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.