Until yesterday, I held the belief that a lesbian referred to a woman who is sexually attracted to other women. This understanding seemed to be widely shared by the lesbian women I knew. However, it seems we have all been mistaken. Johns Hopkins University has recently taken it upon themselves to redefine the term “lesbian” in the name of inclusivity. In their LGBTQ+ glossary, they now define a lesbian as “a non-man attracted to non-men.” This updated definition aims to encompass non-binary individuals who may identify as lesbians.
This redefinition is not only disingenuous and virtue-signaling, but it also raises questions about the definitions of other terms within the LGBTQ+ community. For instance, the glossary defines a gay man 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.” So let me get this straight: if you’re a lesbian, you’re a non-man, but if you’re a gay man, you’re simply a man. It seems that in the pursuit of inclusivity, the rights and identities of women are being erased.
This decision by Johns Hopkins University is particularly troubling coming from an institution that is known for its medical and scientific expertise. It is concerning that individuals who study biology would disregard the significance of female identity in favor of transgender rights. The program director responsible for these changes, Paula Neira, is a transgender woman. Unfortunately, this erasure of women is not an isolated incident, as we have seen a linguistic assault on women led by the medical profession in recent years. Terms like “birthing people” and “chest-feeding” have replaced traditional language, and even the word “women” has been dropped from online health advice for diseases that only affect biological females.
While these changes may be intended to avoid offense towards transgender and non-binary individuals, they overlook the rights and identities of biological women. It is important to consider the harm caused by this erasure and to recognize that there are women who embrace their female identity and wish to be called women. The backlash and mockery faced by Johns Hopkins University for their redefinition of “lesbian” is indicative of the widespread indignation towards these changes.
In response to the criticism, Johns Hopkins University has taken down the glossary and issued a statement emphasizing their commitment to inclusivity and creating a welcoming environment for all individuals. However, their backtrack raises the question of why an institution renowned for its medical expertise would overlook the basic understanding of what defines a woman.
It is essential to recognize the harm caused by well-intentioned but misguided attempts at inclusivity. Linguistic interventions such as these only serve to exacerbate divisions rather than promoting understanding. Instead of erasing women from the conversation, we should strive for a more inclusive society that values and respects the rights and identities of all individuals.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
