Question about the homophobia thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a non-man. Can’t believe that even needs to be said. What is this, some weird rib-of-Adam, helpmeet throwback? Never thought I’d see the day when progressives would side with fundamentalist religious folks on the status of women. Non-man is exactly what fundamentalist religious nuts around the world believe women are.

Fundamentalist religious nuts believe people can be non-binary?

Fundamentalist religious nuts believe women are lesser and defined by being “non-men.” They believe women are a reflection of men, a “helpmeet” for men; in other words, they believe women are non-men. Apparently gender progressives believe the exact same thing. Remarkable to see in action, and profoundly depressing. The far left and the far right do often circle around to meet. I just didn’t expect to see that pattern in this context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a non-man. Can’t believe that even needs to be said. What is this, some weird rib-of-Adam, helpmeet throwback? Never thought I’d see the day when progressives would side with fundamentalist religious folks on the status of women. Non-man is exactly what fundamentalist religious nuts around the world believe women are.

Fundamentalist religious nuts believe people can be non-binary?

Fundamentalist religious nuts believe women are lesser and defined by being “non-men.” They believe women are a reflection of men, a “helpmeet” for men; in other words, they believe women are non-men. Apparently gender progressives believe the exact same thing. Remarkable to see in action, and profoundly depressing. The far left and the far right do often circle around to meet. I just didn’t expect to see that pattern in this context.

No, this JHU group is just adding NB to their lesbian definition. Get a grip and stop trying to spin up these non-issues. While you’re beeching about someone being *inclusive* of AFABs of all things, women are losing rights all over the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A gay man is a man. A gay woman is a woman. The words man and woman are literally in those sentences. Someone that previously identified as a gay woman and later realized nonbinary describes them better may still identify with the word lesbian which is what this definition of lesbian means. If you're a gay woman, you're free to use the term lesbian. You aren't free to tell someone else how they can identify as for their gender or sexual identity. It's absurd that so many people are chiming in on what queer people should be allowed to call themselves. Someone's a genderqueer AFAB person that calls themself a lesbian. Who are you to tell someone else what term they are free to use? Are you the gay police?

Someone is free to call themselves what they want. And other people are free to observe the horrific misogyny in the gap between the two terms. You cannot control language to the favor of men all the time, no matter how much you want to do that.

"Gay man" is literally a man that's gay. "Gay woman" is literally a woman that's gay. An AFAB person that used to identify as a woman and a lesbian then changes to nonbinary can continue to identify as a lesbian if she wants. It doesn't stop you from identifying as a gay woman or a lesbian. It's not misogynistic for this person to continue to identify as a lesbian. If you are AFAB and used to identify as a gay woman but now you identify as a trans man, you are a straight man after transition. You are not a lesbian. This is why the term doesn't include men. It includes NB and cis AFAB people. It doesn't include tran man AFAB people. I'm sorry you find this misogynistic and hard to understand.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a non-man. Can’t believe that even needs to be said. What is this, some weird rib-of-Adam, helpmeet throwback? Never thought I’d see the day when progressives would side with fundamentalist religious folks on the status of women. Non-man is exactly what fundamentalist religious nuts around the world believe women are.

Fundamentalist religious nuts believe people can be non-binary?

Fundamentalist religious nuts believe women are lesser and defined by being “non-men.” They believe women are a reflection of men, a “helpmeet” for men; in other words, they believe women are non-men. Apparently gender progressives believe the exact same thing. Remarkable to see in action, and profoundly depressing. The far left and the far right do often circle around to meet. I just didn’t expect to see that pattern in this context.

No, this JHU group is just adding NB to their lesbian definition. Get a grip and stop trying to spin up these non-issues. While you’re beeching about someone being *inclusive* of AFABs of all things, women are losing rights all over the country.

I suppose it’s not surprising that someone enthusiastically carrying water for misogynists would use the b-word so gleefully.

[Anonymous]

I have a different take on the topic of not using the word woman in an effort to be inclusive. I’m the PP whose son is trans, and for the record I have a daughter who is hella feminist and also very mindful of using inclusive language. She only dates girls, but doesn’t identify as a lesbian, because she feels that strict woman-woman definition is too rigid.

