Amidst the impassioned debate, the question stands,

What defines a lesbian in these shifting sands?

Once deemed straightforward, now complexities arise,

Let’s confront the matter, with clear and open eyes.

Now we find, in this LGBT glossary’s text,

A new definition, to perplex about sex,

“A non-man attracted to non-men,” it claims,

A linguistic twist, in society’s aims.

But wait, does it define gay men the same way?

As “non-women,” without delay?

Curiously, no, it seems quite plain,

A gay man is simply a man, not strained.

So, a man remains a man, that much is true,

But a woman, it seems, is a non-man in view,

A linguistic twist, a curious change of phrase,

But will it catch on? The wider public nay says.

Yet fret not, for this term may not endure,

Social media outcries have their own allure,

Women, or non-men, deemed the new term sexist,

JK Rowling and Martina Navratilova were not remiss.

JK Rowling penned an ice-cold parody,

“Non-man: a void without manhood,” merrily,

While Navratilova deemed it an “erasure of women,”

The glossary’s fate, now on the dimmer side, is given.

Critics argued that this definition was erased,

The essence of women, their identities misplaced,

Johns Hopkins chastened, removed the glossary,

Failing to foresee the uproar, unfortunately.

Curiously, within the glossary’s separate ink,

“Trans woman” is used, a discrepancy some think,

This means trans women are women, that is clear,

women, in this context, logically are non-men it appears

In summary, a man remains a man,

While a woman is a non-man, the plan,

A linguistic development that sparks debate,

Against women, I say, these are crimes of hate.