Call me by my gender

While the world tries to shrug off the economic and social costs of the pandemic, some quarters are merrily thinking of ways to make life more difficult --in the taxonomy world, that is.

Lesbians and non-binary people are at the center of the swirling storm.

Johns Hopkins University, much admired for its medical prowess, and perhaps in its eagerness to be progressive, just published a new definition for lesbians. Its official glossary of terms suddenly redefined “lesbians” 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, our updated definition includes non-binary people who may also identify with the label.”

Meanwhile, “gay man” was defined as a “man who is emotionally, romantically, sexually, affectionately or relationally attracted to other men, or who identifies as a member of the gay community. At times, “gay” is used to refer to all people, regardless of gender, who have their primary sexual or romantic attractions to people of the same gender. “Gay” is an adjective (not a noun) as in “he is a gay man”.

Natch, the lesbians were furious. And JK Rowling, a fierce advocate for women’s rights and much-maligned for her trans views (as even I have had occasion to ponder) responded with the perceptive observation that a “man” needed no definition, while “non-man” was “a being definable only by reference to the male. An absence, a vacuum, where there’s no man-ness”.

As an aside, I would think lesbians would also be furious that the Johns Hopkins lesbian definition referred to “emotional, romantic and sexual” aspects, while the gay man definition was broader in scope --it added the areas of “affections” and “relations”. What, lesbians can’t feel affection or have relations?

Given the resulting uproar, Johns Hopkins quickly pulled down its glossary, and glossed over its culpability by disclaiming the lesbian definition --that supposedly, this wasn’t the official stance of the university (leaving the unlucky person manning the website sweating buckets, I suppose. Or perhaps, it was his boss responsible for deciding website entries, now wringing his hands as the online furor rages, and tennis legend Martina Navratilova and presidential candidate Nikki Haley turn their ire on the university).

So that’s that. Johns Hopkins isn’t leading the charge on progressive name-calling no more. Meanwhile, we are left, still, with an unresolved debate about how to handle the terminology of people who are non-binary. Or figuring out a good lesbian definition.

“Gay man” seems satisfactory to gay men. For females who are attracted to women, why not just stick to good ole’ “lesbian woman”? Are the lesbians objecting? If so, what would their objections be? That not all lesbians are women? In which case, perhaps the solution is to invent new terms for that specific category, rather than relabel everyone in the previous category. Like, “lesbian non-women”? “Lesbian wanna-be?” “Kinda lesbian”?

For non-binary people who prefer “they/them” pronouns, well. Demi Lovato got tired of using “they/them”, so she’s switching back to she/her. As she says, it was absolutely exhausting having to correct people and explaining her choice. So back to “she/her.” But she’s also keeping “they/them”. Because she’s still non-binary.

So difficult to keep track. It’s just like the time when Prince changed his name to a symbol, and everybody had to follow suit. The result was, the press just wrote about him as the “the artist formerly known as Prince”. Normal people just kept on using Prince, anyway.

What about giving them the category “neither”? Or just “fluid”, which is already being used nowadays? What about “tbd”, meaning “to be determined”? Or the “not yets”. Filipinos have a worthwhile alternative: “others”. And in their inclusivity, Filipinos always tell their friends “Don’t be others”.

It will be a long time before these definitions are perfected. Assuming it is capable of perfection, anyway. Meanwhile, could we hold off on proposing (and enforcing) new terms that may not necessarily be palatable to the world that will suffer the imposition? That way, the world might not be as divisive.

Did you hear the one about the National Health Service of the UK, which now proposes to relabel women as “cervix holders”?