You know, the inevitable dumb one.

If there are more than two sexes, name a third one.

The correct answer is, obviously, “Your mom.”

But seriously, if I tell you something is a range or continuum, you don’t refute me by telling me I have to name every shade. When I was a child, I learned that there are 7 colors, precisely 7, in the rainbow: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. Then when I got older I learned that there are hundreds of wavelengths between 400 and 700 nanometers. And then when I got older still I learned that color is the product of combinations of wavelengths, like chords, and the numbers got larger still. And then I learned about photoreception and color vision, and discovered that colors were a property of visual processing derived from context and relative distinctions in illumination and intensity, and there’s nothing fixed about them. I read David Marr in the 1980s, you know.

Then someone comes along and insists that the stuff they learned in kindergarten is the absolute rock solid truth.

Hey, I bet you this person is also one of those who mocks the abbreviation LGBTQIA+ because there are too many letters in it and we keep adding more.

I’ve noticed a strange new dogma: sex is defined by the size of your gametes. You’re either making big ones or little ones (or none at all, but let’s ignore that, because we’re trying to invent a binary distinction), and some people plop down some simplistic claim, like that “women produce large gametes,” as if it is definitive and absolute. Other people are noticing this phenomenon.

There are those, politicians, pundits and even a few scientists, who maintain that whether our bodies make ova or sperm are all we need to know about sex. They assert that men and women are defined by their production of these gamete cells, making them a distinct biological binary pair, and that our legal rights and social possibilities should flow from this divide. Men are men. Women are women. Simple.

It’s stupid. It’s the new arbitrary definition to replace the Y chromosome excuse, and it’s got all the failings of any attempt to reduce a complex biological process to a single phrase.

For humans, sex is dynamic, biological, cultural and enmeshed in feedback cycles with our environments, ecologies and multiple physiological and social processes.

So when someone states that “An organism’s sex is defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ova) it has the function of producing” and argues that legal and social policy should be “rooted in properties of bodies,” they are not really talking about gametes and sex biology. They are arguing for a specific political, and discriminatory, definition of what is “natural” and “right” for humans based on a false representation of biology. Over the past few centuries this process of misrepresentation of biology was, and still is, used to deny women rights and to justify legal and societal misogyny and inequity, to justify slavery, racialization, racism and to enforce multiple forms of discrimination and bias. Today dishonest ascriptions of what biology is are being deployed to restrict women’s bodily autonomy, target LGBTQIA+ individuals broadly and, most recently, attack the rights of transexual and transgender people.

It’s embarrassing that there are actual scientists, biologists even, who dismiss all the complexity of post-zygotic development to shrink people down to nothing more than their gametes. It’s the new fad, though. We’re just going to have to wait this out as the bigots adopt yet another arbitrary definition to rationalize their weird-ass idiotic biases.

Let’s see the logical conclusion of this nonsense.

You may say that’s incredibly stupid, but mark my words: the people who want to control women’s reproduction and legislate sexuality are nodding along and thinking that’s a really useful point.

Yesterday, I mentioned that horrible right-wing “comedian” Steven Crowder was getting divorced, and several of you replied, “Who?” Oh, how I envy you. More ugly details have emerged, specifically, videos of Steven and Hilary Crowder’s normal daily interactions. Hilary is trying to get stuff done and is incredibly conciliatory while Steven lounges with a cigar telling her what she can and can’t do, while being verbally abusive.

In the Ring camera video, which was captured on June 26, 2021, Steven Crowder is angry as he sits on the patio smoking, and Hilary Crowder is in a state of motion as she prepares to leave the house.

Steven Crowder insists that Hilary not take their one car to run errands as it would keep him housebound and that she, at nearly eight months pregnant, should take an UBER.

He also berates her for not doing her “wifely duties,” like grocery shopping, in a way that pleases him.

Tensions rise as Steven Crowder gets more agitated.

“Feeling some constraint?” Crowder said to his wife.

Crowder gets irritated and says that if Hilary, his very pregnant wife, takes the car, he can’t go to the gym, see his parents, or see his friends.

“The only way out of it is discipline and respect,” Crowder said to his wife.

Hilary Crowder, in an attempt to leave, tells her husband that she loves him and that she’s committed to the marriage.

Steven Crowder gets angrier and suggests that if she is committed to their marriage, she should put on gloves to give his dogs the medicine that his wife was concerned was toxic for pregnant women and walk their dogs.

As they headed inside, Crowder got angrier and angrier and was, by his admission (via audio I reviewed) yelling angrily and said, “I will fuck you up.” According to both Crowders, Steven immediately pulled back and realized what he said. But by that point, Hilary was frightened and left the house.

Hilary Crowder has since left his childlike ass, and has issued a statement that reads, in part:

“Hilary is currently living alone in Dallas, apart from her family and support system in Michigan, and is focused on taking care of her young children. She is not prepared at this time to speak about her divorce becoming public or the misleading statements made by Steven about their relationship.

The truth is that Hilary spent years hiding Steven’s mentally and emotionally abusive behavior from her friends and family while she attempted to save their marriage. She was the one who was asking to work on their relationship to keep the marriage intact for their unborn children.”

The video supports her claim that she was in a “mentally and emotionally abusive” relationship, and then some. Steven Crowder might not want to contest any legal decisions about alimony in their divorce, because she has his balls nailed to the wall right now.

