>More than that, if you read what I said, my argument about why it is clear
there
>is more than one sex (which I notice you did not respond to) has nothing
to do
>with the shape of the genitals. Recounting and analyzing that was nice,
but it's a
>nonsequitor. If you are truly interested in how many sexes, I say, you
needed
>inquire into the shape of the genitals. There mere fact the you need two
>different sexes to procreate is enough to establish their existence. Go
on, read
>it again and have a whack at it, why don't you, if you really want to
argue that
>there is only one sex.
you are absolutely wrong about needing two different sexes. you need sperm and eggs. if you were to artificially reproduce aboslutely nothing about having sperms and eggs would make a difference in your life except perhaps for the diseases that might be related to those organs. they production of sperm and eggs would have absolutely nothing to do with contact sex because contact sex would have nothing to do with reproduction.
aside from which you wipe out at least ten percent of the population and conceivably more--including my girlfriend--who want nothing to do with contact sex with a man, who've never had it, don't desire it, and could give a flying fuck about reproduction.
in other words roger there is nothing imperative about describing us a reprodcutive beings. nothing. AND there is nothing about our identities and how we think of ourselves that HAS to be related to our sex organs. NOTHING. just like blacks don't have to think of their skin color as making them who they are or that they get sickle cell anemia or that whites get melanoma nor do men think of themselves as men because they grow bald more often than women or that they have adams apples.
Aha. Carrol and Yoshie have
>agreed to make you a member of their comedy team, haven't they? Good work,
>comrade!
>
ahhh excusd me, but carrol and yoshie and i have been exchanging posts off lists for quite some time now. so get off it.
>Now it's you turn, kelley. Before you again let loose in public such
half-baked
>meanderings about Marx, you need to read and learn something about what he
>actually wrote, starting with what his object was (hint: to uncover the
laws of
>motion of capital and capitalism), how he chose to go about it, and what
were the
>important elements he identified, as opposed to the peripheral (or what
could be
>abstracted from). Then set out to understand how material conditions have
changed
>and what that means for the laws of motion now. When you do, you will see
that
>what you say here falls into either of two categories: incorrect and
meaningless
exactly roger. which is exactly what you're not capable of doing with
reagard to sex and genderl you're confusing ideology with realtiy. you're
leaving out technology. you're leaving out the fact that there are
thousands of men and women who never ever have reproductive sex and so it
does not define who they are
>
>RO
>
>
>
>