the point once again roger is that you said coupling. you were completely incapable of imaging technology play a role, you were completely incapable of imagiining another history, you were completely incapable of recognzing that there are queers. you *said* identity. there is nothing determinative about biology, again, that makes us men and women. do you understand the disinction between sex and gender? please read the post on three genders and then explain it for me and keep telling me about how sex involves physical coupling --and your argument *does* hinge on that because you relate it to identity. once we stop coupling to reproduce it would be no more a part of our identity to produce eggs and sperm than it is to produce dead skin cells. and again, how we think about sex/gender, how we represent it to ourselves is varied culturally and historically and there is no necessary determination behaind thinking of men and women as having identities based on or grounded in the reproductive system.
At 09:22 PM 11/26/1999 -0800, you wrote:
>kelley wrote:>
>> >There is a simple way to show the existence of more than one sex.
>> >>Reproduction of the species is possible only by the physical coupling
of two
>> >>different population cohorts (what some of us call the male sex and the
>> >female
>> >>sex)
>>
>> this is untrue. women only need the injection of sperm. she doesn'thave
>> to to couple with a man.
>
>Absolutley disengenuous, and frankly beneath you, kelley. You *know* my
argument
>doesn't hinge on coupling. The existence of two sexes hinges on the fact
that the
>contribution of both--sperm and egg--is necessary for reproduction. Not
whether
>they couple, or, as I mentioned, whether the fetus is nurtured within the
woman
>before birth.
>
>I invite you again to consider my real argument. Really.
>
>RO
>
>
>
>