Johns Hopkins University's Describes 'Lesbian' As 'Non-Man', Sparks Outrage

The use of gender-neutral language is the need of the hour. However, its implementation requires proper consideration because it is a sensitive topic. Any blunder can turn out to be a total disaster, just like in the case of Johns Hopkins University whose definition of lesbian sparked controversy.

There has been much global debate about the use of gender-neutral terms to include non-binary and gender-fluid people. Many major organisations have made decent attempts to avoid male and female terms and one of them is Johns Hopkins University. This year, the university updated its LGBTQA+ glossary in which the definition of 'lesbian' was written as a 'non-man' attracted to 'non-men'. The definition clarified that the use of 'non-man' was intended to include non-binary people who identify as lesbian. The internet, however, was outraged by the use of 'non-man' after which the university had to remove the definition from its glossary.

Suggested Reading: Women More Likely To Identify As Bisexual: Can Research Tell Us Why?

Johns Hopkins Definition Of Lesbian

The internet pointed out that while 'lesbian' was described as 'non-man', the word 'gay', written just under 'lesbian', was described as a man sexually attracted to men. In this case, the word man was mentioned to be irrespective of any gender. The definitions sparked controversy as people felt it was wrong to define women only in reference to men. It felt like they neglected the entire existence of women and decided to describe lesbians and gays in reference to men.

Popular author J.K. Rowling posted on social media how there was no definition needed for 'man' while 'woman', now referred to as 'non-man', had to be necessarily defined in reference to men. It is the use of 'man' as a root for all other gender terms that irked the people.

For ages, women's entire existence is expected to revolve around men. They live for men, they marry for men, they produce heirs for men and they learn and manage everything to support a man's life. Their life purpose was restricted to the existence of men in their lives and with the new term, 'non-man', for women, it felt like addressing them would also be incomplete without men. On the other hand, gays were defined as men in the glossary and they weren't biased when it came to definitions.

If the people behind the definition were really thinking about using gender-neutral terms, they should have removed the word 'man' as well because that is clearly not a gender-neutral term. Why didn't they think of describing 'lesbian' as a woman and 'gay' as 'non-woman'? That would still have been wrong as 'man' and 'woman' are binary words but describing men in reference to women is not something the patriarchal mindset is accustomed to.

Addressing the issues of the LGBTQA+ community needs careful and sensitive consideration. Using gender-neutral language is good as long as there is proper consultation. This highlights the need to involve more people from the LGBTQA+ community when it comes to making decisions for them. Such mistakes happen when there are not diverse insights from non-binary and lesbian members among the committee preparing the glossary.

The rights of the LGBTQA+ community have always been a matter of concern. They cannot perfectly fit into the norms built for binary people like men and women and hence require a proper structure, like in sports and games, that is made to accommodate their needs while not compromising the needs of other genders. Ignoring their existence or being indifferent to their dilemmas will only be bad for society's growth and betterment.