• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthew Best said:
It's not only transwomen who aren't women. Lesbians aren't women either! At least according to Johns Hopkins University:

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

"Lesbian [sexual orientation]: 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."

However:

"Gay Man: A man who is emotionally, romantically, sexually, affectionately, or relationally attracted to other men, or who identifies as a member of the gay community. At times, “gay” is used to refer to all people, regardless of gender, who have their primary sexual and or romantic attractions to people of the same gender."
Click to expand...

A lesbian is a non-man, not a woman?

Wow. Down the rabbit hole we go.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Ahh, the fine reactionary tradition of finding some college student handbook to get mad about.
Click to expand...

Some college? Johns Hopkins?

Yeah, some obscure, know-nothing institute of no consequence. I can only imagine the apoplexy of some if I derided the US as “some country”.

**** me.
 
lionking said:
Some college? Johns Hopkins?

Yeah, some obscure, know-nothing institute of no consequence. I can only imagine the apoplexy of some if I derided the US as “some country”.

**** me.
Click to expand...

How does this section of the student handbook musing about the definition of "lesbian" meaningfully impact you or even the students of the university?
 
Hercules56 said:
A lesbian is a non-man, not a woman?
Click to expand...

Of course. Because if a non-binary male (not a transwoman) is attracted to another non-binary male (not a transwoman), and they like to do sexual things with each other's male-specific parts, they aren't gay or queer, they're lesbians.
Obviously.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
How does this section of the student handbook musing about the definition of "lesbian" meaningfully impact you or even the students of the university?
Click to expand...

What does it matter if the canary in the coal mine dies? Why do you care about birds so much? It's not even your bird.
 
Ziggurat said:
What does it matter if the canary in the coal mine dies? Why do you care about birds so much? It's not even your bird.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing more anti-trans obsessives have read this webpage than actual university students. Seems to be an odd fascination with reactionaries to seek out some powerless document from a college or university to get mad about.

I don't recall ever even reading my college's student handbook, nor do I think many of my peers did either. The authors would probably be glad that at least someone thinks it's important.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
I'm guessing more anti-trans obsessives have read this webpage than actual university students. Seems to be an odd fascination with reactionaries to seek out some powerless document from a college or university to get mad about.

I don't recall ever even reading my college's student handbook, nor do I think many of my peers did either. The authors would probably be glad that at least someone thinks it's important.
Click to expand...

How ridiculous your posts are in this thread. “I’m guessing”? This is the rigor you are bringing?
 
lionking said:
How ridiculous your posts are in this thread. “I’m guessing”? This is the rigor you are bringing?
Click to expand...

I wonder how Matthew Best happened to come across this piece of information. Spend a lot time reading the John Hopkins policy pages?

Could it be it's making its way through the reactionary propaganda mill?
 
TurkeysGhost said:
How does this section of the student handbook musing about the definition of "lesbian" meaningfully impact you or even the students of the university?
Click to expand...

Translation: "we should only discuss things that directly effect us as individuals."

And the forum just died, cuz most issues discussed do not affect any of us personally.
 
Hercules56 said:
Translation: "we should only discuss things that directly effect us as individuals."

And the forum just died, cuz most issues discussed do not affect any of us personally.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's broaden this out a bit. How does this page meaningfully impact anyone? Hell, how does it meaningfully impact students and employees of Johns Hopkins or anyone else in that community?
 
TurkeysGhost said:
I'm guessing more anti-trans obsessives have read this webpage than actual university students.
Click to expand...

So what? You're treating this like it's some stand alone phenomenon, disconnected from anything else. It's not.

I don't care about the canary. I care about why it died. Do you honestly not get the parallel? No, you probably don't.
 
Just to point out this latest one is not even about how you should address anyone; it is their definitions for words people may come across, and as we know people often have different meanings for words. Personally, I can't see why the definition of "lesbian" had to be changed, but if it did then the same type of change should be made to the "gay man" definition, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Also, I find their re-definition of "queer" to be offensive and an example of mainstream cultural appropriation, but that's just me but I’m not going to be writing to them to complain.
 
Just to point out this latest one is not even about how you should address anyone; it is their definitions for words people may come across, and as we know people often have different meanings for words. Personally, I can't see why the definition of "lesbian" had to be changed, but if it did then the same type of change should be made to the "gay man" definition, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Also, I find their re-definition of "queer" to be offensive and an example of mainstream cultural appropriation, but that's just me but I’m not going to be writing to them to complain.
 
Darat said:
Just to point out this latest one is not even about how you should address anyone; it is their definitions for words people may come across, and as we know people often have different meanings for words. Personally, I can't see why the definition of "lesbian" had to be changed, but if it did then the same type of change should be made to the "gay man" definition, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Also, I find their re-definition of "queer" to be offensive and an example of mainstream cultural appropriation, but that's just me but I’m not going to be writing to them to complain.
Click to expand...

What do you find offensive about their definition of queer?

Basically they are saying that anyone who is not a standard heterosexual male or female can be called queer. Is that not the common usage?
 
Darat said:
Personally, I can't see why the definition of "lesbian" had to be changed, but if it did then the same type of change should be made to the "gay man" definition, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Click to expand...


Exactly this. If a lesbian is a “non-man”, then why isn’t a gay man “a non-woman”?

I mean, I know why - it’s because men’s rights are prioritised while women’s rights are not.

Obviously that’s not important to some people here.
 
Matthew Best said:
Exactly this. If a lesbian is a “non-man”, then why isn’t a gay man “a non-woman”?

I mean, I know why - it’s because men’s rights are prioritised while women’s rights are not.

Obviously that’s not important to some people here.
Click to expand...

Yes this thing about lesbians being non-men, does smell of misogyny.

Why the double standard with regards to gay men?
 
Saying "every non-man gender that's sexually attracted to women is a lesbian gender" muddies the waters so thoroughly it can only have come from a muddied brain.

It's fascinating but also kind of creepy how the more you look at trans-inclusionary concepts and rhetoric, the more it looks like the most regressively patriarchal thing since Vladimir Putin took over the Russian Federation.

Like... there's men, and then there's everyone else. Female-attracted non-binary? Lesbian. Never mind that up until this very moment, "lesbian" has been a clearly woman-gendered term. Never mind that you don't identify as a woman. Johns Hopkins has declared that linguistically, you're now a lesbian. Because?
Edited by sarge: 
removed rule 0 violation
 
Last edited by a moderator:
theprestige said:
Saying "every non-man gender that's sexually attracted to women is a lesbian gender" muddies the waters so thoroughly it can only have come from a muddied brain.
Click to expand...

It's more incoherent than that: it's non-men attracted to non-men. So it includes males attracted to males, so long as they're all "non-binary".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom