From: Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>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.
Ah, so! ...*things* being reproduced. That clears it up. Thank you much. I see what you mean. Yes, people do that, except for radio talk jock Laura Schlessinger, who identifies herself with the lamentalble reminder: "I am my children's mom." (I wonder if her kids cringe when they hear her say that... especially since nude pictures of her have appeared on the Net.)
>>>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
>identify primarily with either of these features.
Well, military service does more than take it into account. They take you to prison if you resist the draft. (No wonder we have more female impersonators than male impersonators.) As to driving: Insurance companies also classify us according to gender, charging men higher rates than women. Personally, I'd like to identify myself as (and manifest the features of) a highly attractive lesbian. It seems to me that particular biological set really has it made. --JRM