The_DADDY Posted June 14, 2023 Share Posted June 14, 2023 University refers to lesbians as ‘non-men attracted to non-men’ in new LGBTQ glossary John Hopkins University was slammed by critics including “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling for switching up its definition of “lesbian” to instead refer to the group as “non-man attracted to non-men” in order to include non-binary people. https://nypost.com/2023/06/13/john-hopkins-university-now-refers-to-lesbians-as-non-men-attracted-to-non-men/ Not seen this discussed on here yet... Your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2023 Share Posted June 14, 2023 I covered that on this thread here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delayed Posted June 14, 2023 Share Posted June 14, 2023 A big non issue. Unless someone is forcing you to use the above language, keep doing what you are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2023 Share Posted June 14, 2023 1 minute ago, Delayed said: A big non issue. Unless someone is forcing you to use the above language, keep doing what you are doing. No. An attempt to redefine 'woman' as 'non-man', whatever the context and where ever it occurs should be challenged. And Johns Hopkins found it to be an issue sufficiently large to merit removal of the page from its website while they investigate how it came to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prettytom Posted June 14, 2023 Share Posted June 14, 2023 18 minutes ago, Hecate said: No. An attempt to redefine 'woman' as 'non-man', whatever the context and where ever it occurs should be challenged. And Johns Hopkins found it to be an issue sufficiently large to merit removal of the page from its website while they investigate how it came to be. Speaking as a non-woman, I agree with you entirely. Maybe it’s time to stop trying to shoehorn exceptional people into regular categories. Then, maybe, we could make some progress towards meeting the needs of everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delayed Posted June 14, 2023 Share Posted June 14, 2023 30 minutes ago, Hecate said: No. An attempt to redefine 'woman' as 'non-man', whatever the context and where ever it occurs should be challenged. And Johns Hopkins found it to be an issue sufficiently large to merit removal of the page from its website while they investigate how it came to be. Agreed but unless it goes so far as to change the dictionary definition then this is just a university trying to appease everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_DADDY Posted June 14, 2023 Author Share Posted June 14, 2023 4 minutes ago, Delayed said: Agreed but unless it goes so far as to change the dictionary definition then this is just a university trying to appease everyone. No, a tiny minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delayed Posted June 14, 2023 Share Posted June 14, 2023 2 minutes ago, The_DADDY said: No, a tiny minority. Adding to my point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2023 Share Posted June 14, 2023 10 minutes ago, Prettytom said: Speaking as a non-woman, I agree with you entirely. Maybe it’s time to stop trying to shoehorn exceptional people into regular categories. Then, maybe, we could make some progress towards meeting the needs of everyone. I think you're on your own there in your renaming of your own category. It shows willing. You should try an anatomical variant next. Prostate possessor, perhaps? I think it's more appropriation by, than shoe-horning of, though; certainly in this instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_DADDY Posted June 14, 2023 Author Share Posted June 14, 2023 2 minutes ago, Delayed said: Adding to my point No, your point was they are trying to appease Everyone. My claim is they aren't, they are doing it for a tiny minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.gif.5977cb4aee7e15eb82923370fe9667d7.gif)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now