Wade wrote:
>>You're wrong when you say androgynes have
>>nothing to seek.
>
>Yeah, I might just be. Can't understand that, you see. If they deny
>sex/gender, then what _are_ they seeking in the reproductive sense?
Same thing that you are-- someone they are attracted to. By my own personal definition (therefore you can't say I'm wrong, heh), being an 'androgyne' has more to do with how you identify *yourself* and perhaps little or nothing to do with your attraction to other individuals. And in the 'reproductive sense', if they are considered 'hetero', then they are seeking the opposite 'sex': basically, a penis if you are female, and a vagina if you are male. Androgynes aren't limited in their choices of mates, and are just as likely to 'seek out' the opposite sex as anyone is.
>And my dictionary don't have 'androgyne' in it. 'Gender-ignoring'
>decision-making (in an administrative or managerial sense) is one thing.
>But 'gender-free' decision-making seems pointless and impossible to me,
>and a utopian vision at best.
I wouldn't call it 'Gender-ignoring', as much as I would call it ignoring what society tells you is ideal to look for, and what you should look like to fit your gender. By "gender-free", I didn't mean that we should change our biological urges or anything, but simply that we should be free from others dictation precisely what 'gender is'. As simple as just wearing the clothes you want to wear, or saying what you want to say, when society tells you it's not appropriate for your 'gender'. I don't see how that interferes with reproduction. It's only a Utopian vision because people can't get over moralizing everything and making rules for others.
>But I'm ready to give up offering you any. I'm too sufficiently decayed.
>And I prefer rhubarb.
Calamari girl, speaking...
firecracking off,
~kjs