Yesterday I wrote about an LGBTQ glossary that Johns Hopkins provided for its students to ensure that they offended nobody by using the wrong terms.

As you know, saying the wrong thing can be the equivalent of violence and genocide, so the school wanted to make sure we were all on the same page for what forms of newspeak we must spew at any given moment. Complying with the diktats of the woketariate is mandatory, after all.

A funny thing happened when people read it: lots of us noticed that the glossary completely eradicated the existence of women.

I’m not kidding. The biological beings we normies call “women” or “female” were defined by Johns Hopkins as “non-men.”

Man: no definition needed.
Non-man (formerly known as woman):
a being definable only by reference to the male. An absence, a vacuum where there's no man-ness. pic.twitter.com/cpSaSR2Vfg

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 13, 2023

There are, of course, so many things awful about what the University did. First of all, “non-man” is an extraordinarily broad category. It includes squirrels, apes, ants, and trees. Trees don’t get attracted to things other than the sun, sources of water, or sources of nutrition I assume, but they certainly fit into the category of “non-man.”

Those idiots who marry dolls and airplanes are now considered lesbians by Johns Hopkins.

A lesbian, in other words, is defined primarily in terms of manhood. This would, I assume, be considered a pretty odd way to ensure that “diversity and inclusion” is maximized. There are men and “non-men.” If you are a “non-man” attracted to a “non-man” you are a lesbian.

OK. Got it. Women don’t exist. We knew that you couldn’t define them. Now we know you think they are nonexistent.

So who made this definition, and why? Did, perhaps, a member of the Taliban join the faculty of Johns Hopkins without anybody noticing? It takes that level of misogyny to think of women as simple “non-men.”

It’s not implausible, I suppose, given how open the borders are of the United States. And since “diversity is our strength,” it could be that some affirmative action-loving Human Resources type decided to spice things up and include an Islamist terrorist on the faculty to diversify things.

But no, it turned out to be a transgender activist who wrote the glossary, and since no sane person wants to deny a transgender activist anything they want in an academic environment lest they become the next sacrifice to the woke gods, it actually got published as official advice from the university.

You try disagreeing with a transgender person in academia. You might as well stack up the firewood for your public burning.

You mean the author was a man?

— Andreas (@sf_andreas) June 13, 2023

This is a perfect microcosm of the insanity with which we are dealing. A man who pretends to be a woman defines women attracted to women entirely in terms of whether or not the people in question are men. It makes your head spin.

As you can see, the author of the glossary is a medical professional at one of the most prestigious medical schools in the world, and the weight of the university was put behind their definition because nobody has the courage or common sense to tell him “No.”

Without the cultural weight and power of JK Rowling to highlight the issue, Johns Hopkins would likely never have caved to the criticism and taken down this horribly offensive glossary. Nothing shows up on an academic website without lots of eyes looking it over, and that is especially true at an institution like Johns Hopkins which lives and dies by its reputation.

Paula Neira didn’t hop into the server and manipulate the HTML and sneak the definition up. A committee surely approved this definition.

The very best explanation for how this all happened is that the people involved were gutless cowards who didn’t want to fight the transgender person; the worst is that a committee actually debated and accepted the idea that there are two categories of people: “men,” and “non-men.”

I hope it is the former. I expect most people in a bureaucracy to be gutless cowards scared of an HR complaint. I fear, though, that the alphabet mafia conspires to come up with more ridiculous language to humiliate the rest of us. And everybody in a position of power is either on board with that goal or too scared to stand up for sanity.

Everything is a tug of war these days, and normal people are on the back foot. In this particular case, team sanity was able to push back and retake some ground, but there is no doubt that the army on offense is team alphabet. They seize territory, and either we fight back or we lose ground. Rinse, repeat.

In the great war of cultural attrition, we have been losing for a long time. Women have been losing their space and the respect they deserve as fully-fledged, unique human beings. There is no space that is distinctively theirs anymore. They are now “birthing persons,” “menstruators,” or now “non-men.”

Modern feminism has been engaged in a war on femininity as a good in itself, and now modern alphabet ideology wants to erase the existence of femalehood. Scientific American made the absurd claim that the concept “female” was invented in the 18th century (it wasn’t), and I guess the alphabet people think it was a mistake to do so. They want women gone from society.

There is, however, some hope. Until recently we were losing every battle, and now we are winning some too. Public opinion is finally solidifying and for the most part, people agree with us.

That’s good, of course. But it’s not sufficient. Every H.R. department is run by a loon, the White House is pushing the most radical policies in the world, and the education system from K-PhD is against us.

This is going to be a long fight. It’s nice to chalk up a win every now and then.

UPDATE: From Johns Hopkins:

“The LGBTQ Glossary is a resource posted on the website of the Johns Hopkins University Office of Diversity and Inclusion (ODI); the definitions were not reviewed or approved by ODI leadership and the language in question has been removed pending review. Paula Neira and Dr. Sherita Golden are leaders at Johns Hopkins Medicine and have no involvement in this university matter.”