(Mark Pellin, Headline USA) The once-esteemed Johns Hopkins University received a blistering round of criticism earlier this month when it went full Orwellian woke and redefined the term “lesbian” by excluding any reference to “women”.
The condemnation of what one critic called “the homophobic statement of the decade” came from all quarters, with conservatives joining LGBT activists, and was so intense that the university was compelled to revise it misguided guidance.
As part of its “Diversity & Inclusion, Gender & Sexuality Resources” guide, Johns Hopkins had originally included a new definition for ‘lesbian” in its glossary of LGBTQ identities and terms:
Lesbian [sexual orientation]: A non-man attracted to non-men. 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.
The exclusion of the word “woman” in its alleged inclusion guide did not go unnoticed or ignored, and the university was blasted for its attempt to “erase” women.
“Congrats! You’re winning ‘homophobic statement of the decade’ by defining lesbians as ‘non men attracted to non men,'” snarked self-identified lesbian columnist EJ Rosetta.
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?
— EJ Rosetta (@ejrosetta) June 13, 2023
“Lesbian was literally the only word in English language that is not tied to man- as in male- feMALE, man- woMAN,” tennis star Martina Navratilova, who is a lesbian, tweeted after the glossary erupted on social media. “And now lesbians are non men?!? Wtf?!?,” adding, “Unreal… another example of erasure of women. Pathetic.”
Making matters worse, the university failed to apply the same erased status to gay men, which the glossary defined as “A man who is emotionally, romantically, sexually, affectionately, or relationally attracted to other men, or who identifies as a member of the gay community.”
Critics not only slammed the LGBT hypocrisy, but also Johns Hopkins’ pandering to the transgender movement in “such a way that leaves little doubt what the true goal of transgenderism is,” wrote PJ Media’s Matt Margolis.
“A lesbian can’t be a woman attracted to other women because of non-binary people, but a gay man can still be a ‘gay man.’ Why is that? How does this make any sense?” Margolis asked. “Why is it that transgender ideology is so anti-woman? Haven’t you noticed that women tend to be the victims of transgenderism?”
Twitter’s Patriot Chick noted the same theme, writing, “Aa and…the final goal of Transgender Ideology…erasing women. We now have 2 genders: MAN and NONMAN.”
So, now "woman's" only identity and definition is not in BEING something, but in NOT BEING something else?
The erasure is complete – and is absolutely a function of the Left's rejection of God, truth and science.
Watch them contort as they try to defend it.
— Tea Party Barbie❗ (@laurahollis61) June 12, 2023
Johns Hopkins, as predicted, offered an escapist explanation for its original definition and its decision to scrap the revised terminology, claiming that the glossary “is not intended to serve as the definitive answers as to how all people understand or use these terms,” Megan Christin, the university’s director of strategic communications, told NBC News.
“While the glossary is a resource posted on the website of the Johns Hopkins University Office of Diversity and Inclusion (ODI), the definitions were not reviewed or approved by ODI leadership and the language in question has been removed pending review,” the university spokesperson waffled.
“If it’s destroying anything, it’s the reputation it has built up,” one commentator said of Johns Hopkins initial decision and its subsequent revision. “To describe it as ‘prestigious’ has become untrue. Now just a scheme for robbing the young.”
