By 3rd sex I mean a normal 3rd sex, not like a hermaphrodite or anything like that. It would have to be something that doesn't reduce to male or female.
2007-01-19 20:17:05 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Family & Relationships ➔ Singles & Dating
There is no need for a 3rd sex at all!
But if it is...then it will have something that does not need any of the 1st and 2nd sex that is, it will reproduct a child itself.
2007-01-19 20:26:01 · answer #1 · answered by koRngear 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be completely alien - there is no organism on earth which has the attribute of having a third gender.
The closest thing, is guess, would be ants and termites, which have the reproducing queens, the drones (males), and workers (sterile). However, the workers are technically female.
To really get close to an answer, the question would have to be asked, "What evolutionary pressures might give an organism a need to have three genders?" Maybe if the species needed to adapt very quickly to a changing environment, having three genders would give it an advantage (more genders = more genetic exchange each generation, thus faster evolution).
Or perhaps a three genders might evolve as a response to high levels of radiation which damages DNA, because if the embryo has three complete copies of the genome to check against, it may be less likely to be adversly affected by genetic damage.
I seem to recall that a race from Star Trek, the "Vissians", had three genders; you could read up on them.
All this is purely speculation, though. No one really knows what such a being would be like.
2007-01-20 04:35:14 · answer #2 · answered by greendragonmaw 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A "normal 3rd sex" but not hermaphrodite? Where in nature do we see anything like that? Nowhere.
There are some animals (small fish, mainly) who can more or less change their sex depending on the needs of their population.
Do people who have had sex change surgery count? I mean, besides reproductive ability, they've switched sexes totally.
Other than that I don't see any answer to your question.
2007-01-20 04:21:02 · answer #3 · answered by lupin_1375 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow, I have to mark this question. This is first question on Yahoo Answers that required me to think.
I would have said a person (or thing) with both male and female reproductive parts (hermaphrodite). After all that's what separates males and females. But you took out that choice. I guess the only thing left is a person (or thing) with no reproductive organs. But what good would that do to the world? It would just add to the population. May be a person (or thing) that could change it's sex depending on need.
I am stumped. Good question.
2007-01-20 04:23:54 · answer #4 · answered by Mafia 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have to agree with Mafia, it's been a while since a question made me think for a while before answering it!
I'm going to say that the "3rd" would be sexless and void of the chemical/emotional forces that influence the emotions of both sexes... so perhaps they'd excel in other areas - have a higher IQ or become physically superior or perhaps they'd have the best of both sexes - the emotional depths of a woman and the primalness of the man. I don't know!
Damn... this is a good question!!
Well done!
2007-01-20 04:45:42 · answer #5 · answered by gabriel_demus 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
See Flowers in your future?
2007-01-20 04:20:19 · answer #6 · answered by todd 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you arrive on the short bus???
2007-01-20 04:20:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
u'd wear 3D glasses b4 performing it
2007-01-20 04:51:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