At 19:40 11/28/98 , J. R. wrote:
>From: Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>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.
I mean that there are lots of other things that are being intentionally reproduced, with and without modifications - tools, ideas, behavioral patterns, artifacts. Each of us engages in millions of times more of these than acts of biological reproduction. Our identity is also more closely connected to our ideas and skills than gen sets. When asked who they are, and what is important about them, people are more likely to name profession, political affiliation, personal beliefs, etc., and not cite their gene set. Same with degree of intentionality.
>>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.