I'm a Woman. Don't Call me a Non-Man

Women have shared their concern about the erasure of "all female identities" after Johns Hopkins University used the phrase "non-man" to describe lesbians.

The Baltimore-based university received backlash online after defining "lesbian" as "a non-man attracted to non-men" in its glossary of LGBTQ+ terms.

The update, which has since been removed from the website, was initially meant to be inclusive of non-binary individuals, who may still identify as lesbians.

However the definition was labeled misogynistic, with social media users pointing out that the guide does not use similarly non-binary-inclusive language for the term "gay man."

Johns Hopkins University has temporarily taken down the glossary from its website while it looks into "the origin and context of the glossary's definitions" and stated that the guide is not intended to "serve as the definitive answers as to how all people understand or use these terms."

Here, women share with Newsweek their views on the use of the term "non-man".

This Language Pushes Us Back Years

In my view, Johns Hopkins describing women as a "non-man" is outrageous and an insult to women everywhere, especially those who want to be known as women.

I believe it strips us of our biological makeup and makes identity more complex. In my opinion, it suggests that women are irrelevant, and it tramples on women's rights and equality that we have fought so hard for.

In my experience, the majority of women in the workplace are happy to be identified as such. It's part of our identity. I feel that this has a lot of wider implications long term, especially around equity.

Johns Hopkins is a prominent research university and one of the first of its kind. A lot of research and opinions that come from the institution are used worldwide. This could mean other institutions calling women "non-men", which is a term I personally do not gravitate towards.

It puts us back years as there is more to fight for. The adoption of this term in the workplace is problematic too, as it brings into play the gender bias that we are fighting so hard against.

Evelyn Okpanachi, 46, from London, is a leadership and women's empowerment expert

I Trained at Johns Hopkins, I'm Dismayed

Johns Hopkins has long been regarded as the premier institution nationally—perhaps globally—for biomedical sciences. I was fortunate to get excellent training and research opportunities from this institution.

I am utterly dismayed that my alma mater would subvert all of the biology that it so assiduously taught me. If Hopkins has decided to cast biology aside, what use is my hard won degree?

In my opinion, Hopkins has decided to pander to the post-modern ideologues who demand intellectual submission to factually untrue statements that serve to erase the humanity, biology, and progress of women.

I refuse to be defined as "non-man". I define myself. I am a woman. I reject the narrative that men are women; it is objectively false.

Perhaps we need to have the broader philosophical discussion about whether or not science should be based on objective reality or whether it ought to bend to ideological mandates. I am ready to have that discussion now.

Dr. Amy Chai, 59, from New Haven County, is a physician, educator and author.

I'm Bisexual, I'm Horrified by This Language

I am a bisexual woman and I was deeply horrified by Johns Hopkins using this language.

In the most charitable possible interpretation, I feel it's a clumsy attempt to include non-binary and gender non-conforming people. But, in my opinion, it should have been obvious to the people making this change that this was not the right way to do it.

It's also concerning that they apparently didn't want to include non-binary and gender-non-conforming people in their definition of "gay".

In my role as co-founder of a diversity and inclusion consultancy, I often run workshops with clients to help them build directories of definitions of inclusive terms, and we always stress the importance of involving staff and key stakeholders in this process, rather than these terms being dictated from above.

Clearly, not enough voices from within the lesbian community were involved in creating this definition. I think this shows how woefully lacking we are in language to describe non-binary and gender-nonconforming people, and how difficult a space this is for organizations to navigate.

We see similar clumsy effects when people are flailing for words to describe people from ethnic backgrounds that are in the minority in the country concerned, and they use non-white. In my experience, many people of color, quite reasonably, don't want to be defined in relation to white people. We have to stop defining under-represented and marginalized groups in relation to the dominant groups.

There's a lot of fear-mongering out there that inclusive terms are "erasing women". For example, I often hear right-wing commentators saying: "You can't say the word woman anymore," when in actual fact inclusive terms are about making space for everyone.

I believe that Johns Hopkins, unfortunately, has added fuel to the fire.

In my eyes, this demonstrates how all organizations make mistakes—everyone can get it wrong sometimes. The fear of making mistakes holds a lot of organizations back from taking any action at all, which is a real tragedy.

It's important that we all learn from this, and recognise that the important thing is to apologize, acknowledge the damage done, listen, learn and take steps to do better in future. Starting with ensuring greater representation of different groups in the decision-making process to make sure voices from these communities are heard.

Allegra Chapman is the Co-Creator of Watch This Sp_ce, an award-winning diversity and inclusion consultancy.

