I spend a lot of time wondering whether I"m on the wrong side of history. I genuinely do. I think more people should think about that question on a daily basis. Almost everyone who thought they were ushering in a utopia was on the wrong side of history, be that the pioneers of British imperialism, Chinese peasants or Russian serfs giving Stalin keys to the Kremlin. When I think the 'right side' of history emerges (if there is indeed such a thing) is when discussion and debate happens and people talk.

On this one, I might be. But I'm also not sure. I think I'm on the side of liberalism for the Trans community, I'd like to think I've considered the non-binary question a great deal and haven't rejected it out of hand. So yes, perhaps I am on this occasion.

The problem with the assertion history is about to rush towards a more liberal space is that it hasn't happened. Societies have emerged with more liberal ideas around gender expression, as I said in this article - here in the UK men (in the upper classes at least) used to have painted faces, massive wigs and dressed in a similar (but not identical) way to the women. This then gave way to the austere Victorian era where men were men and women were women and sex was a sin. Societal expressions of gender can move around - but there is almost always a 'correction' back to a binary. If there weren't, we should have more societies in which non-binary has emerged and remained.

Whether this means Russia will take over Europe, as the Greeks fell to the Romans. Or whether it means there will be a Victorian style backlash, I don't know. I think what it means in practice is that we should be careful. Things which stay need to be embedded and defendable, otherwise we'll end up with an Elagabalus scenario. :o)