| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) 01:14 - Feb 8 with 16981 views | SWBlue22 |
|  | | |  |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 17:51 - Feb 10 with 460 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 17:40 - Feb 10 by Smoresy |
From an anatomical perspective, sexualised Lego bricks would be better understood as male tops, bottoms, trans females and intersex. If I were asked to anthropomorphise Lego bricks though, I'd be more inclined to see the "appendages" as fingers or toes rather than penises: always hard, fixed size, multiple digits, no reproductive qualities to speak of. A vagina would be even lower down my list of orifices, for similar reasons plus sentence one (typical bricks have both studs and tubes).
This procreating, traditional biology talk, it isn't very compatible with Lego bricks is it? Putting Lego together doesn't much resemble mating rituals either, unless you keep changing your mind with the same two bricks I guess. By that stage you should be stepping away from the Lego and having a word with yourself.
The analogy is used because we're accustomed to such heteronormative descriptions, even when they're clunky or don't really fit. I don't worry about this personally but I respect the Science Museum for posing these thoughts at their exhibit. |
what you say is very wise. and were you about in the 17th century when people started to describe how mechanical parts connected together you could have contributed very productively to the terminology to be adopted. but the fact remains, right or wrong, that our language has adopted a traditional phraseology based on the the biology of reproduction. lego bricks typically have a male side and a female side. it is an analogy to penises and vaginas (in a human context) as they relate to procreation. it isn't heteronormative because it carries no implication for sexual preference (there is no instructional intent or moral message) - it is just an analogy to the biology or reproduction. the science museum is adopting a juvenile argument which misrepresents language. again, that's my view, and i've argued it only because i believe it. [Post edited 10 Feb 19:27]
|  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 20:22 - Feb 10 with 352 views | Smoresy |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 17:51 - Feb 10 by lowhouseblue |
what you say is very wise. and were you about in the 17th century when people started to describe how mechanical parts connected together you could have contributed very productively to the terminology to be adopted. but the fact remains, right or wrong, that our language has adopted a traditional phraseology based on the the biology of reproduction. lego bricks typically have a male side and a female side. it is an analogy to penises and vaginas (in a human context) as they relate to procreation. it isn't heteronormative because it carries no implication for sexual preference (there is no instructional intent or moral message) - it is just an analogy to the biology or reproduction. the science museum is adopting a juvenile argument which misrepresents language. again, that's my view, and i've argued it only because i believe it. [Post edited 10 Feb 19:27]
|
Happily I consider your historical context to reinforce my view. I was tempted to include it but didn't want to write too much. It is traditional, heteronormative phraseology that arose from the societal norms of the time. Male was only acceptably compatible with female, and so these descriptive terms were easily understood and welcomed by all publicly. There was no procreative element to the joining of most mechanical parts and that remains the case today, but language was very sexualised back then. The sticky out part evoked thoughts of a penis and the corresponding hole was naturally then a vagina, as opposed to a bottom or non-sexual terms.
You seem hung up on the instructional or pejorative aspect of the term, while others are comfortable to apply it with no such judgement. It was normal to conceive of the world back then through a "heteronormative lens", so-to-speak, and that remains the case at times for many or most of us today. I would like to think that in the UK it is largely without malice or prejudice.
No worries that you disagree, and no worries that you are steadfast on this particular instance being only related to sexual reproduction, when in reality that holds no relevance to the mechanical parts being described and this was known at the time. [Post edited 10 Feb 21:17]
|  | | |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 20:47 - Feb 10 with 316 views | lowhouseblue |
| See Lego is offensive now. (n/t) on 20:22 - Feb 10 by Smoresy |
Happily I consider your historical context to reinforce my view. I was tempted to include it but didn't want to write too much. It is traditional, heteronormative phraseology that arose from the societal norms of the time. Male was only acceptably compatible with female, and so these descriptive terms were easily understood and welcomed by all publicly. There was no procreative element to the joining of most mechanical parts and that remains the case today, but language was very sexualised back then. The sticky out part evoked thoughts of a penis and the corresponding hole was naturally then a vagina, as opposed to a bottom or non-sexual terms.
You seem hung up on the instructional or pejorative aspect of the term, while others are comfortable to apply it with no such judgement. It was normal to conceive of the world back then through a "heteronormative lens", so-to-speak, and that remains the case at times for many or most of us today. I would like to think that in the UK it is largely without malice or prejudice.
No worries that you disagree, and no worries that you are steadfast on this particular instance being only related to sexual reproduction, when in reality that holds no relevance to the mechanical parts being described and this was known at the time. [Post edited 10 Feb 21:17]
|
"There was no procreative element to the joining of most mechanical parts and that remains the case today." indeed, it was a biological analogy - which was then a very common way of explaining things.
"It was normal to conceive of the world back then through a "heteronormative lens."" no it was normal back then to conceive of the world through a biological lens. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
