Even I have fallen prey to calling an event “the most important” of our lifetime. As sure as the sunrise, something else immediately ratchets up the stakes.

The truth is, we are all descendants of King Sisyphus, each day pushing a boulder up the mountain only to have it roll back down overnight. The next morning, we start all over again, so every day is the most important day of our lives — especially since we don’t know when our limited days will end.

So, I won’t say this WNBA turmoil is the most important of our lives, even though it has become a comical farce. But the league leadership has fallen into a logical trap, showing a fracture that should threaten the entire postmodern progressive permission structure.

Yes, I know effeminate men and masculine women have always existed, and that societies have always made accommodations (or discriminations). The difference today is that the cultural forces have decided that if a man says he is a woman, he is, and vice versa. This ignores the biological reality that males and females are different down to their DNA, and no surgery, drug, or hormone cocktail can change that.

We, like Orwell’s Winston Smith in 1984, are forced not to question when a man or woman decides to swap genders (which is just a state of mind that trumps biology, we are told), because the Ministry of Love and the Ministry of Truth have decreed it so.

A man is a woman if he says he is, and we must remove all doubt and believe all women, no matter what, right?

What about Enes Kanter Freedom and Royce White, both former NBA players, who have declared for the WNBA draft? They claim to be women, albeit to make a point.

Well, it seems the “all” in the “Believe all women” declaration has some exceptions. Enes and Royce aren’t really women because they are 1) not mentally ill, and 2) not being honest. Sounds a little “judgey” to me, but there you go.

Some WNBA/trans advocates are proposing on social media that these two “women” should undergo the drug regimens other trans women have to weaken their male tendencies, to make it fair and to prove they are serious (those advocates are clueless that by saying so, they are confirming that males are stronger and faster than women).

Holy Kurt Vonnegut, Batman! We’re in Harrison Bergeron territory!

And all of a sudden, the WNBA brain trust has adopted Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s position of not being a biologist. They have been meeting to decide not what a woman is, but they can’t define a woman without contradicting everything they have affirmed.

Weird that reality and anti-reality produce such a contradiction, isn’t it?

So far, their answer is that the WNBA is a safe space for black lesbian athletes (and maybe a few trannies) who aren’t that great at basketball but really good at demanding that people voluntarily suspend their disbelief and surrender their freedom to criticize the money-losing league. It is a Brave New World!

If you noticed, I have woven together three classics: Orwell’s 1984, Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron, and Huxley’s Brave New World.

These three novels give the best, most accessible, and most applicable examples of how trying to ignore reality — or being forced to ignore it — is like getting stuck between two giant millstones, one made from hard reality and the other made from progressive postmodern beliefs that are just as hard but completely irrational and false.

The reality stone resolves contradiction, the postmodern side ignores it, and anyone caught in the middle gets ground to dust.

The endings of the three stories reveal a fascinating distinction between the three authors in their main characters:

• Orwell’s regime conquers the soul. Winston survives physically but loses himself.
• Vonnegut’s regime simply kills excellence when it appears. Harrison dies instantly after he and his ballerina queen are shot on live TV by the Handicapper General, Diana Moon Glampers.
• Huxley’s regime seduces people into surrendering freedom voluntarily. John Savage cannot live within it, so he destroys himself.

Many readers see Orwell’s world as one ruled by fear, Huxley’s as one ruled by pleasure, and Vonnegut’s as one ruled by enforced mediocrity.

In all three cases, the exceptional individual loses.

The other commonality is that the postmodernist regime wins and the contradictions survive, unlike those who choose reality.

That’s why we cannot let it win, or we will suffer the same fate as Winston, Harrison, and John.