PugJesus@lemmy.world to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 16 hours agoCongratulations on Brooklyn's rulelemmy.worldimagemessage-square16fedilinkarrow-up1367arrow-down110
arrow-up1357arrow-down1imageCongratulations on Brooklyn's rulelemmy.worldPugJesus@lemmy.world to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 16 hours agomessage-square16fedilink
minus-squareKazumaralinkfedilinkarrow-up4·3 hours ago except that “man” wasn’t gendered at the time. But I included that, didn’t I? and back then “man” still refered to male and female persons Or do you mean rather than male and female, I should have said persons regardless of gender? I guess that makes more sense.
But I included that, didn’t I?
Or do you mean rather than male and female, I should have said persons regardless of gender? I guess that makes more sense.
Fun fact: I can’t fucking read either.