"TWINBLUE"  wrote in message
>
> >[moderator's note:  No. They have two SEXES. SEXES.
> > NOT GENDERS. Use the bluidy language properly. . - JAH]
>
> Ah, While I might tend to agree with you here I think that you are going >
a bit far.
> For example consider the frequent discussion of single celled creatures >
who engage in "sex" (exchange of genitic material) but who posess no
> gender and are thus of neither sex. I believe they would be best
> described as "genderless" rather than "unisexual"
or "sexless".
>
"Gender" is properly a grammatical term. In French a
"table" has feminine
gender, but is not of female sex.
However feminists started using "gender" to refer to social aspects of sex
(women wear skirts, etc) as opposed to biological aspects, and then later
"gender" was used on job applications and similar places as a euphemism for
"sex", because "sex" is also shorthand for "sexual
intercourse".
As I biologist I like crossing out "gender" and replacing with
"sex".

As for two sexes being inevitable, in fungi there are complex mating
systems. In bacteria sex and reproduction are not linked. In plants and
molluscs some species are hermaphodite, though you still have two types of
gametes (sperm and ova).

Why are two sexes so common? I think the OP was probably right (and is
probably remembering something he read by Richard Dawkins). Once you have a
small difference in investment strategies escalate to the two extremes, so
eggs are the largest cells whilst sperm are the smallest in mammals.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/26/03 8:31:34 PM