That’s Steven Crowder, he’s done. I also mentioned the rape trial of Donald Trump. E. Jean Carroll was cross-examined yesterday. Trump’s lawyer, Joe Tacopina, settled on a familiar strategy: abusing the victim of the crime to discredit her. For instance, the fact that she did not scream was used to imply that she wasn’t actually raped.

Tacopina later attacked Carroll’s trustworthiness based upon her testimony that she laughed, but did not scream, when Donald Trump started to rape her. It did not go well for him.

Q: In fact, in response to this supposedly serious situation that you viewed as a fight, where you got physically hurt, it’s your story that you not only didn’t scream out, but you started laughing?

A: I did not scream. I started laughing. That is right. I don’t think I started laughing. I think I was laughing going into the dressing room, and I think I laughed pretty consistently after the kiss to absolutely throw cold water on anything he thought was about to happen. Laughing is a very good—I use the word weapon—to calm a man down if he has any erotic intention.

Undeterred, Tacopina doubled down on his attack.

Q: When you’re fighting and being sexually assaulted and raped, because you are not a screamer, as you describe it, you wouldn’t scream?

A: I’m not a screamer. You can’t beat up on me for not screaming.

It’s hideous what that lawyer is trying to do to the victim of a crime. Other lawyers aren’t impressed, either.

As I wrote yesterday, I do not know whether the jurors believed Carroll’s direct testimony that she was raped by Trump. Based on my 25+ years as a trial attorney, including service as an Assistant United States Attorney who focused on sex crimes, I am confident that any juror who did not already believe that Ms. Carroll lied in her direct testimony would not have been persuaded by any of the cross-examination that she was a liar.

In fact, it appeared that Tacopina—who is a very capable trial attorney—had an agenda that valued being mean to Ms. Carroll over undercutting her credibility. I would not be surprised if that was a direct order from Donald Trump.

Joe Tacopina can go home and lounge on his patio with a cigar now. I am deeply repulsed by what some men consider acceptable behavior. I’m just hoping that these are two women who will emerge triumphant.

Hurt my feelings, why don’t you. Tell me about how awful men are. That’s the entirety of this muddled mess titled Masculinity Is Dead: Why Weak Little Boys Have Replaced Real Men. Gosh, it’s harsh.

Once upon a time, the vast majority of men were really proud to be men. They went to work, provided for their families, and actually behaved chivalrously towards women. They were good fathers, protectors of those they cared about, and actually tackled problems assertively. Of course, those times are long dead.

Once upon a time, men were men, but now they’re not. It’s not a substantial premise. But the way she keeps hammering at it makes me start taking it personally.

Everywhere I look, I see women lamenting the loss of actual manly men.

I hear girls bemoan the fact that guys are now too frightened to get into a committed relationship with a woman. I hear single moms talk about how men bailed on them after they became pregnant. I hear single women of all ages talk about how their last relationship dissolved because the guy they were with never actually brought anything to the table.

OK, I begin to see the basis of her definition of what makes a manly man: they commit to a relationship. That’s not a bad argument, I agree that commitment is what makes a person a strong partner. One could build on that idea to write a good article, but no, she’s just mad.

Make no mistake about it, there is absolutely, positively, nothing manly about most men in my generation.

“Most”? Is this a quantitative argument? Or did your last couple of dates go badly?

We’re now populated by whiny, insecure, entitled, lazy little children that are looking for a second mommy more than a wife and partner.

Ouch.

For the Millennial generation, old-school masculinity is as dead as a parrot in a Monty Python sketch. F-boys, Nice Guys, and Mama’s Boys are symptomatic of the problem.

The older I get, the more I realize how totally screwed up Millennial men’s attitudes on sex, relationships, and women really are. In this sense, many modern male dating stereotypes really are true.

So far, I’m seeing stereotypes all right, but no evidence that they’re true.

I’m going to skip over a whole lot of sweeping generalizations to what I think is a kernel of a good point: media mischaracterizations, which the author has swallowed wholesale.

A large part of the problem is that media tends to warp what we see as masculine. Music and media glorifies men who “pump and dump.” Media constantly talks about why men shouldn’t date gold diggers, or why Nice Guys™ should always get the girl.

Guys are told, constantly, that they aren’t sh*t unless they’re banging a million women. In many cases, the media makes women to be the enemy, regardless of what happened. From what I’ve seen, men are all too happy to find someone to blame for their shortcomings.

Andrew Tate is not “all men,” I assure you. He’s one spectacularly garish example. It is true, however, that a certain kind of loud, loutish, entitled man has become a symbol of one side of modern masculinity, and it is one that is popular among naive teenage boys, but unless the author has been dating MRAs or 15 year olds, it’s not generally representative. Don’t mistake media stereotypes for reality.

This is not a new problem. Back, way back, in the 70s and 80s, the caricature we young men had to deal with was the endless, annoying movies that portrayed us as callous horndogs on a constant quest to lose our virginity — think Porky’s or those Nerds movies. Nobody I knew was as obsessed with virginity as those movies made it all seem, and while we might have been a bit obsessed with sex, the media idolatry of virginity was just sick, warped purity culture.

This is not reality.

It’s a stupid meme. Don’t write articles that pretend it is accurate.