Trans men are largely ignored in the trans debates. I’ve said it before. I’m pretty sure it’s due to a couple of issues, mostly relating to how men react to gender and sexuality. I think trans men pass more easily than trans women. It’s fairly easy for a trans man, even a short fella, to fit in if he has top surgery and a beard, wears cargo pants and has short hair. It’s not extremely expensive. Cis men don’t seem to have their guard up about trans men, because if they’re transphobic, they likely see them as women and not a threat, or worst case scenario they see them as women who need to be taught how to be women (like Brandon Teena-we all know that story). Mostly they go unnoticed and not much thought is given to trans men. Also, I think it’s much more taboo to call out possible trans men as women wearing pants because there’s not a stigma attached to women who wear “men’s” clothing, and because toxic masculinity dictates it would be quite insulting to a cis man if someone said he must be a woman because he’s short/thin/delicate. The language is ignored because trans men are swept under the rug. Also, I think there’s a little bit of an attitude of “who wouldn’t want to be a man,” “she’s so butch we thought of her as one of the guys anyway,” and “trans men can’t rape anyone so they’re not hurting anyone,” mixed in for good measure.

I’m glad DS passes and doesn’t face the same trouble as trans women on a daily basis, but I worry for his safety.

With trans women, it’s different because there are penises involved. I think it comes back to toxic masculinity and a misogynistic version of transphobia against trans women rather than trying to erase trans women. Trans women have been told over and over they’re not real women so they can’t call themselves women and we can’t call them women. It’s ridiculous to have to constantly identify them as trans. So we need some language that is true and inclusive of everyone. Also, a lot of the medical language is being misunderstood.* In this case with the lesbian definition, they’re obviously trying to be inclusive. While they didn’t remove the word men, they were also inclusive and said that gay doesn’t exclusively refer to men, sort of like how it’s explained that now some non-binary people prefer lesbian to describe their sexuality.

*I’ve seen people on this site get upset at birthing people/pregnant people terminology and say we’re definitely crazy if we think trans women can be pregnant. That’s a perspective I hadn’t considered, and reinforces my feelings that most of the trans hate happening is aimed at trans women. Obviously trans women aren’t getting pregnant, although they can be mothers. The pregnant people wording is for trans men who become pregnant. This is also for all the menstruation wording too. Obviously trans women aren’t menstruating, but if a trans man isn’t on hormones and hasn’t had a hysterectomy, they could still be menstruating (that’s a mind f*** when you have to deal with it, and is another reason I see red when all forms of medical transitioning are illegal for minors. Women and girls suppress periods all the damn time, but if a trans boy wants to do it all of a sudden we’re trying to erase women).

Anyway, if you keep othering people instead of including them, they don’t disappear, they just create new language so they’re not left out. I think the same thing is going to happen with bathrooms as is happening with language. People didn’t want to include trans women as women, so now we’re people with descriptors. But that doesn’t make the people who couldn’t abide trans women being called women happy, so they’re complaining about that. They don’t want trans women in their women’s bathrooms, and want people to go to the bathroom that matches their gender assigned at birth. They’re not going to be happy if trans men with beards and pecs sculpted by surgeons using the bathrooms with their young daughters or their wives. Which brings me back to, yes, bathroom laws are about erasing trans people, because other than single person bathrooms or unisex bathrooms (which are more dangerous because of cis men not trans people), there’s nowhere trans people can pee that would make transphobes happy. You know what sucks (besides someone else thinking they get to decide where you should pee)? UTIs because of holding it too long because you’re afraid to go to the bathroom in public.

Tl;dr f your feelings about a technically true definition that you don’t like. Some people are actually oppressed, including women, whose reproductive rights and healthcare options being taken away in red states. That’s an actual problem. If you care about women, let’s work on that together then we can sit down and talk about how your feelings are hurt because someone called you a person instead of a woman. And if it’s kids you care about instead of women, let’s work on gun safety measures to prevent not just school shootings, but accidental shootings of and by children, and the tragic loss of family members children have to cope with because guns are everywhere. Then after we fix that, we can have a rational discussion about how gender affirming care doesn’t need to mean no therapy and no questioning why they think they’re trans, and figure out the best way forward to keep kids alive, healthy, and happy.

