From: Jefsey_Morfin (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Sep 29 2006 - 07:09:29 CST
we are in the language area, not in biology. So the real issue is how
the person see him/her/etcself and how the language supports that
vision. Ages are also important in languages, so are trades and
contexts. In our computer assisted/man-machine relation, the genders
"computer" and "agent" should be available. So we would often need
singular, plural, networked.
On 13:30 29/09/2006, Hans Aberg said:
>On 29 Sep 2006, at 09:04, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 01:59:39PM +0200,
>> Hans Aberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote
>> a message of 14 lines which said:
>>>This standard is rather limited, as it does not admit indicating
>>>various androgyny, transsexual and indeterminate sex conditions.
>>Transsexual people do have a gender, it is just that they changed
>>it. Nothing in ISO 5218 prevents to change the gender of a person.
>The stuff in the Unicode character set seems mainly concerned with
>sexual preference, whereas I indicated the problem of medically
>defining physical maleness/femaleness. The transsexuality you mention
>is a sexual preference, which may sometimes result in a medically
>altered sex change.
>But some individuals have a faulty gene, so that the baby is not
>exposed to testosterone during pregnancy, but during puberty. The
>baby starts of as a female at birth, but develops as a male during
>>Androgyny is more complicated to handle.
>So it may fall into the same category.
>Another complication is that male and female humans both are exposed
>to testosterone and estrogen, but in different amounts, and both
>hormones are important for proper development. For example, estrogen
>during puberty is responsible for the body stop growing, which is why
>castrates do not stop growing. Testosterone is, to some extent,
>responsible of the sex drive, also in females. Females with
>heightened exposure to testosterone usually, as males, have shorter
>index finger than ring finger, which is statistically, but not
>individually, linked to lesbianism. It is unknown what causes
>sexually preference in the individual.
>So, therefore, there are a number of cases with ambiguous physical
>sexual development, where one factor is the amount of exposure of
>these hormones, though that is only a part of the story.
>I am not a medical expert on the subject. I just noticed that the
>Unicode standard seems to assume that mankind falls into two physical
>categories "male" and "female", with the possible exception of
>androgyny, then. This might be too limited. But I do not know how the
>subject should be resolved.
> Hans Aberg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 29 2006 - 07:35:29 CST