Re: Now LEGO BLOCKS Can Discriminate Over Their Parts?!

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Feb 9, 2025 at 10:37:20 AM PST, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

This is an example of applying heteronormative language to topics
unrelated to gender, sex and reproduction. It illustrates how
heteronormativity (the idea that heterosexuality and the male/female
gender binary are the norm and everything that falls outside is unusual)

That's literally true. Heterosexuality *is* the norm. They're arguing here
that something that's true shouldn't be true.

How is moviePig, self-proclaimed language expert, unaware that "gender"
refers to a hell of a lot more than sexual characteristics and
reproduction? Plumbing terms are all gendered. Those four holes in the
top-back of the kitchen sink that plumbing fixtures fit through are
called "cockholes". Access to a sewer or an underground vault is through
a "manhole". Electrical connections are male -- plug -- and female --
jack or port.

If Lego was intended to impose hetero-normative beliefs upon children
(not a concept at the time), then donn't tell moviePig that most pieces
are hermaphroditic: Plug on one side, jack on the other.

What does that teach the young'uns about sexuality?

Also, if Lego pieces aren't allowed to couple, where does moviePig
believe that replacement Lego pieces come from?