[Anonymous]

Hi PP I am not going to quote your long post, but I am the poster who originally linked the JHU glossary. I just wanted to say I appreciate (and always appreciate) your thoughtful posts. I’m not saying I agree with everything you write. For instance, I still find the misogyny inherent in those definitions horrifying and even in a world where people pick new language to deal with transphobia, it really bothers me that a lot of that new language is grounded in pervasive, deep, and widespread misogyny. But your posts always make me think, even if I don’t always agree with you. I just wanted to let you know that they are read and I think about them, and I am glad to hear about how well your DS is doing.

For the record I am not in favor of either bathroom bans or banning all gender affirming care for minors, though I would favor lifting malpractice caps. I come to this debate as a woman with a history of assault and sexual harassment behind me, and my primary driver in this entire discussion is the safety of women and children. I am pro gun control and pro reproductive rights. You don’t have to convince me of the importance of those. But I am also deeply appalled by what I see as a resurgence of violent sexism that comes with the trans rights movement. I can’t see how the world is made better by forcing naked bodies with penises into a previously safe spa for women. I can’t see how the world is made better when women who experience sexual harassment by transwomen in their locker rooms are attacked physically when sharing their stories. I can’t see how the destruction of single-sex spaces for girls and women in a world where we know unisex spaces increase assaults is making the world better.

It is not surprising that rapid rise of the power of the trans rights movement came on the heels of the Me Too movement. Any time in history that women really gather together, however briefly, to share their stories and their truths about assault and sex-based violence, there is an immediate and vicious backlash. And so Me Too and the trans rights movement are connected, as if the punishment women need to endure for having the gall to openly talk about sexual harassment, assault, and rape is the destruction of their safe spaces.

I honestly don’t know what the answer is, though I think in the end that women’s safe spaces will in fact be destroyed in the name of trans rights. If there is one thing I can say from history, it is that the safety of women is rarely a winning issue, and that women who advocate for that safety pay enormous prices. That’s what I see going on now, and I think in the end, the trans rights movement will prevail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

Funny how it’s always women who are the ones subject to this “accidental” sexism.

They may have been trying to accommodate a request from someone who was AFAB. I wouldn’t call that misogynist.

Sure. Let’s accommodate the .03% of the population at the expense of the rest. Makes sense.

What expense?

My feelings. I prefer to be called a woman, not a non-man. Why aren’t my feelings important?

You are still a woman. If you have sex with women you could call yourself a WSW. Or lesbian. Or woman. All still work.

I prefer to be called a woman. That word should appear in the definition. It now does not. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

It does. Didn’t you read it?

I did. Can you point out where the current definition uses the word “woman”? The only time they use that word is when they reference the old definition. Maybe I’m missing it.

The explanation is part of the definition because the terms are evolving to become MORE inclusive.

Some woman are lesbians. If they decide to break out of traditional gender roles, they can become NB but still consider themselves a lesbian.

If it were part of the definition, it would say lesbians are women AND non-men who have sex with women and non-men. However, it does not say that. So no, the new definition does not include the word woman. It just explains that the old definition did but no longer does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

Funny how it’s always women who are the ones subject to this “accidental” sexism.

They may have been trying to accommodate a request from someone who was AFAB. I wouldn’t call that misogynist.

Sure. Let’s accommodate the .03% of the population at the expense of the rest. Makes sense.

What expense?

My feelings. I prefer to be called a woman, not a non-man. Why aren’t my feelings important?

You are still a woman. If you have sex with women you could call yourself a WSW. Or lesbian. Or woman. All still work.

I prefer to be called a woman. That word should appear in the definition. It now does not. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

It does. Didn’t you read it?

I did. Can you point out where the current definition uses the word “woman”? The only time they use that word is when they reference the old definition. Maybe I’m missing it.

The explanation is part of the definition because the terms are evolving to become MORE inclusive.

Some woman are lesbians. If they decide to break out of traditional gender roles, they can become NB but still consider themselves a lesbian.

If it were part of the definition, it would say lesbians are women AND non-men who have sex with women and non-men. However, it does not say that. So no, the new definition does not include the word woman. It just explains that the old definition did but no longer does.

This discussion is reminding me of the famous Orwell quote:

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

Funny how it’s always women who are the ones subject to this “accidental” sexism.

They may have been trying to accommodate a request from someone who was AFAB. I wouldn’t call that misogynist.

Sure. Let’s accommodate the .03% of the population at the expense of the rest. Makes sense.

What expense?

My feelings. I prefer to be called a woman, not a non-man. Why aren’t my feelings important?

