The News From Poughkeepsie - Day 3

April 24th, 2008 • Related • Filed Under

How many genders can you think up? Why do we only have two? What if we had a world where there were those who had the sex (two genders), then passed on a viable fetus to those who had the babies (one gender to carry the child), then passed on the kid to those who raised the babies (one gender, but often two or more to make a family unit. Which gender would be the politically powerful one? With two genders involved with the sex, and two involved with the baby rearing, would childcare be more respected than it is today?

The News From Poughkeepsie is a daily blog post featuring an idea for you to take and do with what you will. Read more about it here. This post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license. You can take this idea, change it, make something new, and even make money off of it. All I ask is if you create something - anything! - that this post inspired you to make, please link back here.

Hey! Do you want to help out with The News From Poughkeepsie? I need more good square icon/logos (300×300) to go with the posts, and I have zero graphics skill. Email me if you’re interested. mightymur AT gmail DOT com. Today’s icon from Gem.

There Are 5 Responses So Far. »

  1. Comment by Nycteris on 24 April 2008:

    Ah the ‘how many genders’ question reminds me of the Xenogenesis trilogy by Octavia Butler, where aliens with a 3rd gender invade and begin to genetically guide human coupling.

  2. Comment by UrsulaV on 24 April 2008:

    Hmm. We have two for efficiency biologically–you get the genetic shuffle of sex with the minimum number of people required to be in one place at one time.

    The question that would arise, I suspect, is what the carrier of the offspring gets out of it. If it’s a viable fetus, what stake do they have? Do they get to use any genes? Is this essentially a parasite? By this argument, you could claim that caterpillars amount to a third gender of the parasitic wasp…

  3. Comment by zianeu on 24 April 2008:

    Wasn’t one of Asimov’s stories involving a race like that. “…The Gods Themselves” I think… hmmm… My first question would be why a gender to raise the kids. Which leads to some interesting thoughts.

  4. Comment by Nobilis on 24 April 2008:

    How about if the “genders” were in fact life phases?

    After birth and childhood, the individual spends time as a “worker” being productive and supporting the younger ones. This is in their best interest genetically because their siblings share many genes.

    After successfully raising a few younger brothers and sisters, the individual metamorphoses into a womb. She accepts fertilized eggs from her parents, which again have an interest in their shared genes.

    Finally, after giving birth to a few babies, the mother-type metamorphoses into the final caste. These are the sexual reproducers, and since they don’t do any of the other labor, they must be the leaders, warriors, and criminals of their society. They probably play all kinds of elaborate dominance games to prove their fitness to reproduce.

  5. Comment by solak on 26 April 2008:

    First two genders supply the genes, second two genders supply the memes (science, culture, et cetera). If the bio-parents are teenagers to thirty-somethings and the childrearing/nanny parents are thirty-somethings to whatever, then it actually works even with current humanity.

    Why be a gender to raise the kids? Because once a stable genetic substrate exists to support a sentient species, the memes become more important.

    Parameters:
    + nanny=grandparent or nanny=qualified/certified professional or random assignment
    + transition=metamorphosis or personal choice or financial achievement or erectile dysfunction/menopause
    + coupling remains across the maturation boundary, or not
    + breeding coupling is monogamous or hedonistic or assigned by “the system”
    + nanny coupling is pairwise or groupwise or …

Post a Response