General Discussion

marble falls

(68,781 posts)

2. The non-man designation stinks, but I get where they were trying to get to with their ...

Reply to sheshe2 (Original post)

Tue Jun 13, 2023, 07:04 PM

Jun 2023

... definition of 'lesbian'.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Johns Hopkins University Blasted by J.K. Rowling, Others Over Its Definition of 'Lesbian' [View all] sheshe2 Jun 2023 OP

Wow, that is VERY insulting Just_Vote_Dem Jun 2023 #1

The non-man designation stinks, but I get where they were trying to get to with their ... marble falls Jun 2023 #2

Then they need to do the same in their definition of gay. yardwork Jun 2023 #11

I agree. marble falls Jun 2023 #20

I don't see an issue here beyond giving a shit about what JKR thinks. WhiskeyGrinder Jun 2023 #3

Not all non-binary people would identify as lesbians. meadowlander Jun 2023 #4

I am helping to mentor a trans-boy, He has this argument ALL THE TIME Coventina Jun 2023 #16

I mean can we just call people humans. edisdead Jun 2023 #35

If this is accurate, it's disgraceful. yardwork Jun 2023 #6

They've pulled the page and are reworking it, so there's that. WhiskeyGrinder Jun 2023 #7

I would hope so. yardwork Jun 2023 #9

It looks like they don't even know where it came from. Ms. Toad Jun 2023 #21

That's ridiculous, frankly. yardwork Jun 2023 #23

The issue is that the definitions are not parallel. Ms. Toad Jun 2023 #13

Fair. WhiskeyGrinder Jun 2023 #15

I get where they were going with the lesbian definition Bettie Jun 2023 #5

While gays are defined as "men." yardwork Jun 2023 #8

As a lesbian, I refuse that definition. I won't be defined by a lack of maleness, that is misogynist Celerity Jun 2023 #10

Agreed. Whose idea was this? yardwork Jun 2023 #14

Whomever came up with that is trying, IMHO, to erase the concepts of woman/female. Celerity Jun 2023 #17

I checked the twitter thread and somebody said that a trans woman approved this. yardwork Jun 2023 #18

Her name is Paula Niera Mosby Jun 2023 #19

Well, I am not going to bend to her will on this, ever. nt Celerity Jun 2023 #24

Same, the hospital took it down and is reviewing the language. Mosby Jun 2023 #26

+1 Celerity Jun 2023 #27

I am not OK with "non man". Coventina Jun 2023 #12

"Non-Man". Yikes. And yet gay men are not Non-Women. Wingus Dingus Jun 2023 #22

Brilliant people.can say some real ignorant things Trenzalore Jun 2023 #25

JKR & Others are right. This is stunningly stupid. Being defined only in reference to the male... Hekate Jun 2023 #28

JK is a big transphobe... Her being right on this does not diminish the harm Nevilledog Jun 2023 #30

So a person cannot ever be right about anything ever again once they've made an error regarding Hekate Jun 2023 #37

She has not acknowledged, grown or moved on from that error. meadowlander Jun 2023 #38

She's a transphobe Nevilledog Jun 2023 #29

This does not excuse Johns Hopkins. n/t Coventina Jun 2023 #31

It's for context. She's done damage. Her being correct here does not excuse that IMHO Nevilledog Jun 2023 #32

I don't see anyone saying it does. I'm sure not, she is a toxic bigot. n/t Coventina Jun 2023 #33

Don't see much on DU about her, just wanted to give a little context, I guess. Nevilledog Jun 2023 #34

+1 Celerity Jun 2023 #42

Glad to hear they are rewording it. Guess I'll reserve judgement until then. Takket Jun 2023 #36

I just want people to be whoever they are. No labels. leftyladyfrommo Jun 2023 #39

WTAF???? According to that page, "man" is the default setting for humans. niyad Jun 2023 #40

No kidding. sheshe2 Jun 2023 #41

Paula Neira, and yes, she should be sacked. Celerity Jun 2023 #43