It’s not that Facebook forced its users to declare their sex, but that if they chose to do so, they had an option.

Previously, users had to identify themselves as male or female. They were also given the option of not answering or keeping their gender private.

I can hear the cries of “what about me” coming from transgender people, which is curious given that the argument is that a male transgender person is male, so it wouldn’t seem to create any conflict to pick a sex. And if they didn’t like the choices, they weren’t forced to make one. Fair enough? Not anymore.

There are now 58 gender options available to users.

• Agender
• Androgyne
• Androgynous
• Bigender
• Cis
• Cisgender
• Cis Female
• Cis Male
• Cis Man
• Cis Woman
• Cisgender Female
• Cisgender Male
• Cisgender Man
• Cisgender Woman
• Female to Male
• FTM
• Gender Fluid
• Gender Nonconforming
• Gender Questioning
• Gender Variant
• Genderqueer
• Intersex
• Male to Female
• MTF
• Neither
• Neutrois
• Non-binary
• Other
• Pangender
• Trans
• Trans*
• Trans Female
• Trans* Female
• Trans Male
• Trans* Male
• Trans Man
• Trans* Man
• Trans Person
• Trans* Person
• Trans Woman
• Trans* Woman
• Transfeminine
• Transgender
• Transgender Female
• Transgender Male
• Transgender Man
• Transgender Person
• Transgender Woman
• Transmasculine
• Transsexual
• Transsexual Female
• Transsexual Male
• Transsexual Man
• Transsexual Person
• Transsexual Woman
• Two-Spirit

For some of us, and by “us” I include myself, it’s unclear what some of these mean. Some appear duplicative, which I assume to allow for not only a gender choice, but a choice in how one prefers to characterize the choice, even if others of the same choice prefer to call it something different. Most of the list seems to relate to trans identity, which may be because the smallest gender cohort is the most sensitive or because Facebook fears that if it leaves out any potential variation on a theme, it will get slammed as transphobic. It costs nothing to add a bunch of ways to say the same thing if it stops the gnats from swarming.

Does this reflect a broadening of categories of sex to accommodate the recognition that the binary of male and female was not only inadequate as descriptors, but “erased” identities that the normies wanted to pretend didn’t exist? Or is this acquiescence of the self-indulgence of the narcissistic belief that every one is entitled to a gender identity of their own choosing, because every person is so sexually unique that they couldn’t possibly fit within the binary?  Does this illuminate gender or obscure it behind names invented hourly of no cognizable definition and little communicative purpose.

Notably, the list doesn’t merely include a choice of sex, but a choice of sexual orientation as a product of gender. I noted that it failed to include my preference, delisexual, to which I responded, “What am I, chopped liver?” Old jokes don’t seem to play well among those who take these affectations seriously.

But there remains a tacit assumption underlying this list, that male and female are characterizations written in stone that some people simply don’t fit. Does anyone? Has anyone ever? Does every male watch football, drive a pickup and burp promiscuously around their manly buds? Does every female love pink, watch The Bachelor and know how to bake a cake?

Within the broad categories of male and female, there was vast room for differences that no one ever questions. In To Kill A Mockingbird, Scout was a tomboy, and nobody had to make a special note of it, point it out or create a special gender for it. There have always been men who were more effeminate, at least in some ways, and women who were more masculine, and they were all accommodated within the big binary of male and female without much thought or concern.

Did these binary categories also fail to convey sufficiently cogent information? How does a guy who loves ballet and hates wrestling convey that he’s still got a penis and sexually prefers women, but he’s not the same as He-Man? It may well be time to acknowledge that none of us is truly “gender conforming,” and that the binary of male and female might be useful to acknowledge biology (yes, there are people born with ambiguous genitalia and genetic anomalies, but the tail doesn’t wag the dog), but falls short of being informative as to where along the spectrum we fall.

At the same time, it’s no more illuminating to have 58 (as of the moment) flavors of gender either. Aside from being woke, what does non-binary convey that neither wouldn’t do? The harder we try to be accommodating, the less informative it becomes. The hip response would be why should being informative matter, but that too is just an indulgent gloss. It should not matter in an application for employment, but it’s going to make for some awkward dating scenarios.

To some degree, we will never be free of pigeonholing each other. There’s a reason stereotypes exist, so that we can make sense of others even if we don’t have the time to fully research the intricacies of every person’s deepest secrets as we try to manage our way through life. We all make assumptions about each other, even if we don’t like it when others make assumptions about us. Without stereotypes, the world would be unmanageable.

But can we do better than the mere binary of male and female? Do we need to do better as people feel more comfortable about letting their freak flag fly? Sure. Why not? But to allow 58 flavors is not to illuminate, but to obscure in vague characterizations. And if we’re up to 58 and yet none that makes any individual feel “seen,” why should that person get to create his own bespoke gender? And if so, how would anyone else have a clue what that idiosyncratic choice means?

Do we need to come to grips with the new “reality” that male and female doesn’t cover it well enough to both satisfy the identity needs of some while providing clarity for others? If so, do we need to similarly come to grips that making up cool new words that convey no useful meaning is very accommodating but socially nonsensical? Do we really need 58 flavors, or 158 flavors, or can we make do with, say, five with cognizable definitions, and still have sufficient tolerance for the fact that they won’t completely capture every nuance of a person’s being? Where does it end?

• Apologies to Masami Teraoka.