After witnessing talk that the Johns Hopkins University LGBTQ+ glossary had labelled women “non-men”, the Hound had to investigate the veracity of such a picture. 

After some digging, lo and behold! One of America’s most prestigious institutions has indeed defined a woman as a “non-man”.

In its progressive definition of ‘lesbian’, the wise academics at JHU defined it as: “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.”

This flashy new definition of lesbianism is remarkable in its attempt to erase not just women from our language, but homosexual women. 

What this progressive definition also does is reduce the sufficient conditions for womanhood to the lowest bar possible – merely, not being a man. So, a tree, a plug socket, toilet roll, a piece of music, are all also “non-men” – are they women too? They may as well be in this misogynistic worldview which is almost resistant to giving women personhood status. 

And, of course, this is not reflexive. Men are not described as non-women. Men retain their personhood, if not their biological definition, as in this glossary anyone can choose to be absolutely anything they want to be. But at least men are not defined solely by what they are not.

If this definition was to be adopted by law – and there are many campaigning for such a move – what a terrible erasure of women’s rights it would prove to be. 

The madness is not exclusive to the US. Just yesterday, Miriam Cates MP gave a courageous speech in a debate in Parliament supporting a petition to make clear that, in the Equality Act 2010, ‘sex’ refers to biological sex and not someone’s ‘gender identity’.

As her speech made clear, society stands to gain nothing but confusion from the progressive attempt to erase the reality of biological sex. It will only endanger society’s most vulnerable women and girls. 

Today’s progressives are anything but.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at