Johns Hopkins defining lesbians as ‘non-men’ does nothing to help trans and non-binary people

Just add both? (Credits: Getty Images)

Johns Hopkins has found itself in hot water after removing the word ‘woman’ from its definition of ‘lesbian’ in its online LGBTQ+ glossary.

To coincide with Pride month, the Maryland-based US university updated its inclusive language guide, instead referring to lesbians as ‘non-men attracted to non-men’.

Explaining the decision, it said: ‘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.’

But, as many quickly noted online, the definition for ‘gay’ still included the word ‘men’, leading to accusations of sexism, homophobia and ‘erasing women’. 

The online glossary, which has now been removed (Picture: Johns Hopkins)

Sadly (but somewhat predictably) some of the criticisms on social media have included transphobic language, which, for obvious reasons, we won’t be quoting.

In trying to get it right, Johns Hopkins got inclusivity so very wrong. And as communications specialist Aby Hawker points out, these PR blunders do nothing to help the trans and non-binary community. 

‘Inclusivity means broadening the scope, not narrowing it,’ Aby, the founder of and CEO of TransMissionPR.com, a communications consultancy which specialises in trans and non-binary inclusion and awareness, tells Metro.co.uk. 

‘They would have nailed it if they had just acknowledged gender non-conforming people in addition to women in their definition of lesbian. 

‘Failing to do so just plays into the hands of those who see the increase in awareness around trans and non-binary identities as a threat, which it isn’t.’

At a time when two in five trans people and three in 10 non-binary people have experienced a hate crime or incident because of their gender identity in the last 12 months, language in this area has never mattered more.

‘Sadly, despite being well-intentioned, this new definition was poorly thought out and poorly executed. This is an incredibly sensitive area of communications right now,’ Aby adds.

‘We have seen plenty of examples in the media of how these things play out and organisations need to get better at doing their due diligence.

The focus must be on protecting this marginalised community and building greater awareness and understanding, not isolating them further.’ 

In response to the backlash, Johns Hopkins has removed the online glossary and posted the following statement: 

‘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 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.’

MORE : I was scared to get my first smear test after coming out as a trans man

MORE : A trans person modelled a Nike women’s sports bra. So what?

‘Inclusivity means broadening the scope, not narrowing it.’