At 19:40 11/28/98 , J. R. wrote:
>From: Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko <sasha1@netcom.com>
>>Interestingly enough, most of intentional reproduction is already
>>non-sexual, and sex is no longer necessary for even its original
>>purpose - to produce human offspring. It will probably be
>>considered reckless in the near future, to produce children by
>>blind combinations of genes, without first running the new DNA
>>through at least a medical check-up.
>>So it looks like sex and genders have a very limited future...
>
>"most intentional reproduction is already non-sexual"? You mean immaculate
>conception has replaced sex for intentional parents? This makes artificial
>insemination non-sexual. Or perhaps you mean non-coital? I thought sexual
>reproduction meant having children via sperm and egg as opposed to asexual
>parentage via cloning. --J. R.
>
>>Isn't it time we stop classifying ourselves by gender?
>
>What do you mean "we"? The US Selective Service requires that only males
>register for military conscription. Try telling them to stop. --J. R.
>
Sure, military service may take gender into account. There are also all kinds of things about you that are taken into account. Like, whether you have a driving licence. Which doesn't mean that you should identify primarily with either of these features.