>>39738543>>39738548>>39738556Your pedantic adherence to Wikipedia articles notwithstanding, the phrase used in this sense is correct.
Intersex people are not part of the rule of sex as naturally developed by creatures, they are mutations or diseases. They are exceptions to natural development. Therefore, they do not disprove the fact that natural development exists, or is by and far the most common form of development for human beings; they, in fact, prove that there IS a natural development to human beings, by virtue of existing. Which is to say, intersex people are not a rule against natural sex, but a defense in support of it.
But this kind of simple misunderstanding is common amongst modern trannies, so I don't expect you to understand. Keep crying "muh Fallopian tubes" and "muh Klinefelter's syndrome". Surely you'll sway a bunch of retards to your argument.
