In recent weeks, many have become acquainted with a new kind of struggle. The ancient plights of racial inequity, wealth inequality, and gender disparity are well-worn causes. A lesser known battle burns all around us, however, and now we must give it voice.

I speak, of course, of the involuntarily celibate man, or “incel,” as is his preferred title. The incel cannot fuck, despite his ardent wishes to the contrary. It is not that there are no partners who would consider his company. It is that there are no partners who would consider his company — that he wants. And the partners that he does want, he finds to be having sex with men who are not him.

We must take him at his word: this is a deeply painful position in which to find oneself. The incel’s critics lack empathy for his position. They suggest he need only reconsider his attractions, broaden the scope of those he finds to be acceptable and desirable partners. What these critics fail to understand is that this is a violation of the happiness to which the incel is entitled. Only the incel can say who his partners ought be. He says they ought to be of the highest possible “sexual market value.”

Out of respect to the dignity and unmanaged grievance of the incel, I shall grant this entitlement. It is clearly of central importance to their identity and I would not dream of asking such a man to better himself in order to earn the favor of those mates he most desires. He was born deserving of any sex he can imagine. If such sex does not materialize? Clearly the ill is found in our culture.

We have heard proposals from right wing thinkers to consider the “redistribution” of sex. As the right will not countenance redistributive measures for anti-poverty programs or healthcare access, their consideration of it for the benefit of the incel lets us know how desperate matters have become.

Here again, critics miss the mark. They claim that incels could organize a mutual aid program, were the situation so desperate, and give one another handjobs until they reach the peace they so desperately seek. Why, the incels could outright fuck each other, if things are so bad.

Such responses are facile at best. The incel’s quandary lies not in sexual access, as we have seen, but in sexual preference. They wish to signal to the world, through their sexual pairings, that they are valuable. Without this opportunity, they are denied a birthright. To them it feels like violence.

It is well understood, today, that men are irrational beasts, unable to control their basic urges. We must protect young boys in school, for example, from their own desires. We do this by insisting that their female counterparts dress according to a rigid standard. Nothing too tight, too short, too otherwise revealing.

The incel loses this protection upon matriculation to the larger world. He finds himself exposed to all manner of feminine expression. For reasons he cannot articulate, his desires go unreciprocated. His dreams out of reach, yet taunting and arousing him with absolute indifference to the consequences. It is cruel, and we would be fools to ignore the incel’s cries for relief.

But the solution is not a program of redistribution. Indeed, the right would remind us that the government is in a constant state of bungling. The state cannot be trusted with essential tasks, as they will be completed inefficiently and behind schedule. Salvation lies in the invisible hand of the free market. It alone can be trusted with the essential work of alleviating social ills.

Thus, I call upon entrepreneurs to bring to market a new generation of castration options. By relieving the incel of his desire, we may open the door to relief for millions of men. Through marketing and public relations campaigns, the purveyors of castration services can normalize this essential procedure as a way out of the incel’s ongoing misery and injustice.

If redistribution worked, we would be doing it already, would we not? We would use it to bring relief to the scores of working poor, starving children, and those without access to healthcare. But we do not—so why apply such thinking to a problem I am told is ever worse than these matters?

To redistribute sex would be to rob the incel of his dignity, by letting a nanny state provide what he ought to be able to earn himself.

No. We must let the incel work for his relief. We must provide him a means of escape which he can purchase with his hard earned dollars. With the incessant yearnings of his genitals at last silenced through modern medicine and technology, the incel may refocus his efforts on more fulfilling endeavors in his life.

The time for change is now.