this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
718 points (96.5% liked)

196

16442 readers
2256 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] key@lemmy.keychat.org 40 points 1 month ago

France is a lie schemed up by the British monarchy in the 1400s to reinforce traditional power structures via a common enemy.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I want to understand tho. Like, yeah I don't need to, to not be an asshole; but I still want to understand everything I don't. I'm curious like that.

[–] randomname01@feddit.nl 29 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Also, because gender is a social construct, it requires that enough people understand it to a sufficient degree.

[–] manny_stillwagon@mander.xyz 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

As opposed to French, which famously exists as a natural truth of the universe. Even if we had never discovered French it would still be there... waiting.

[–] randomname01@feddit.nl 12 points 1 month ago

I think the language analogy is actually very apt, because not every has to understand it, but the people you want to speak French with necessarily have to know it. Otherwise it just doesn’t fulfil any purpose.

[–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Gender's an overloaded term. Are you talking about the internal feeling, the way someone's treated by others, the shared sense of a variable that differentiates people, social institutions, ideas, or something else?

Those of course are all related very strongly, but they're not the same thing. Different models of gender will define of differently, but that's usually just to best fit the area they're applicable to. If a philosopher tells you gender is a social construct, that's because they're analyzing things through the lens of social construction. Very useful, but merely one perspective.

[–] randomname01@feddit.nl 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean, I guess there’s a point to that, but isn’t there inevitably a social aspect to it? Especially in this post, where the person is saying others don’t have to understand it, meaning it’s clearly outwardly visible and part of who they are.

I’m not saying you should seek approval from anyone (for your gender nor anything else), because that’ll never happen. But denying the importance of some social acceptance for things in the social sphere is kind of weird, and feels like a “haha, unless…?” thing; you want others to understand and accept it, but the moment you don’t their acceptance becomes irrelevant and you never sought any acceptance at all. It feels like an unhealthy way to cope with rejection.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago

France isn’t real!

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Somebody has a gender you don't understand. Tough

Also

Somebody doesn't understand your gender. Tough.

[–] Track_Shovel 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nothing a discussion can't clarify.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

You're missing their point, I think, which I believe is essentially "a disparity between how you perceive yourself and how I perceive you does not inherently constitute an injustice on my part".

[–] Tinks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

While I agree with your sentiment, there is a difference between not understanding and actively disparaging. The former is fine - there's plenty of stuff I don't understand, and I just don't comment on it because I have no business doing so. Where I take objection is when the lack of understanding transforms into bigotry and disparaging remarks.

By all means be ignorant (and I don't mean that in a derogatory manner - we are all ignorant about various things), but don't let your ignorance manifest into negativity.

Agreed.

Don't understand. Fine.

Assumptions, deliberate misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Not fine.

[–] morgunkorn@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 1 month ago (2 children)

And in French everything has a gender: a table? Definitely a she. A coat hanger? Looks like a he to me. A car? Look at those curves, she it is. That truck though, totally masculine. But the trailer behind it, still a she.

[–] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

The funny thing with gendered languages is that synonyms can have different genders. So "el pollo" and "la gallina" both mean "chicken", but their grammatical gender differs.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

And in Germany, a girl is genderless until she grows up 😄

[–] morgunkorn@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 month ago

yeah really interesting in this case both come from Latin, and both made their way in the modern languages, one in its masculine form the other in its feminine form.

  • Pullus (adj.) very small (animal), a young rooster, "pulla" for the female chicken. French : la poule
  • Gallus (name) rooster, "gallina" for the female chicken. French : le gallinacé (a chicken specimen, member of the species Gallus domestica)
[–] TheCoolerMia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago

la polla :3

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago

i want to wedgie the people who decided to call it "gender" in grammar, people don't associate tables with femininity or whatever, it's just an arbitrary grouping that has no inherent meaning, the only reason we force associations with social gender is because inevitably the words "man" and "woman" belong to one of the groupings.

Like in swedish you can say "timma" or "timme" (hour), but no one's going to think you're somehow implying that the unit of time itself is somehow gendered.

[–] starlord@lemm.ee 19 points 1 month ago
[–] kwomp2@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 month ago (3 children)

This is a week analogy.. french only works as a means of communication because it has internal rules that are objective (as in different people understand the same/very similar thing when hearing/seeing a symbol/word).

Singularity of experience is cool, but anything social requires communication/synchronization.

Even though gender is used as a box or definition people are forced to fit into (and this is bad), reducing human experience to a blackbox kind of singularity is a highly individualist take.

