Dont think, know: Why is it female? Why is it woman? Why is it she? Why is it her? Plus, why do those, physically, produce males? A male with "barings of the opposite sex" which shouldn't be, is equal with what I point out above in questions, too: Abomination. What you call woman (women) or female (females) here are abominations physically. A pure opposite sex shouldn't bare (or rise) forth anything male nor be able to generate anything male from them. What are males here carrying both y and x in sperm? Rather malefe or manwo? In a pure place far from both here and this physical generation kind, there is no female nor woman. And lets get it straight, "man" is "manning" which got nothing to do with being physically male. But the definition to woman makes it woman is an adult female rather than a different kind of manning. The last question up top concerning one which look like a try for saying 'he err'. Again, the abomination. The opposite sex shouldn't hold similar parts in class name. Outside of here and this generation, where I go back, the pure opposite sex, to me, are each I name/class "Yeah" which implies the informal "Yes" for me and figuratively implies the expression of how one may say "O yeah!" or "Hell yeah!" or even "O, hell yeah!" when completly blown away, say, by beings or doings or looks or sensings of the authentic, pure, likeable opposite sex. Plus, other classing names I have such. (And none of such produce males nor become pregnant. And not a not able matter as if damaged, but just a pure, authentic matter. Remember I said I go back. That's how come authentic. An authentically chosen is any Yeah how faverable only for me and more Yeahs. Yeah-on-Yeah actions be for me that even details. Picture all the sexy ways a Yeah may and might even utter "Yeah," especially when Yeah-on-Yeah...) My Yeahs aren't here. Yeah that better classic album (tone of tones) been a jewl hidden from here. As for girl and lady and also gal... They dont appear on top look abominations, but the definitions to all of those imply such indeed abominations just as well. Listen to "Plush" by STP. I get the channel clear. The authentic chosen, pure opposite sex are not anywhere where dogs can find them. Not even a flea from a dog can be there either. Sure when the dogs can find her it means she is an abomination to begin with. It's said crumbs are for dogs or should be given to the dogs only... So what is what you call woman doing down where the dogs are and of which can find her here? These you call woman of this physical "human" generation, are crumbs. Nothing worse than seeing what you call a woman and then seeing her father and then living with the then bothersome, crummy thoughts of how she looks like her father. You dont want to see a dude in your chick you be kissing with! Yuck. So indeed to answer the song "Plush," You bet cha! the dogs will not smell a being alone since "her" got "he" within. And not being alone along with dogs which can find such being not alone, only implies being rather beings (of makings abominable) non-pure. That is all.
Sure, women are a real trick alright since they can afterall produce a cock. Least says so is the fact of woman being a "'cock having' male child barer" or being always able to bare male child which of course got cock. Such abomination are these crummy physical-generating tricks.
Any of you seen that monster with the big 'looking around' eye ball in its opened up stomach on the table in Feast 2? Lol! Abomination fictional, but here in real life the abomination is these male penises being found in the tummy of women. "I wheel tail thee the history of the woman"
I'm just waiting for Rod Sterling to come on and tell me I've entered the Twilight Zone after reading this.
In almost all languages (other than Westron) a is a indicator of the feminine. This is of great grammatical significance in most languages. Thus man, male, & jackass all make their own gramatical bows to the feminine side of the masculine gender.
