have to > generalize to many other gendered meanings. > > (Note: There are always completely general terms which do not reference > gender at all in Lojban (such as "zukte" for "dinti" and its ilk, or > "rirni"/"rorci" for "mamta" and "patfu" and "preri" etc.), which > can take the role of the inclusive umbrella term for the respective > meanings). > > Furthermore, the wording of the original definitions of related words, > each of which was in English, all said "non-binary". Because this was in > English, this implies that narrower "affirmatively non-binary" meaning, > which excludes the other options. I was actually going through those > definitions, editing them in order to make this aspect of them clear, > until I hit this word and realized that there are nonparallelities in the > definitions and that some choice has to be made. It would be best, I > think, to make them all mutually parallel.
I think that my current opinion leans toward making this term (and all of the related terms) inclusive of any individuals who are not affirmatively, exclusively, and time-constantly male/masculine xor female/feminine (by some standard), possibly also inclusive of transgender identity even when the relevant gender is one of the traditional European binary options aforementioned (if that is desirable), to be used when explicitly stating gender is somehow important. I do not want it to be insulting to people who have such gender identities and thus will defer to their opinions, but this does seem, to me, to be the most practicable solution. Otherwise, each gender identity would deserve its own word for each term, which would quickly clog up gismu space. This word can be thought of as being inclusive in a positive way, rather than lumping disparate identities together in a negative way (glossing over their mutual differences); we can develop specific zevla from this word for each option.
|
-
|
|
|