Thanks. Feel free to argue against it! Philosophers tend to like being disagreed with …

I agree I was a bit vague (I actually thought about rewriting it a bit because of this). As to your first point: we know that money is, but can only assume that gender is, a social construct. Fair enough: I made and didn’t argue for that assumption. I did so following most people, though. And as to the second point: yeah, that is a line one could, and I think some people would, take. I think the counterresponse from the people who insist on a sharp sex/gender distinction would be (perhaps somewhat tongue-in-cheek): that people who want to tie gender to sex are kind of like goldbugs (where ‘goldbug’ is a faintly pejorative term for people who want to tie money to gold).

(In fact, I think the vagueness of my post lies in a different place than you suggested: I tried to present an analogy between on the one hand the way money can seem to create itself out of nothing and on the other hand, the way in the last few years the number of gender concepts used and accepted has multiplied a ton. But that’s kind of a sloppy analogy: on the one hand we have sums of money, and on the other concepts. I think what I should have said is this: that things like fractional reserve banking and derivatives introduce new concepts of money (roughly: ones economists call m1,m2,etc.) and so when new concepts of other socially constructed things (e.g. gender) come about, we shouldn’t be overly surprised. But this doesn’t really speak to your question — I just wanted to say it!)