...So says the small sub title in todays Sydney Morning Herald.
I was going to buy it when I saw it at the counter but decided not to waste my money because:
A. If it's even remotely accurate, it will echo my claims for the past few years.
B. If it's not, it'll then be more "trendy" blether from an editor trying to spark interest with the aim of simply selling copy regardless of gibberish.
Either way - I'm right, I know I'm right and for those ignoramuses who disagree...the penny will drop eventually.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Are you slipping up Muttars?
Have yu not read about the pregnant "man"== 3 months pregnantapparently.
It would seem that "he"was a female,decidied to change sex but kept all her reproductive organs just for an event like this.
The partner--who is of lesbian tendencies is thrilled.
I'm sure you'll have a pithy comment!
Spot the deliberate mistakes in my previous comment.
Here's the bottom line, Gladiola: Genitals define the sex of the individual, therefore "it" is a woman. Hideous to the point of masculine maybe - but a woman nonetheless.
So it never was a pregnant man - just more copy to fill pages.
I spotted five errors, now you bring it up!
Post a Comment