This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The summary states that epicenity includes: effeminacy, androgyny and asexuality. As far as I know, effeminacy and androgyny are related to gender identities but asexuality is a sexual identity. Is asexuality the right word here? Wouldn't third gender or genderqueer be more appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memorygap ( talk • contribs) 10:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
No offense to whoever moved the article to the current namespace, but it seems pretty arbitrary to me. Why not epicenicity? That would be much more general and accurate to what currently stands in the text. Epicen -ism suggests an ideology or movement. Indeed, the gender neutral movement could justly be called epicenism, only it isn't.
The thing is, if I remember rightly, the policy for nomenclature wasn't completely written in stone: nouns and in the singular is the rule, but it is honoured in the breach as well as in the observance in many articles. And so it must be. Here is a case in point.
However, epicene is sometimes used substantively (i.e. as a noun). It is analogous to dandy: first an adjective for finery, it became a nickname for those who adopted finery. Perhaps more tellingly, we have the adjective gay, now very widely used substantively with a different referent. Gays, as in gays and lesbians, is not an adjective any more. Lesbian is even more obviously an adjective, and just as obviously regularly used substantively.
If anyone cares, please return this article to a sensible namespace. Alastair Haines ( talk) 15:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The statement that the word "he" is regarded as epicine by some has been flagged with " citation needed", unnecessarily, I believe. "He" is the proper singular pronoun for a person of unknown gender, and so this seems a perfectly reasonable claim to make: after reading this article I now consider the word to be epicine, at least in this use. Mnealon ( talk) 18:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
As per this section title; while the lead section is about the general concept of epicenity and the lack of gender-distinction, the rest of the article is entirely about the linguistic concept in English, French, and Spanish and less about the general concept itself. Seems like we want to add more information about the concept in general, and bunch the various linguistics section as subsections under "In linguistics". Does anyone have any good sources/info on the more general concept? Edderiofer ( talk) 14:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The summary states that epicenity includes: effeminacy, androgyny and asexuality. As far as I know, effeminacy and androgyny are related to gender identities but asexuality is a sexual identity. Is asexuality the right word here? Wouldn't third gender or genderqueer be more appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memorygap ( talk • contribs) 10:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
No offense to whoever moved the article to the current namespace, but it seems pretty arbitrary to me. Why not epicenicity? That would be much more general and accurate to what currently stands in the text. Epicen -ism suggests an ideology or movement. Indeed, the gender neutral movement could justly be called epicenism, only it isn't.
The thing is, if I remember rightly, the policy for nomenclature wasn't completely written in stone: nouns and in the singular is the rule, but it is honoured in the breach as well as in the observance in many articles. And so it must be. Here is a case in point.
However, epicene is sometimes used substantively (i.e. as a noun). It is analogous to dandy: first an adjective for finery, it became a nickname for those who adopted finery. Perhaps more tellingly, we have the adjective gay, now very widely used substantively with a different referent. Gays, as in gays and lesbians, is not an adjective any more. Lesbian is even more obviously an adjective, and just as obviously regularly used substantively.
If anyone cares, please return this article to a sensible namespace. Alastair Haines ( talk) 15:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The statement that the word "he" is regarded as epicine by some has been flagged with " citation needed", unnecessarily, I believe. "He" is the proper singular pronoun for a person of unknown gender, and so this seems a perfectly reasonable claim to make: after reading this article I now consider the word to be epicine, at least in this use. Mnealon ( talk) 18:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
As per this section title; while the lead section is about the general concept of epicenity and the lack of gender-distinction, the rest of the article is entirely about the linguistic concept in English, French, and Spanish and less about the general concept itself. Seems like we want to add more information about the concept in general, and bunch the various linguistics section as subsections under "In linguistics". Does anyone have any good sources/info on the more general concept? Edderiofer ( talk) 14:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)