Johns Hopkins U. Changes Glossary That Erased Women After Backlash
“the definitions were not reviewed or approved by ODI leadership and the language in question has been removed pending review”
This is an update to a story we highlighted recently. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Campus Reform reports:
Johns Hopkins takes down LGBTQ glossary after backlash, says ‘lesbian’ definition was ‘not approved’
Johns Hopkins University has taken down its “LGBTQ Glossary” after backlash erupted against its definition of “lesbian.”
The glossary of LGBTQ terms was posted on the webpage of the Gender and Sexuality Resources office at Johns Hopkins’ Diversity and Inclusion department. The glossary defined lesbian as a “non-man attracted to non-men.” But after fierce backlash on social media, the office took down the glossary, claiming that the definition was not approved.
“Johns Hopkins strives to create a campus culture that is inclusive and welcoming for all gender identities, sexual orientations, experiences and viewpoints, and we are committed to ensuring Johns Hopkins is a place where LGBTQ people feel supported,” the webpage now states. “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. While the glossary is a resource posted on the website of the Johns Hopkins University Office of Diversity and Inclusion (ODI); the definitions were not reviewed or approved by ODI leadership and the language in question has been removed pending review.”
As previously reported by Campus Reform, the glossary used a definition of the word “lesbian” that explicitly excluded the word “woman”:
A non-man attracted to non-men. While past definitions refer to ‘lesbian’ as a woman who is emotionally, romantically, and/or sexually attracted to other women, this updated definition includes non-binary people who may also identify with the label.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
As usual, they only walked it back because they got caught.
ODI leadership woke up from their nap and wondered what all the commotion was.
So why do the alphabet people need to be supported? Is there something wrong with them? All the special attention suggests that there is. Just asking.
What’s in the “+”? LGBTQ+
Necr0philiac
Beastiality
Ped0philia
Is our President and teachers union Proud of every diverse group?
We’re gonna need so many moar flags.
The buck always stops way below me.
This stuff gets shoved out onto their public website, gets noticed and attacked / jeered at, and then it gets walked back as “unapproved.” This happens all over the place, not just at Johns Hopkins. We’ve seen it at Budweiser, Target, Starbucks, School Districts across the land, DEI offices – it’s everywhere. It’s the same old story time and time again.
Well, if this stuff gets out there “unapproved”, then what else is out there which is also unapproved? How to people who have no authority to post stuff out there keep managing to post stuff out there? Those are questions that the chuckle-headed media parrots are incapable of even asking.
I call BS on their whole response. Show me the disciplinary action taken against these folks for their unauthorized postings. Until then – BS.
Since women can’t justify their existence….. “then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us, and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”
To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, 1931.
This is in line with the disaster of Justice Jackson who couldn’t define what a woman was. Imagine this subject reaching the SCOTUS and this moron cannot even define what a woman is! How is she going to rule on the case when she doesn’t know what it is that she is discussing?