> 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.
Not only is the fact that I *mentioned* coupling not "the point", particulalry since I have explained the fact that my argument doesn't hinge on it, but my use of coupling does not provide any basis for your utterly fanciful cataloguing of my alleged incapacities.
You nothing nothing about what I know, or what I am capable of.
But let me respond to your crack about my ignorance of queers. The existance of queers requires more than one sex, doesn't it?
>you *said* identity.<Now you're lying. I thought you might be right, so I
reread everything I said in this sorry thread (who can remember precisely all
the words they use (except you, of course)). I never mentioned identity.
I'm left with one question. Why is it so important to you to treat me this way?
> 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.
No. Stopping coupling will have no effect on the argument I actually made--the need for two different population cohorts (I call them sexes) to produce the sperm and the egg. Which is why I said my argument doesn't hinge on coupling.
One more thing, Kelley. I made a simple point. You have, at various times, chosen to ignore or distort it. The main use you have made of anything I said was to use it as a springboard for rants. So the game's over. You're out of chances.
RO