Talk:gender-free
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Mglovesfun
Really don't feel that this needs four separate definition lines. It's pretty much just "free from gender", right? Whether it's people, words, or clothes, or whatever. Equinox ◑ 18:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Looks a lot better with subsenses, to me at least. Thanks. Equinox ◑ 19:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, cool. 'Cause I do think at least the "of people" and "of societies" senses are not combine-able (individual members of a gender-free society can still have gender, in many conceptions; plus the one is comparable and the other isn't). You could probably get away with combining the "of objects" and "of words" senses if you wanted, though there is some distinction, in that the objects can be used by anyone, whereas the words can be used of anyone. Geefdee 19:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Gender-free and gender-neutral both look a bit SoP to me; free from gender and neutral with respect to gender. A bit too borderline for me to actually nominate them for deletion though. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, cool. 'Cause I do think at least the "of people" and "of societies" senses are not combine-able (individual members of a gender-free society can still have gender, in many conceptions; plus the one is comparable and the other isn't). You could probably get away with combining the "of objects" and "of words" senses if you wanted, though there is some distinction, in that the objects can be used by anyone, whereas the words can be used of anyone. Geefdee 19:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)