Re: Genderless societies [was Re: kathryn's comments]

Elizabeth Childs (
Sat, 11 Sep 1999 17:40:22 -0700

Robert Bradbury said:
> > So let me get this straight - we're going to increase freedom by
> > people to alter their hormonal balance? (Which is quite dangerous, by
> > way).
> Not really, so long as you aren't doping yourself on androgens,
> hormones at normal physiological levels and timings are quite safe.

This agrees with everything I've read.

> I don't know of
> any evidence (but correct me if I'm misinformed) that indicates there
> are harmful effects of using the sex-hormones of the opposite sex.

I don't know what experiments have been done using female hormones on men.

In women who have low testosterone, boosting that level to normal levels can be helpful for energy level, libido and possibly other things.

But going significantly over normal physiological limits of testosterone has all sorts of deleterious consequences, in women as well as in men. This is seen with female athletes who have taken steroids. I can't remember the specific symptoms that result, but I do remember that it's pretty dangerous.

ve in Berkeley, California, where the women are loud,
> > the men are in touch with their feminine sides, and practically everyone
> > seems to be bisexual.
> Several of which may be reasons not to live in the Bay Area.... [I'm

It's not for everybody. To each his own enclave.

> More interesting to me, would be to know (a) your ancestry;
> (b) the conditions under which they gave up the safety of the
> known for risk of the unknown (slavery (indentured servants),
> war, famine, etc.); (c) the process by which you or your forebears
> came to California.

Well, if we really are talking genes as an input-output box, that would imply that you could guess the answers to these questions. You can ask me any polite question regarding my personality, etc, and then you should be able to venture a guess as to whom I'm descended from. You are free to guess within a broad range, such as "I guess that at least two of your ancestors in the last hundred years immigrated from Europe to find economic opportunity", or a narrower range if you feel you have me pegged.

Are you game? This is not meant as a challenge, I'm genuinely curious how accurately you can do this.

I know something about my ancestry, so I can at least partly confirm or deny that you are correct.