John Hopkins University of Misogyny

Exactly Roses.
It is amazing how it makes no sense at all.

There was another thread were a poster asserted that you own your pronouns.

Well, what if mine are so sacred and secret that you’ll just have to guess. And like Peppa Pig’s secret password (or Suzie Sheep’s) it changes all the time to stay secret?

Non-men can be wiley like that.

Indeed. They seem to imagine that they will be able to identify those terrible cis types by sight, yet in the same document there's advice about how not to accidentally misgender someone by assuming their pronouns based on their appearance....

But one can never know who is trans or who is not.
I may present as a small female, but who is anyone to say that is what I identify as in the depth of my soul?
And what if I decline to tell?

It’s a minefield this.

I wouldn't call changing gender immoral.
Idiotic, narcissistic, misinformed, infantile, selfish, egocentric, destructive, isolating, damaging, unsystematic, illogical, shortsighted, yes.
Immoral, no. That's giving the "philosophy" WAY too much credence.

OMG - it’s like ‘okay no one challenged us on this one - so let’s push it a bit more next time round’.

I’ve had it with the GI project’s ‘scope creep’. From ‘be kind’ to ‘’capitulate’.

But of course.
Night follows day.
If there's dog poo in the pavement, you'll step on it.
Bears shit in the woods.
Popes are Catholics.
And trans activists get to re-define sex-based language.
Immutable laws of the universe.

There's another doozy of a document about pronouns too:

https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/trans-resources/supporting/

There's a section called "What if cisgender people decline to share their pronouns?". The answer proscribed is:

"If a cisgender person refuses to share, it implies that pronouns are trivial, since theirs are “obvious”. It does not provide for an inclusive space."

Note that in a previous section titled "What if someone is hesitant to share their pronouns?" the answer given is:

"Introduce yourself with your pronouns: “Hi, I’m J.D. and my pronouns are they/them/theirs.” You’re allowing the other person to share theirs, but not forcing them to. Sometimes people are fearful of disclosing their pronouns due to past response. Provide a safe space for them to do so if possible."

So "cisgender" people are to be censured for not giving pronouns, whereas other people are allowed to refuse....

But the world is still a village because someone knew where to look
https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/389318/here-s-the-tim-who-approved-john-s-hopkins-definition-of-lesbian

Let's hope @ArabeIIaScott .

Let's hope they rewrite it correctly, and don't just pull the whole thing forever.

So…
my sister is not my sister, but a Non-Man. And her wife, my sister-in-law, is also a Non-Man. And together they are two Non-Men.

Whereas I, sister and sister-in-law to these two Non-Men, am a -?-

Or is it only your sexual orientation that magically deem you a Non-Man?

well, that can get to fuck in a handlebar.

And a bit of a u-turn
https://themessenger.com/news/johns-hopkins-says-it-pulled-lesbian-definition-from-its-lgbtq-glossary-after-backlash

‘More than a non-man,
More than a non-man to meeee’

Don't forget Britney's "I'm Not a Non-boy, Not Yet a Non-man"

Non-man in non-green?

Actual footage of them creating the glossary

Plus, we now declare the Greens to be non-Reds so as to be inclusive to all colours and Labour to be the non-Leisure party, to be inclusive to all lifestyle choices which are of course equally valid.

Let's not forget Helen Reddy's "I Am Non-man".

I think we simply need to re-write well known songs to highlight the utter stupidity of this:

1. I'm just a non-man in love
2. I'm every non-man, it's all in me
3. Who run the world? Adolescent non-men / non-boys
4. All the non-men who independent
5. When a man loves a non-man
6. Man, I feel like a non-man

And my personal favourites:

1. You make me feel like a natural non-man (non-maaaaan)
2. Rock on gold dust non-man, take your silver spoon, dig your grave.

At least that thing said “women/non-men”. Fucking bonkers to me that a woman who identifies as NB would want to be referred to as a “non-man” though.

I’ve got that right? People like Sara Ramirez and Elliot Page refer to themselves as a “non-man”. That’s the suggestion?

I might have been thinking of this, but I thought it was more recent https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/feminists-mock-green-party-young-women-s-invite-to-nonmen-a6987061.html

Didn’t the Greens’ women’s group (led by a TW obv) refer to women as “non men” fairly recently - or did I dream this?

I had to Google to check that was actually a real screenshot as it seems so bonkers it couldn't be true. Seems it is. So lesbians can now be anything other than men, so if a zebra fancies another zebra its a lesbian? I'm so confused! I always thought they were human women.

draw it on a piece of paper and take a photo 😁