You are still a woman. If you have sex with women you could call yourself a WSW. Or lesbian. Or woman. All still work.

I prefer to be called a woman. That word should appear in the definition. It now does not. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

It does. Didn’t you read it?

I did. Can you point out where the current definition uses the word “woman”? The only time they use that word is when they reference the old definition. Maybe I’m missing it.

The explanation is part of the definition because the terms are evolving to become MORE inclusive.

Some woman are lesbians. If they decide to break out of traditional gender roles, they can become NB but still consider themselves a lesbian.

If it were part of the definition, it would say lesbians are women AND non-men who have sex with women and non-men. However, it does not say that. So no, the new definition does not include the word woman. It just explains that the old definition did but no longer does.

This discussion is reminding me of the famous Orwell quote:

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

I never knew Orwell was a trans activist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

Funny how it’s always women who are the ones subject to this “accidental” sexism.

They may have been trying to accommodate a request from someone who was AFAB. I wouldn’t call that misogynist.

Sure. Let’s accommodate the .03% of the population at the expense of the rest. Makes sense.

What expense?

My feelings. I prefer to be called a woman, not a non-man. Why aren’t my feelings important?

You are still a woman. If you have sex with women you could call yourself a WSW. Or lesbian. Or woman. All still work.

I prefer to be called a woman. That word should appear in the definition. It now does not. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

It does. Didn’t you read it?

I did. Can you point out where the current definition uses the word “woman”? The only time they use that word is when they reference the old definition. Maybe I’m missing it.

The explanation is part of the definition because the terms are evolving to become MORE inclusive.

Some woman are lesbians. If they decide to break out of traditional gender roles, they can become NB but still consider themselves a lesbian.

If it were part of the definition, it would say lesbians are women AND non-men who have sex with women and non-men. However, it does not say that. So no, the new definition does not include the word woman. It just explains that the old definition did but no longer does.

This discussion is reminding me of the famous Orwell quote:

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

I never knew Orwell was a trans activist.

He certainly predicted rewriting English to degrade an existing oppressed group and then insisting to the oppressed that the new language was always the true language and was not degrading. 1984 reads like a linguistic guidepost for trans activists. I suspect for some of them, it’s the end goal fantasy, not a dystopia.

[Anonymous]

Women have always been non-men. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

Funny how it’s always women who are the ones subject to this “accidental” sexism.

They may have been trying to accommodate a request from someone who was AFAB. I wouldn’t call that misogynist.

Sure. Let’s accommodate the .03% of the population at the expense of the rest. Makes sense.

What expense?

My feelings. I prefer to be called a woman, not a non-man. Why aren’t my feelings important?

You are still a woman. If you have sex with women you could call yourself a WSW. Or lesbian. Or woman. All still work.

I prefer to be called a woman. That word should appear in the definition. It now does not. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

It does. Didn’t you read it?

I did. Can you point out where the current definition uses the word “woman”? The only time they use that word is when they reference the old definition. Maybe I’m missing it.

The explanation is part of the definition because the terms are evolving to become MORE inclusive.

Some woman are lesbians. If they decide to break out of traditional gender roles, they can become NB but still consider themselves a lesbian.

If it were part of the definition, it would say lesbians are women AND non-men who have sex with women and non-men. However, it does not say that. So no, the new definition does not include the word woman. It just explains that the old definition did but no longer does.

It does say women and non-binary. It’s right there in the definition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

Funny how it’s always women who are the ones subject to this “accidental” sexism.

They may have been trying to accommodate a request from someone who was AFAB. I wouldn’t call that misogynist.

Sure. Let’s accommodate the .03% of the population at the expense of the rest. Makes sense.

What expense?

My feelings. I prefer to be called a woman, not a non-man. Why aren’t my feelings important?

You are still a woman. If you have sex with women you could call yourself a WSW. Or lesbian. Or woman. All still work.

I prefer to be called a woman. That word should appear in the definition. It now does not. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

It does. Didn’t you read it?

I did. Can you point out where the current definition uses the word “woman”? The only time they use that word is when they reference the old definition. Maybe I’m missing it.

The explanation is part of the definition because the terms are evolving to become MORE inclusive.

Some woman are lesbians. If they decide to break out of traditional gender roles, they can become NB but still consider themselves a lesbian.

