Since the left is challenged to define something as distinct and scientific as “woman,” it should come as no surprise that the guardians of popular culture struggle to categorize music into specific genres. While music lacks distinct biological constraints, there are some characteristics that traditionally define specific categories. Just look at Spotify or iTunes — these platforms create entire algorithms based on such parameters. 

Some talented artists, such as Elvis, can draw influence from multiple styles and create something completely new. But for all her talent and popularity, Beyoncé is no Elvis — and her latest album, “Cowboy Carter,” is anything but country. 

From Johnny Cash to LOCASH — one element crucial to country music is a straightforward storytelling style that speaks to the heart with simple, relatable lyrics, whether it’s George Strait crooning about oceanfront property in Arizona or Garth Brooks sending his love down to Baton Rouge. Although country music itself has changed as a genre over time and there might be disagreement among fans as to what can be classified as “real” country, I think it is fair to say that part of the genre’s appeal lies in the absence of abstractness and cryptic messages. I know many people who don’t love country music but still appreciate the honest, unpretentious story that country music always seems to convey. No complicated plot lines. No confusing lyrics. 

It’s hard to resist bopping along to Beyoncé’s first hit of her new album, “Texas Hold ‘Em,” but when I pay attention

Well, everybody’s heard about the bird. The bird is, after all, the word. In this post-apocalyptic “diversity, equity, and inclusion” age, the gay bird, the trans bird, the bi-bird, is the word. Or bi-bi birdie, if you prefer. 

The Southern Wisconsin Bird Alliance, formerly known as Madison Audubon, offers “LGBTQIAP+ in Nature,” a class exploring the diverse range of sexuality and so-called gender fluidity in the animal kingdom. To fourth-graders. 

“We know that there is a beautifully wide range of ways that humans identify, and scientists have learned that there are many examples of plants and animals that are LGBTQIAP+ in nature, too!,” the alliance declares on its website. You can come out now, lavender. Your secret’s out. And ferns, the lesbians of plants, you’re not fooling anyone. 

“We created a lesson on this topic last year and recently shared with one of our fifth grade groups. It provided a great opportunity to build inclusive community within the classroom and led to thoughtful questions and discussion from the kids,” the environmental group gushes. 

Just in case you’re scoring along at home, the ever-expanding alphabet of depravity in human beings is now being foisted on unsuspecting flora and fauna.

Kids can learn all about fish “that change sex (sometimes repeatedly)” — without the help of child-mutilating doctors. They can catch up with “bisexual bonobos” (real swingers, those monkeys), or “gender fluid” hummingbirds.  

The lesson is open to grades four through eight, “with options for adjusting for elementary students through high school.”

The Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday morning in the case of Trump v. United States on the question of whether and to what extent a former president of the United States enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts while in office.

Most of the justices seemed dubious about both parties’ positions in this complex and largely uncharted area of law. No statute, prior Supreme Court precedent, or provision of the Constitution speaks directly to this issue. In 1982, the Supreme Court, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, ruled that presidents enjoy immunity from civil litigation based on their official acts. The court, in a 5-4 ruling, grounded the immunity in the constitutional separation of powers. It reasoned that it would be inappropriate for the judicial branch to inquire into the reasons for presidential decisions for purposes of holding the president personally liable for damages. The court emphasized the unique nature and responsibilities of the president in arriving at this conclusion.

In Trump’s case, the parties and the justices all agreed on certain points. First, that purely private conduct by the president, which is allegedly criminal, could be prosecuted. Trump’s lawyer also conceded that campaign conduct, acting like an “office seeker” rather than an “office holder,” was private, rather than official, conduct.

Second, that the president has some constitutional powers that are exclusive to the presidency, such as the power to grant pardons, and therefore acts carrying out those powers simply cannot be criminalized by Congress or prosecuted by prosecutors. These were