Here we go again! The latest social justice push in Hollywood is to change the iconic James Bond character to a "Jane" Bond.

"Quantico" star Priyanka Choprawas and "X-File" star Gillian Anderson have both been named as possible leading ladies for the famously masculine franchise, because feminists have nothing better to focus on. The push to change the masculine character in the name of social justice is idiotic for far too many reasons. Here are just 11 of them.

1. The film will tank at the box office.

No, men, and women for that matter (save the ones with armpit hair dye), will not line up to see the feminist adaptation of James Bond. A ratings flop in the name of modern-day feminism is beyond silly.

2. This is a much smaller #TeamJaneBond “movement” than the media are portraying.

Despite the incessant articles in feminist propaganda magazines, there is no real “movement” for a female Bond. There is a tweet with roughly 23,000 “likes” on Twitter. That’s the basis for this “movement” for a female Bond?

Stop blowing this up, Hollywood. Aren’t you in a battle with a pedophile sex-ring? How about you focus on that instead of signaling how fantastically “feminist” you are.

3. A woman with a string of male conquests? No thanks.

Newsflash: men and women view sex differently. Seeing a female sexually conquest man after man is not appealing.

4. This is not Everyday Feminism. It’s a movie about a MALE spy.

James Bond is an iconic film, not your blog at Everyday Feminism. Please “dismantle the patriarchy” elsewhere.

5. The Bond films are about a MAN. Not a Woman. The general plot would not make sense with a woman, even some Hollywood actors acknowledge this.

Yes! A voice of reason in Hollywood, “Spectre” actor Christoph Waltz explains that this is “utter nonsense.”

"[I think it's] complete and utter nonsense. I think there should be great parts for women, I do think that. I just think that James Bond is not one of them," says Waltz. "I think that if a woman would play James Bond, it wouldn’t be James Bond. Can you do it? Of course you can, you can do anything, but does it make sense? Not one bit."

6. Two Words: Female Ghostbusters.

They tried this female-adaptation. They failed. That is all.

(Watch the trainwreck of a trailer for Ghostbusters here for confirmation.)

7. James Bond is masculinity incarnate.

Everything about the James Bond character reeks of masculinity, and no, I'm not speaking of him sleeping with far too many women (for my taste). He's a rebuke to the modern feminized man, as Stephen B. Tippons Jr. writes, "men want to be Bond because secretly—or maybe not so secretly—they wanted to be less neutered, more decisive, more graceful under pressure, more accountable, and less postmodern."

8. Will Jane Bond save a bunch of Pajama Boys?

Presumably, instead of having damsels in distress, we will have the male equivalent of that. The men Jane Bond will potentially rescue, I fear, will not be masculine at all, but something that looks more like Pajama Boy.

Dear God, we need not more Pajama Boys in this world.

9. Feminists should really focus on more important issues. Cough, radical Islam, Cough.

Feminists, instead of spending valuable energy on ruining the James Bond character, how about you focus on issues that actually harm women, like, for example, women getting acid thrown in their faces for not properly wearing their hijab.

But this is likely too much to ask from feminists.

10. Why would we deprive the world of Idris Elba? Seriously.

Idris Elba is reportedly in the running to become the next James Bond character. Yes, he’s kind of Leftie, but Elba is a phenomenal actor and profoundly handsome.

Just shush up feminists, and let us enjoy Mr. Elba.

11. This is not going far enough. We need a male to female transgender Jane Bond who identifies as African American and is a pansexual.

Because social justice.

If the Left gets their way and we are forced to see the franchise ruined, here’s a quick scene preview: