“To see what is in front of one’s nose,” George Orwell wrote, “needs a constant struggle.” As does apparently to see what is in front of one’s trousers.

Prior to February of 2014, gender options for those registering to use Facebook were limited to "Male," Female" and "What's it to you?" Until then, identifying as one of the timeless binaries or just electing to leave both boxes unchecked was enough "gender fluidity" for just about everybody.

Or so it was thought. Alas, there were subterranean rumblings, theretofore unnoticed by the general public, that gender is not in fact a binary phenomenon at all, and that it comes, as fluidity enthusiasts like to posit, in a bewildering variety, there being as many genders as there are stars in the sky—which is to say, as many as the fertile collectivity of the human mind can conjure.

Facebook, being one of many amorphous organizations determined to maintain a vigil on the ramparts of political correctness and ersatz “inclusiveness,” decided to welcome additions to the list of genders its users may employ to identify themselves.

Thus the floodgates opened. The result was 58 gender options and counting.

Facebook also announced that henceforth users could select between three pronouns: "him," "her" or "their." (Queen Victoria was ahead of her time: “We are not amused!”)

Facebook software engineer Brielle Harrison told the Associated Press: "There's [sic] going to be a lot of people for whom this is going to mean nothing, but for the few it does impact, it means the world." No one should be surprised to learn that Harrison, who was one of the prime movers behind the project, was in the process of gender transitioning from... let’s see, which direction was it? Oh, yes... male to female.

The list, as compiled by an ABC News report on the watershed event, is as follows:

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 Female, Trans Male, Trans Man, Trans Person, 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 and Two-Spirit.

It strikes the disinterested observer that the list embodies a wealth of redundancy, Trans Female presumably being to Transgender Female and Transsexual Female what Trans Woman is to Transsexual Woman and Transgender Woman. Or vice versa. And so on. But never mind. Each to his, her or their own.

As I understand it, all are all agreed that there are only two sexes, so no problem there. But apparently “sex” is no longer more or less interchangeable with “gender.” In the most stylishly up to date lexicon, gender means whatever happens to suit a person in a given place at any given time, and even depending on who is in the room (see “amicagender”—a gender that changes depending on whose company one is keeping at the moment).

Just as we are no longer restricted to settling for “male” or “female," we can take any one of the staggering panoply of options to heart, and yet choose an entirely different one whenever we fancy. Feeling not quite so amicagender today? Why not try on “neutrois” for an afternoon—reserving the right to go “two spirit” after sunset? Such a vast array of options we have. What a wonderful time to be alive!

It’s only fair, of course. Is it any of society’s business if one were to branch out into previously unexplored territory and find a comfortable spot somewhere on the frontier of gender identity? The list of 58 was recently expanded to 71; it will almost certainly continue to broaden to include many more.

But enough about gender.

Let’s talk about sex.

Lou Reed released, in 1972, a song called “Walk on the Wild Side,” which contained the line: “…Plucked her eyebrows on the way, shaved her legs and then he was a she…”

First, I always thought that Reed was, as attorneys say in court, “assuming facts not in evidence.” Plucked eyebrows and shaven legs do not a “she” make. What transforms a “he” into a “she”? I don’t know what, if indeed anything, does. But surely the change would require more than just a slightly different approach to personal grooming.

Second, Reed seemed to be tripping over his own pronouns. Given that he (Reed) is suggesting that plucked eyebrows and shaven legs are required to complete the transformation, shouldn’t the line be “plucked HIS eyebrows... shaved HIS legs”...—given that prior to the combination of plucking and shaving, according to Reed, “he” was not yet a “she”?

Come on people, a little more attention to details. Pronouns matter!

Let us stipulate that anyone may call him-, her- or themself whatever is most pleasing. But is it really fair to dragoon the rest of us into it?

WikiLeaks blabbermouth and court-martialed former soldier Bradley Manning is well-respected by almost no one; yet since the caterpillar of Bradley metamorphosed into the chrysalis of "Chelsea," every extant news organization has fallen all over itself in deference to the essential she-ness of the new Erstwhile Inmate Formerly Known as Pfc. Manning.

Bruce Jenner, as everyone in the western world has heard by now, made some similar wardrobe changes and has subsequently announced a preference to be known as “Caitlyn.” Fair enough. But must we all bite our tongues and take care to refer to the individual formerly known as Bruce as “her” and “she”—without reference of any kind to Caitlyn’s previous identity? Are we to pretend that Caitlyn was never known by any other name?

Demanding that we all go along with these charades (and all the others out there) seems an unreasonable burden on the rest of us, not to mention a sinister invitation to collective mendacity.

Orwell raises his head once again. Readers of his brilliant and enduring novel “1984” will recognize elements of Newspeak in the current debate: Bruce, like Bradley, is an “unperson”—a person who no longer exists and furthermore never did. The individual’s name is Caitlyn. The individual’s name has always been Caitlyn. Caitlyn is a woman. Caitlyn has always been a woman.

In “1984” any reference to an unperson could be fatal. Fortunately for us, any reference to Bradley or Bruce merely exposes us as “insensitive”—which in the current environment of pretending that things are what they are not, and demanding acquiescence throughout the public square, amounts to a kind of social death sentence imposed by the relentless mob of thought police.

As Orwell himself said: “In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”