Last November, Donald Trump soundly defeated Kamala Harris among young men 18 to 29 years old, racking up about 56% of their votes according to the Associated Press. That represents a huge decline from 2008, the climax of the Barack Obama coalition, when the Democratic candidate won 62% of the young male vote against GOP challenger John McCain.

Clearly, Democrats have a young man problem — and they’ve vowed to do something about it. Accordingly, the party is spending $20 million on a special multiyear effort called “Speaking With American Men: A Strategic Plan.” The project, The New York Times recently reported, will “study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces.”

Yes, really. Hold your laughter.

It’s true that leading Democratic figures could use some help on the “syntax” and “language” fronts. They might begin to right the ship, on that score, by ditching the infamous gobbledygook “gaffes” of Joe Biden and the “unburdened by what has been” word salads of Harris. But the rubber will meet the road for Democrats when it comes to the critical, elusive third category of concern for their new young male outreach effort: content.

To paraphrase a venerable saying, one can put lipstick on a pig, but the pig, at the end of the day, is still a pig. And something big has to change for the Democrats. Nor is their problem limited to young men; the party’s overall favorability ratings, in recent months, have hit record lows in public polling.

Here, Democrats, is some (entirely) unsolicited advice on steps you might consider taking to become less catastrophically unpopular with young men — and many other Americans too.

On the issue of sexuality and the human person, you might consider beginning your vaunted young male outreach efforts by deigning to properly define what exactly a “man” is — and, by extension, what a “woman” is as well. Indeed, your party’s most recent Supreme Court nominee publicly struggled to crack this case. It is probably best, before attempting to devise pro-young-man public policy ideas, to familiarize yourselves with your target audience. The definition of “man” as it has existed since the Garden of Eden is a pretty good place to start.

After successfully defining “man” and “woman,” you might consider not indulging recurring grievances levied against so-called toxic masculinity. It is generally a good idea, in political outreach, to not hold in dripping disdain the demographic group you are trying to reach. Sure, men have been killing each other since Cain slew Abel, but many of them have also been doing some pretty good things for humanity since around that same time period. One key to publicly rejecting misandry will be ditching support for “diversity, equity and inclusion” initiatives, which, along with also now being illegal, invariably take a pretty dim view of the heterogametic sex.