You can work on understanding each other without forcing anyone to fit into your definition..

[–] Excrubulent 20 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Language isn't objective though. It wasn't handed down from some deity.

Language is a constantly evolving negotiation of new and remixed communications, performed through billions of interactions every single day. It's collaborative and unpredictable and sometimes someone comes up with something cool and the next day everybody is copying them.

In short, language is socially constructed.

I think it's a great analogy for gender in that respect.

[–] kwomp2@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Objective and socially constructed isn't a 'hard' contradiction.

Yes of course language evolves and so on, but in a given time(period) it needs to be interpretable more or less independently from the specific actor (a dictionary ensures this, even though it needs to be updated regularly).

In other words yeah sometimes language comes up with new stuff. If it would do it all the time, it wouldn't function

[–] Excrubulent 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

It does change all the time, and dictionaries don't ensure any kind of standard. The linguists who write dictionaries will tell you that their only function is to describe the most popular parts of the language, not to prescribe any particular rules. Telling people how they should speak doesn't actually work.

I could say the phrase "abso-fucking-lutely" and you understand it, even though it's not in the dictionary. That's still language, it's still English.

And I don't know what you mean by a "'hard' contradiction" or why that matters. My point is that both language and gender are forms of communication that rely on socially constructed signifiers and they are both fluid to a similar degree, so the analogy is good. If you want to argue with me, that's the point you should be dealing with.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] will_steal_your_username@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

language is objective

no

People don't agree what sentences and words mean all the time. Every single linguist on earth disagrees with you

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LordKitsuna@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

The analogy probably gets used for longer than just one week

[–] tfw_no_toiletpaper@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thanks I am going to harass French people now

[–] supercriticalcheese@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

It's hard they don't care what you or anyone else thinks

[–] MrMobius@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

Respecte mon genre !

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is a good place for that reminder that the big lexicon of sexualities, romantic orientations and gender identities are something to help you figure out what your business is. Other people will sometimes have identities that do not appear to match their behavior, and that is fine.

This was the whole point of Russell T. Davies television series Bob & Rose (Bob is gay man who falls in love with Rose, a straight woman, and everybody freaks the fuck out. )

Or to put it another way, if a friend of yours is a lesbian but sometimes likes the d, or has a d or is enby, id est, not a woman, they are still a lesbian.

Most of the lesbian community is down with this, in my experience, but the lesbian community -- and the LGBT+ community in general -- has a long history of gatekeeping, especially of shutting out bi folk and trans folk. And we need peers, friends and allies on the same page. So here we are with the bus driver tapping the sign.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If a straight man sometimes like the d, are they still a straight? Obligatory Asking for a friend.

Regardless of the answer, I'm not going to police someone on their identity.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago

If a guy likes the d but identifies as straight, then yes, he's straight.

If a guy likes the d (and less so the v) but also musicals and brunching and still identifies as straight, then he's straight.

At very least, the closet continues to be a necessity for some folk in intolerant circumstances.

Identity is something one works out for themselves. Heck the Kinsey scale implies almost everyone should be bi, (even if not very bi) and yet our booleanist society seems to want to categorize only Kinsey-0 as straight (with everyone else as Oh-So-Gay).

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Okay but you don't get to tell others what they need to think and feel about your experience.

[–] not_a_dog@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Nah, forget about trying to reason with them. They'll just respond with "I honestly don't care, I just don't like it being shoved down my throat all the time!", even though it isn't actually being 'shoved down their throat', but you can't reason them out of a subjective delusion like that.

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My gender is so difficult to comprehend for cis people that I just call myself a women so I dont confuse them

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

No, no, the bigots hate people who speak French too

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

my take is just that we should stop caring so much about the precise details of people's identity and treat it like food preferences: if it becomes relevant we try to explain it in as much detail as is needed, and people we interact with a lot will probably have a good understanding of it.

The comparison to language is actually quite apt since language has the same problem of people insisting it be grouped into neat boxes, when in reality every person basically speaks a unique language that may well vary from time to time.

[–] Track_Shovel 2 points 1 month ago

I'm with you on the first half of this; the second half isn't bad - just never thought of it like that

Anyway, yes, your sexuality and gender ID in my eyes is similar to a food preference/allergy. If I need to know, please tell me! I might have some questions about it so I can adequately manage our interactions without feeding you peanuts, but other than that, you do you. Similarly, I very much hope you have a bit of patience; I don't often deal with people that have allergies, so while I'm trying to be sensitive to them, I might fuck up.

load more comments
view more: next ›