This is gender.

And then there’s David Solway’s The Transrealism of the Left which begins:

In the ongoing and infinitely tedious sex wars of our time, pitting women against men, women against women, men against women, men against men, and whatever seventy or so gender claimants lurk in between, it looks like the transgender brigade is winning the day. It represents, so to speak, the cutting edge of the intersectional fray.

Indeed, the trans phenomenon is perhaps the most interesting of the erotic variables that define the current wave of insanity, of which the transition from male to female, whether surgical, hormonal or cosmetic, appears to be the paramount factor in the venereal mix. Bathrooms in many establishments are no longer gender-specific. Women’s sporting events are increasingly dominated by biological males identifying as women. Corporations have climbed aboard the intersex, gender non-conforming and transgender bandwagon. Over fifty large companies, including Amazon, Coca Cola, ebay, Google, Microsoft and counting, have issued a statement affirming  “the rights and identities of transgender people,” ludicrously claiming that “gender definition determined by birth anatomy fails[s] to reflect the complex realities of gender identity and human biology” and implying the virtue of biomorphic mutation. Many religious institutions have welcomed such gender anomalies into the fold. Even preschoolers are being subjected to the LGBT+ blitz and are taught the blessings of transitioning.

To be read through for those few who remain able to read a sustained argument on a non-fashionable subject that goes absolutely against the grain of the times in which we live.

In Lectures on Ideology and Utopia, French philosopher Paul Ricoeur defined the positive form of utopian thinking as the “exploration of the possible,” but understood that it is always vulnerable to fantasy, a gloss on Karl Mannheim’s Ideology and Utopia where Mannheim claims that utopian thinking is “not at all concerned with what really exists.” And utopian thinking is the definitive property of the political left — that is, not only as the “exploration of the possible” but the attempted realization of the impossible. Human beings can thoroughly shed their private personalities, wealth can be equally distributed without damaging the social consensus, property can be seized by an all-encompassing state for the undeniable benefit of all its citizens, society can be happily and productively collectivized, class divisions can be eradicated, endemic corruption can be rooted out, and human beings and human societies can be manipulated to ensure peaceful coexistence, economic parity, pastoral tranquillity and a sense of universal kinship.

In other words, everything becomes possible in the socialist world-view. That is why a woman can become a man but, more importantly in the current milieu, why a man can become a woman. Biological sex can be transformed into voluntary gender. All that is needed is a bit of invasive tinkering and the right attitude. The transgender phenomenon is merely the latest manifestation of leftist postconceptions, the basic assumption that the impossible is possible, that everything can be transformed according to an ideologically inspired blueprint.

Much, much more. And to go with David Solway, there is this from Mark Steyn: The Men Who Walked Away. I would say this must be a Canadian thing, with me quoting two fellow citizens of the frozen Dominion, except that it is most definitely anything but. Will just quote this, but worth your time.

“There is no law that says women and children first,” Roger Kohen of the International Maritime Organization told Time magazine. “That is something from the age of chivalry.”

If, by “the age of chivalry”, you mean the early 20th century.

You know, like when the Titanic sank.

And then there is this, which even comes with a picture: POLICE SUBJECTED TO PRONOUN POLICE.

You would think this is parody but it’s not. It’s the future.

 And to show this is an idea that’s in the air, this also just came my way: Is Gender a Social Construct?. Read it as well. The short answer is No, but that’s my answer. At the link there is some hedging of bets. Final para:

Ultimately, the mantra that “gender is a social construct” is misleading and may cause significant confusion and unnecessary acrimony. It is more reasonable to suggest that gender is an internalized sense of masculinity/femininity that is shaped by a complex interaction of genetic, hormonal and social forces. Granted, that’s probably harder to fit on a coffee mug. But I remain optimistic that if we are realistic about the complex interplay of biology and environment, we can work toward an egalitarian and open society that allows individuals to express their individuality whether or not they conform to traditional (or progressive) gender role norms.

I guess he [?] wants to keep his [?] job. It does say at the end that “you can follow him on Twitter” so I will just presume.

For a long time I have noticed that among my friends and associates, those with seriously more money don’t seem to have a seriously better or more interesting life. We holiday and travel to the same destinations, watch the same movies, go to the same kinds of theatre, eat out just as nicely, live in comfortable homes, and more or less enjoy the same kind of lives. They spend much more and they live better, but not in such a way that I envy all of the things I miss that they can do. I therefore think this article is dead on: Thorstein Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class—A Status Update. This is the point:

In the past, people displayed their membership of the upper class with their material accoutrements. But today, luxury goods are more affordable than before. And people are less likely to receive validation for the material items they display. This is a problem for the affluent, who still want to broadcast their high social position. But they have come up with a clever solution. The affluent have decoupled social status from goods, and re-attached it to beliefs.

They can show their affluence by holding idiotic beliefs that because of the cushion of wealth that surrounds them never wreck their lives. Anyone else on lower incomes without that cushion would court personal disaster if they tried to follow in their own lives what the rich say they personally believe about life. An example:

Top universities are also crucial for induction into the luxury belief class. Take vocabulary. Your typical middle-class American could not tell you what “heteronormative” or “cisgender” means. But if you visit Harvard, you’ll find plenty of rich 19-year-olds who will eagerly explain them to you. When someone uses the phrase “cultural appropriation,” what they are really saying is “I was educated at a top college.” Consider the Veblen quote, “Refined tastes, manners, habits of life are a useful evidence of gentility, because good breeding requires time, application and expense, and can therefore not be compassed by those whose time and energy are taken up with work.” Only the affluent can afford to learn strange vocabulary because ordinary people have real problems to worry about.

Or this:

The chief purpose of luxury beliefs is to indicate evidence of the believer’s social class and education. Only academics educated at elite institutions could have conjured up a coherent and reasonable-sounding argument for why parents should not be allowed to raise their kids, and should hold baby lotteries instead. When an affluent person advocates for drug legalization, or anti-vaccination policies, or open borders, or loose sexual norms, or uses the term “white privilege,” they are engaging in a status display. They are trying to tell you, “I am a member of the upper class.”

None of this idiocy will ever affect them which helps to separate themselves from the plebs.