I don't argue against primitives. But the primitives have to be things like "pink tutu" and "programming" and whatever else ppl put inside
that still ends up being prescriptive and exclusionary. IMHO ofc.
-
-
If you assign genders to the primitives you fail to model gender, IMHO.
-
You end up modelling interactions of known (but perhaps wrongly defined) genders. But gender itself is mix of roles, clothes, personalities.
-
So to model it you have to realise that a person might have exactly the same end result as another, e.g., "male", but different features.
-
And vice versa, the same features but end up with different genders e.g., "gender fluid" or "woman", etc.
-
You would be able to locate trends above such rare cases, but would somebody be able to avoid prescriptivism, at least I hope.
-
*somebody=somehow
-
By the way, the main reason other than cyclic logic that you can't have "woman" as a primitive is because of the perhaps obvious fact that
-
women themselves are all different to one another and how they embody the "woman" concept. Same for all other genders too.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.