Comment on Dwarf Planets are people too
GraniteM@lemmy.world 1 day ago
My objection to “dwarf planet” is purely a linguistically aesthetic one.
“Dwarf planet” ≠ planet
…implies…
“Dwarf person” ≠ person
…and I feel like the people under 4’10" (147 cm) would object to that distinction.
Also, “planetoid” was a perfectly cromulent word which Star Trek had been using for decades already.
samus12345@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Different meanings. “Dwarf person” = a person with dwarfism, but “dwarf planet” ≠ a planet with dwarfism.
GraniteM@lemmy.world 1 day ago
There are plenty of linguistically unintuitive artifacts kicking around (a peanut is neither a pea nor a nut, a jellyfish is not a fish, all of the “berries” which aren’t berries), but if we’re deliberately creating brand new labels in the 21st century, it might have been nice if we’d avoided that kind of oddness, given the opportunity.
samus12345@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
It’s kind of a leap to hear “dwarf planet” and think that it’s denigrating people with dwarfism in any way.
GraniteM@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It’s not a direct connection, but trying to say a dwarf planet isn’t a planet, when it’s got the word planet right there, is generating the kind of semantic confusion that, carried forward, would lead to the conclusion that people with dwarfism aren’t people. The -oid suffix already conveys “is almost the thing, but not quite,” such as in words like humanoid, asteroid, android, and (most importantly) the aforementioned planetoid. Making planetoid the official word for “is in ways like a planet but actually isn’t” would have been working with existing etymology, rather than creating needless confusion.
RamenJunkie@midwest.social 1 day ago
Did you test Pluto to make sure its not just a regularplanet with dwarfism?