Re: People unclear on the subject

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 14:20:17 -0700, "Brion K. Lienhart"
> <brionl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>>> A century ago people would be no more likely to say "my dog had pups"
>>> than we would say "my bull had pups" today.
>> It's not so bad that they call "him" a cow. The problem is they draw
the 
>> udders on it. Udders == boobies, and male cattle don't have them.
> 
> Right.   And male canines are also recognizable.   A century ago, male
> canines were called dogs and female canines were called *****es.
> 
> I know of people who call all foals "colts".   I suppose the language
> is changing.

It's a male character, in a female body. It's not language changing, 
it's ****ing ignorant morons who are too arrogant to care whether they 
have basic things correct or not. If Jessica Alba was in a movie with 
Michael Dorn's voice, and everybody just treated her as a man, you 
wouldn't think that was strange? It would be different if it was 
post-modern ironic man-bull trapped in a girl-cow body, but it's not. 
It's just plain stupidness.