• kwomp2@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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