If it were part of the definition, it would say lesbians are women AND non-men who have sex with women and non-men. However, it does not say that. So no, the new definition does not include the word woman. It just explains that the old definition did but no longer does.

It does say women and non-binary. It’s right there in the definition.

Oh stop gaslighting. We see through your sexist nonsense.

JHU has taken the page down and are distancing themselves.

https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/education/glossary/

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.

Upon becoming aware of the language in question, we have begun working to determine the origin and context of the glossary’s definitions. We have removed the page from our website while we gather more information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi PP I am not going to quote your long post, but I am the poster who originally linked the JHU glossary. I just wanted to say I appreciate (and always appreciate) your thoughtful posts. I’m not saying I agree with everything you write. For instance, I still find the misogyny inherent in those definitions horrifying and even in a world where people pick new language to deal with transphobia, it really bothers me that a lot of that new language is grounded in pervasive, deep, and widespread misogyny. But your posts always make me think, even if I don’t always agree with you. I just wanted to let you know that they are read and I think about them, and I am glad to hear about how well your DS is doing.

For the record I am not in favor of either bathroom bans or banning all gender affirming care for minors, though I would favor lifting malpractice caps. I come to this debate as a woman with a history of assault and sexual harassment behind me, and my primary driver in this entire discussion is the safety of women and children. I am pro gun control and pro reproductive rights. You don’t have to convince me of the importance of those. But I am also deeply appalled by what I see as a resurgence of violent sexism that comes with the trans rights movement. I can’t see how the world is made better by forcing naked bodies with penises into a previously safe spa for women. I can’t see how the world is made better when women who experience sexual harassment by transwomen in their locker rooms are attacked physically when sharing their stories. I can’t see how the destruction of single-sex spaces for girls and women in a world where we know unisex spaces increase assaults is making the world better.

It is not surprising that rapid rise of the power of the trans rights movement came on the heels of the Me Too movement. Any time in history that women really gather together, however briefly, to share their stories and their truths about assault and sex-based violence, there is an immediate and vicious backlash. And so Me Too and the trans rights movement are connected, as if the punishment women need to endure for having the gall to openly talk about sexual harassment, assault, and rape is the destruction of their safe spaces.

I honestly don’t know what the answer is, though I think in the end that women’s safe spaces will in fact be destroyed in the name of trans rights. If there is one thing I can say from history, it is that the safety of women is rarely a winning issue, and that women who advocate for that safety pay enormous prices. That’s what I see going on now, and I think in the end, the trans rights movement will prevail.

This is just ridiculous I don’t know where to start. You think more people are coming out as transgender as a … retaliation? So irrational and disconnected from reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s likely unintentional.

Probably a non-binary person who was AFAB complained about the lesbian definition so they updated that and not the “gay man” entry.

Women are still women, despite this inclusive glossary. You aren’t being erased.

Funny how it’s always women who are the ones subject to this “accidental” sexism.

They may have been trying to accommodate a request from someone who was AFAB. I wouldn’t call that misogynist.

Sure. Let’s accommodate the .03% of the population at the expense of the rest. Makes sense.

What expense?

My feelings. I prefer to be called a woman, not a non-man. Why aren’t my feelings important?

You are still a woman. If you have sex with women you could call yourself a WSW. Or lesbian. Or woman. All still work.

I prefer to be called a woman. That word should appear in the definition. It now does not. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

It does. Didn’t you read it?

I did. Can you point out where the current definition uses the word “woman”? The only time they use that word is when they reference the old definition. Maybe I’m missing it.

The explanation is part of the definition because the terms are evolving to become MORE inclusive.

Some woman are lesbians. If they decide to break out of traditional gender roles, they can become NB but still consider themselves a lesbian.

If it were part of the definition, it would say lesbians are women AND non-men who have sex with women and non-men. However, it does not say that. So no, the new definition does not include the word woman. It just explains that the old definition did but no longer does.

It does say women and non-binary. It’s right there in the definition.

Oh stop gaslighting. We see through your sexist nonsense.

JHU has taken the page down and are distancing themselves.

https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/education/glossary/

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.

Upon becoming aware of the language in question, we have begun working to determine the origin and context of the glossary’s definitions. We have removed the page from our website while we gather more information.

It’s not sexist. Do you ever know what that means?

And it turns out the definitions weren’t “misogyny”. Just sloppy editing.