Realize that this is the WaPo before you jump to what one wishes was a valid conclusion -- this was published in some backwater whack job women's college campus paper. Ooopsie!
Geographers Carrie Mott and Daniel Cockayne argued in a recent paper that doing so also perpetuates what they call “white heteromasculinism,” which they defined as a “system of oppression” that benefits only those who are “white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.” (Cisgendered describes people whose gender identity matches their birth sex.)
The WaPo is a bit behind on "cis" -- or as I like to say it. "People who might reproduce". NPR tends to use a term a good deal. As for the rest of the 58 odd and fluid genders, it is mainly "Hold my beer while I fail to reproduce" ... I submit it as the "Darwin Who?" award vs the plain old Darwin award for stupidly removing yourself from the gene pool.
The far left is sort of the secular equivalent of the "Shakers" who made some really nice furniture, but no kids. The Shakers had a better excuse though -- they thought Christ was coming more quickly than other people.
The left? I'm guessing they are hoping for "Sweet Meteor of Death" or something -- they can't REALLY have forgotten that reproduction is kinda required if you want your views to matter in a hundred years.
'via Blog this'