John Hopkins ‘non-man attracted to non-men’ nonsense is an insult to women

Until yesterday, I mistakenly assumed a lesbian was a woman who is sexually attracted to other women.

Certainly, all the lesbian women I’ve ever known have also labored under that massive misapprehension.

After all, they put the “L” into LGTBQ+ (insincere apologies to anyone offended if I haven’t put enough letters or symbols on this ever-growing list).

But it turns out we’ve all been completely wrong.

The John Hopkins University in Baltimore, regarded as one of the world’s best medical and scientific hubs of academic excellence, decided this week to unilaterally redefine the word “lesbian” to be “more inclusive.”

In its official online glossary of LGBTQ+ terminology, it said a lesbian was “a non-man attracted to non-men.”

It explained: “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 this label.”

Obviously, this egregious load of disingenuous virtue-signaling woke piffle was bad enough.

But it gets worse.

How did the same LGBTQ+ glossary define a gay man?

It said: “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 (pun intended): If you’re a lesbian, you’re a non-man.

If you’re a gay man, you’re a man.

But what nobody’s allowed to be if they’re gay … is a woman.

And this misogynistic garbage is coming from one of the planet’s supposedly smartest medical brains? People who literally study biology every day of their lives?

Unsurprisingly, the program director of “LGBTQ+ equity and education” at John Hopkins University believed to have approved the changes is a transgender woman named Paula Neira.

This is not the first time we’ve seen women being erased in this shameful way, with their very identity and existence sacrificed at the aggressively activist altar of transgender rights.

In the past few years, there’s been a sinister creeping linguistic assault on women, led by the medical profession.

Mothers were renamed “birthing people,” breast-feeding became “chest-feeding” and medical bible The Lancet even had a cover about “bodies with vaginas.”

Asked to explain anatomy, the Cleveland Clinic wrote: “Who has a vagina? People who are assigned female at birth (AFAB) have vaginas.”

And in Britain, our fabled National Health Service (the NHS) dropped the word “women” from its main online health advice for women being treated for cervical, womb and ovarian cancers – despite the fact that ONLY women born to female biological bodies suffer from these diseases, because only women have cervixes, wombs and ovaries.

All this is supposedly done to cause less offense to transgender or non-binary people who don’t wish to be called women.

But what about the offense this might cause actual biological women with breasts and vaginas (spoiler alert: that’s all women) who DO want to be called women?

Where are THEIR rights in all this?

Predictably, the John Hopkins redefinition of “lesbian” sparked indignant anger and widespread mockery on social media.

Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling tweeted: “Man: no definition needed. Non-man (formerly known as woman): a being definable only by reference to the male. An absence, a vacuum where there’s no man-ness.”

Of course, it was the same J.K. Rowling who became a global hate figure three years ago when she commented on an article headlined, “Opinion: Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate” by saying: “People who menstruate. I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”

For that, Rowling was disgracefully abused, threatened and faced calls for her to be canceled.

But she was right to ridicule such women-eradicating nonsense then, and she’s right to ridicule it again now.

As Al-Jazeera journalist Sonia Gallego tweeted: “One of the most prestigious universities in the US, John Hopkins, is actively destroying the category of women — adult human females. We are now to be referred to as ‘Non-men.’ I don’t think even Margaret Atwood could have imagined this.”

Amid the furor, John Hopkins University took down the glossary yesterday and issued a statement saying: “Johns Hopkins strives to create a campus culture that is inclusive and welcoming for all gender identities, sexual orientations, experiences and viewpoints, and we are committed to ensuring Johns Hopkins is a place where LGBTQ people feel supported.

“The LGBTQ Glossary serves as an introduction to the range of identities and terms that are used within LGBTQ communities and is not intended to serve as the definitive answers as to how all people understand or use these terms. We have removed the page from our website while we gather more information.”

More information about what?

A woman’s a woman, a lesbian’s a lesbian.

And John Hopkins University should kinda know this already because it’s supposed to be a bloody center of medical expertise!

The irony of the university’s weasel-worded backtrack is that by trying to be supposedly “inclusive and welcoming” to transgender and non-binary people, John Hopkins literally excluded and unwelcomed billions of women.

And once again, this imbecilic woke claptrap has done more harm than good.

Dr. Irwin Redlener, president emeritus of the Children’s Health Fund, recently told the New York Times that these sorts of linguistic interventions reflect “liberals going overboard to create definitions and divisions.”

He added: “It actually exacerbates divisions rather than accomplishing something useful.”

Exactly.

And if you don’t fully grasp the problem, here’s a simple test: Go up to Megan Rapinoe, Martina Navratilova or Cynthia Nixon, call them a “non-man,” and see what happens…