Women Are Being Failed by the Medical Field

Using the term "non-man" to describe women seems to me like a poor attempt to avoid wading into the complex waters of gender; yet it ends up erasing all female identities.

In my view, it takes away all of our hard-fought-for agency and reverts us to something from the past—degrading us to beings that only exist in relation to men rather than as our own, unique and varied people.

It also highlights something most women have experienced, which is having your identity defined by your relation to men.

I recently had a dentist tell me: "If I was his daughter" he wouldn't prescribe me antibiotics for a wisdom tooth infection. I was left untreated, in pain, and feeling belittled. I was angry with him but also myself, because I hadn't pointed out that I was his patient and not his daughter. I ended up needing surgery.

Given Johns Hopkins' role as a prestigious scientific institute, to me it acts as yet another indication of how often women are failed by doctors. Not just in my case, but in the case of every cis woman I know.

For many, it takes years for common disorders to be diagnosed, because our pain and symptoms are chalked up to hysteria.

For example, I know several people who had to wait years for their endometriosis to be finally diagnosed, despite it being a common illness that roughly 10 percent of women in the U.K. experience.

Describing everyone who identifies as a woman as "non-men" others us. I believe it implies that men are the norm, and we are not. In my eyes, it's outdated, has no place in society. We deserve to be seen for the complex beings we are.

Jennifer Smith, 25, lives in London.

Regressively Sexist Term

Defining women as "non-men" suggests that our only characteristic is "not being men". It is so regressively sexist that it sounds like it must have been something said about women in the far past. Women are half of humanity and, like men, we should be defined by what we are. Not by what we are not.

The fact that any 21st century medical institution would endorse anything this backwards, and this dismissive of women and girls, is appalling to me.

It is not, however, surprising to me. In my opinion, there has been a relentless social push from certain proponents of trans ideology to reduce women to stereotypes and to body parts—who can forget the headline which referred to women as "bodies with vaginas".

In my eyes, the motive for this dehumanization seems to be an attempt to divorce being a woman from being female, and largely for the sake of the few men who assert that they are women.

But what are they really claiming to be if we are only the absence of a man?

Lorelei H, 35, is a writer and women's rights campaigner from England.

Women Are Being Treated Like Witches

In my opinion, to suggest that a lesbian is not a woman is misogyny, pure and simple. But for an American university to suggest this is even more shocking.

It seems that people have forgotten women were not admitted into universities in the U.S. until the 1960s—they literally had to burn their bras in protest to be given the same privileges as men. And within just 60 years, these same institutions are seemingly, once again, trying to eradicate women.

In my view, not being able to use the word "woman" in an institutional context, states loud and clear that women are not as important as men, that women should not take up the same space as men and that women's voices should not be heard.

I believe that modern universities in the west have become dominated by left-wing groupthink, that silences debate. I feel they have fostered an anti-woman stance, where women who stand up for their own rights and the freedom to disagree with others, are branded TERFs and treated like witches.

It seems as though many people are so tangled up in trying to not discriminate against people who identify as trans that they are discriminating against women, who have been marginalized for centuries.

I believe this cult-like ideology is a new form of male violence towards women. It may not leave physical scars, but it is no less scarring for women as it tries to silence us and wrestle from us our hard-won freedoms and equality.

Let's not go back to burning our bras

Paola Diana is CEO, author and a woman's rights activist.

I'm a Lesbian, I've Distanced Myself From the LGBTQ Community

The Johns Hopkins website recently redefined "lesbian" as a "non-man attracted to non-men," igniting widespread concern and disappointment among women, including myself as a lesbian. This attempt to erase women from the conversation is deeply troubling.

As a prominent Twitter user, writer, activist, and a married lesbian, I spoke up. In fact, I've officially distanced myself from the LGBTQ community due to the erasure of women and lesbians.

The temporary removal of this offensive definition from Johns Hopkins provides some relief, but it underlines the ongoing fight to ensure that women and lesbians are not marginalized or erased.

A woman cannot be defined solely as a "non-man." Women deserve to be defined by their own attributes and strengths. We are beautiful, life-giving creatures vital to humanity's survival and flourishing.

I am not a "non-man." While I jokingly said on Twitter: "man, I feel like a non-man," a reference to Shania Twain, let me make it clear that I am unequivocally female and proud to be a woman who loves other women.

I refuse to let women and lesbians be erased, and I hope this issue has raised awareness among more people. Together, we must stand against this erasure and fight for the visibility and rights of women—adult female humans.

Heidi Briones is a writer and content creator from Portland.