Johns Hopkins University has been blasted online this week for erasing women from its definition of the word “lesbian” in its LGBTQ glossary.
The teaching university’s “Gender and Sexuality Resources” office contains a glossary of LGBTQ identities and terms.
It includes a definition for the term “lesbian” that makes a point to exclude the word "woman."
A non-man attracted to non-men.
But the term “gay man” has no such gender-inclusive phrasing in its definition:
A man who is emotionally, romantically, sexually, affectionately, or relationally attracted to other men, or who identifies as a member of the gay community. At times, “gay” is used to refer to all people, regardless of gender, who have their primary sexual and or romantic attractions to people of the same gender. “Gay” is an adjective (not a noun) as in “He is a gay man.”
The university makes a point of explaining its decision to remove 'women' from the lesbian definition... inclusivity?
While past definitions refer to ‘lesbian’ as a woman who is emotionally, romantically, and/or sexually attracted to other women, this updated definition includes non-binary people who may also identify with the label.
So, just checking - its more inclusive to exclude 'women' (which make up 50%-ish of the world's population?)
As you might expect, Johns Hopkins was slammed for the change. However, more notably, the abuse was 'inclusive' of the entire political spectrum, especially by LGBT commentators, on Twitter.
“Why is a lesbian a non-man but a gay person isn’t a non-woman? Progressive misogyny,” lesbian political commentator Arielle Scarcella wrote over a screenshot of the glossary.
What the actual f....? So now we're not just reduced to being body parts or bleeders or a mere subset of women, we're now "non-men". 🤬🤬🤬 https://t.co/NCHAGfFDYZ— Julia Hartley-Brewer (@JuliaHB1) June 12, 2023
“Lesbians are being erased and it’s f***ing tragic,” Jaimee Mitchell, founder of Gays Against Groomers, replied to Scarcella.
“Gender ideology at its core is deeply homophobic. The two cannot coexist. It’s time for a divorce. #LGBWithoutTheT”
“Hi @JohnsHopkins,” lesbian journalist E.J. Rosetta tweeted.
“Congrats! You’re winning ‘homophobic statement of the decade’ by defining lesbians as ‘non men attracted to non men.’ And during Pride month, too! Shame on you. Lesbians are female homosexuals. Put that on a post-it & memorise it. Aren’t you meant to be smart?”
“Erasure of women continues @JohnsHopkins,” the Parents of Loudoun County tweeted.
“So men get to keep their spaces and their terms but women don’t? This screams misogyny,” former University of Pennsylvania swimmer Paula Scanlan added.
“Inarguably, modern times are now the stupidest time and universities are leading the way,” Fred Sargeant, co-founder of the first Gay Pride parade, tweeted.
J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series and an outspoken critic of the transgender movement, shared a screenshot with the definitions of both “lesbian” and “gay man.”
“Man: no definition needed,” Rowling captioned the tweet. “Non-man (formerly known as woman): a being definable only by reference to the male. An absence, a vacuum where there's no man-ness.”
We give the last word to Matt Margolis, writing at PJMedia.com, who summed up the situation perfectly: It is obvious that this effort of Johns Hopkins to be “inclusive” isn’t merely a shallow attempt to appease the LGBTQ crowd. Rather, it specifically panders to the transgender movement, which has become the most celebrated subset of the LGBTQ community, and sadly, as with everything else about the movement, women are the real victims.
Margolis concludes, before long, they’ll have no privacy, opportunities, rights, or identity because of the transgender movement.