Johns Hopkins University Blasted by J.K. Rowling, Others Over Its Definition of 'Lesbian'

[Ms. Toad]

13. The issue is that the definitions are not parallel.

Gay is defined by maleness. Lesbian is defined by the absence of maleness. This is way too close to "othering" women in the same way using a generic "he" does. The gender which is important enough to have its own identity is man. Everyone else is a non-man.

Yes, NB individuals make simple definitions of orientation more complex - but for both gays and lesbians, not just for lesbians. And trans individuals coming out after partnering with someone they remain partnered with post-transition also make definitions complex for the partner. I have friends whose sexual orientation is straight who are married or partnered with someone whose gender identity is now the same as their own; or whose sexual orientation is lesbian - who are now married to or partnered with a man.

I have no problems with any trans or NB friend identifying as lesbians (regardless of the gender identity of individuals to whom they are attracted). But I find it insulting to be defined as being a non-man or as being attracted to non-men. I am a woman, not a non-man. I am attracted to women, not non-men.

(Just to be clear - J.K. Rowling is a trans-hostile jerk. But assuming these definitions are being accurately reported, I agree with her on this issue.)