University Refers To Lesbians As 'Non-Men Attracted To Non-Men'

[Delayed]

2 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

No, your point was they are trying to appease Everyone.

My claim is they aren't, they are doing it for a tiny minority. 

No that wasn't my point. 

 

My point was that it's affecting a specific university (i.e a minority) and until there are wide sweeping changes (for example dictionary definitions) then it can largely be ignored, unless you attend said universities.

 

Hope you pass that English exam

[Guest]

8 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. 

Don't you think that changing the dictionary definition might be an endpoint, rather than an immediate example?  For the collection of organisations and individuals who've attempted similar shenanigans it's certainly aspirational.  As a menstruator, a non-man, and - and this is my very favourite - a body with a vagina, I do find the list creative, if rather one-sided.

[Axe]

Is the term Dyke  still allowed to be used at universities?

[Prettytom]

6 minutes ago, Hecate said:

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.

That’s not very inclusive though. There are many non prostate possessing non women. They deserve to have their voices heard too.

 

I can accept a level of appropriation, but there’s also a lot of push and shove from certain sectors to try to make people fit categories that they don’t fit.

[The_DADDY]

1 minute ago, Delayed said:

No that wasn't my point. 

 

My point was that it's affecting a specific university (i.e a minority) and until there are wide sweeping changes (for example dictionary definitions) then it can largely be ignored, unless you attend said universities.

 

Snipped 

Pity you didn't make that clear 🙄

[Delayed]

1 minute ago, Hecate said:

Don't you think that changing the dictionary definition might be an endpoint, rather than an immediate example?  For the collection of organisations and individuals who've attempted similar shenanigans it's certainly aspirational.  As a menstruator, a non-man, and - and this is my very favourite - a body with a vagina, I do find the list creative, if rather one-sided.

Nothing needs changing in my opinion. The dictionary change is the extreme end of the scale and I'd always refer someone to the dictionary when attempting to re define things 

1 minute ago, The_DADDY said:

Pity you didn't make that clear 🙄

No one else seemed to have a problem. 

[Prettytom]

1 minute ago, Axe said:

Is the term Dyke  still allowed to be used at universities?

Probably not.

 

But telling you to **** off with your homophobia isn’t really allowed on here, but it just happened anyway.

[The_DADDY]

Just now, Delayed said:

Snipped 

No one else seemed to have a problem. 

How do you know?

Have you asked everyone else? 

Maybe others read it as I did. You should ask everyone just to be certain 👍

[Delbow]

Imagine The Daddy's dopamine hit when he saw that article. Day off to a great start!

[Delayed]

1 minute ago, The_DADDY said:

How do you know?

Have you asked everyone else? 

Maybe others read it as I did. You should ask everyone just to be certain 👍

I imagine most people don't care enough to comment or point score.