Meant to be inclusive
Women have shared their concern about the erasure of “all female identities” after Johns Hopkins University used the phrase “non-man” to describe lesbians.
The Baltimore-based university received backlash online after defining “lesbian” as “a non-man attracted to non-men” in its glossary of LGBTQ+ terms.
The update, which has since been removed from the website, was initially meant to be inclusive of non-binary individuals, who may still identify as lesbians.
That last bit. What can possibly be the point of being “inclusive” of a tiny tiny tiny fragment of the population, which has a fatuous delusion that it’s something labeled “non-binary,” which doesn’t mean anything, at the expense of over half of the population? Why be “inclusive” of 147 people at the low low cost of excluding 4 billion? What is the point?
How can one be both non-binary and Lesbian? To be Lesbian means to be attracted solely to people of the female sex, one part of the sex binary. Lesbians are sexually attracted to women, straight or not.
Non binary people are being disingenuous if they are attracted only to binary people. They should be seeking partners only with other non binary people, lest we suspect that it is all simply performative nonsense.
Why was it inclusive of non-binary individuals who may identify as lesbians but not of non-binary individuals who may identify as gay men?
(Rhetorical question. We all know why.)
Ok so… the Official Definitely-Neither-Pointless-Nor-Harmful Definition of a lesbian is: someone who identifies as a lesbian. (Stay with me a sec…)
But… according to their elementary school English teacher, you can’t use the word you’re defining in its definition. S’ok, just come up with a phrase that means equally as little and you’re golden.
Or something?