General Discussion

meadowlander

(4,994 posts)

38. She has not acknowledged, grown or moved on from that error.

Wed Jun 14, 2023, 12:21 AM

Jun 2023

The fact that Johns Hopkins is also wrong here doesn't make JK Rowling not a transphobe.

Her comment here is not that Johns Hopkins is wrong because their definition is an example of trans-erasure. Her comment is just drawing from the same well of "erasing women" that she also uses to attack trans people.

So big thumbs down to Johns Hopkins, no bonus points to JK Rowling for pointing it out.

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