Trans-inclusive language is language that acknowledges that some people identify as a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth, including genders that our culture does not technically recognize as existing. It can be really hard at first (I’m trans, and I still used to have problems with it), but I really think it’s worthwhile. Not only does it make trans people reading your article experience less dysphoria, but it’s a simple way to raise awareness of the existence and humanity of trans people.
Unfortunately, some people’s use of trans-inclusive language… well, they’re trying. They’re definitely trying. (See also: my school advertising a self-defense class for “female-bodied” people. What the fuck does that word even mean?) So I have decided to write a guide to which words you might want to use in which circumstances.
Word: People.
To be used when: Gender is not relevant to the situation. There are lots of times that we only use “men and women” because we’re used to it, and you could actually say “people” just as well and be inclusive of nonbinary people such as myself.
Example: Replace “our servicemen and women” with “our servicepeople.” Replace “men and women are parents” with “people are parents.”
Word: People who have [insert gendered body part here]; people with [gendered body part]; [insert gendered body part]-owners/havers.
To be used when: You’re talking about health or particular body parts that happen to be gendered.
Example: Use “people with penises” in an article on blowjob technique. Instead of saying “the Republicans’ policies on abortion would seriously harm women,” say “the Republicans’ policies on abortion would seriously harm people with uteruses.”
Word: Female/male assigned at birth.
To be used when: What gender the doctor said you were when you were born is important. Practically, this is going to come up in about two major situations that I can think of: people talking about childhood and adolescence, and people talking about trans* issues. About half the time that female assigned at birth/male assigned at birth is used, some other term would be more inclusive. (For instance, don’t say “male-assigned-at-birth people have penises”, since many male-assigned-at-birth people do not.)
Example: ”Transmisogyny affects trans people who were male assigned at birth.” “Babies who were female assigned at birth tend to be complimented on their beauty as babies, while male assigned at birth babies tend to be complimented on their strength.”
Word: Read as female/male; presenting as female/male.
To be used when: What matters is whether other people see you as female or male.
Example: ”People who are read as female are far more likely to be sexually harassed.” “Many people are disturbed when someone they read as male cries in public.”
Word: Cis women/men.
To be used when: You’re just talking about cis people. It’s okay to do that sometimes! Cis people and trans people often have very different experiences, and it’s okay to discuss just cis people’s experiences without being inclusive of trans people. However, it is not okay to do that and not acknowledge that the people you’re excluding are still their genders. (It’s also not cool to always exclude trans people, but that’s a different topic.)
Example: Writing an article about cis women’s body image issues, because trans women’s issues intersect with transmisogyny and gender dysphoria in a way you don’t have space to analyze. Talking about cis men’s relationship to their penises.
Basically, trans-inclusive language is an exercise in thoughtfulness and mindful writing. Don’t just swap in “female assigned at birth” for “female” and expect to be awesome; instead, consider what you’re actually saying and say that.
Photo– public domain. The transgender pride flag.
About ozyfrantz
Also, neutral third-party pronouns are weird. Everybody I’ve seen that uses them uses a different set.
This doesn’t make it a bad thing to use neutral third-party pronouns. It just means that most cispeople are going to look at you funny. “Why not just use ‘he or she?’”
I highly reccomend the use of the singular they.
I overwhelmingly recommend singular “they”. Both for trans folk and for cis folk.
The one problem I run into, however, is that singular “they” can be too distant/impersonal for many situations. When talking about “this friend of mine went to the store and they…” it’s perfectly natural. But when you’re chatting and you say “I agree with what they said”, when they’re standing right there!, it comes across as rude. This really is the only downside to singular “they”, but it can be a big one.
(Offending prescriptivists who are unaware of the history of English doesn’t count as a downside for me
Male and Female are biological terms for sex, not gender. They are not subject to assignment or change. If you have two X chromosomes, you are female. If you have an X and a Y (or in rare cases, two X’s and a Y), you’re male. This works the same for Homo Sapiens as it does for most other mammals.
How many people actually have had chromosomal testing? When they decide what to write on the birth announcements, people are picking based on their impression of the organization of an infants external genitalia. That’s assignment, in my book.
There are quite a few people to whom this does not apply, because chromosomes are weird. They can be anything from an X without an accompanying chromosome to an X with two Y’s. You can’t just say that chromosomes are the end-all be-all of sex.
Chromosomal sex in humans runs the gamut: X, XY, XX, XXY, XYY, XXX, XXXY, XXYY, XXXX, XXXXX,… with XXY and XYY being quite common and quite commonly asymptomatic. Moreover, you cannot necessarily ascribe a single chromosomal sex to an individual. People can perfectly well have some cells which are configured in one pattern (e.g., XY) and others are configured in a different pattern (e.g., XX). And even if you choose to ignore the diversity of karyotypes, and to ignore the presence of chimerae/mosaics, even if you only limit yourself to considering XX and YY individuals, those karyotypes do not map perfectly onto physiological/anatomical sex. For example, plenty of males are XX.
And, of course, the rampant diversity in chromosomal sex doesn’t even begin to touch on the diversity of physiological sex; i.e., intersex individuals. Nor does it touch on surgically coercive assignment of “gender” at birth (often without notifying the parents) for people whose penises are “too small” or whose clitorises are “too big”. And even leaving “ambiguous” genitalia aside, we also have people who are born with the external sexual characteristics of women but whose bodies morph during puberty to show the external sexual characteristics of men.
Biological sex is no less complicated than cultural gender. Anyone who says otherwise has clearly never taken a course on genetics or sexual differentiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter%27s_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_X_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXXX_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXXXX_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)#Human_chimeras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_(genetics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-alpha-reductase_deficiency
On the “people who have [body part]“: it might be good to add that it is not ok to use this language as code for men/women[/whichever gender is usually assumed to possess that part]. One example, I’ve heard a number of gay men [some of whom, upon further conversation, *are* theoretically open to dating trans men] say “I just like penises”.
@ Fred: nothing in nature is that neat. Besides chromosomal sex [which almost no one has tested, btw - most of the time you're just assuming that it correlates with observable features], there is also gonadal sex, genital sex, hormonal sex, and brain sex. None of these are strictly correlated. If someone is assigned female at birth, identifies as female, has female typical external genitalia, breats, and XY chromosomes [look up CAIS], why does a functionally irrelevant sextion of DNA define her? Chromosomal sex is fine if you’re talking about population genetics [where intersex and trans people are likely statistically insignificant], but on a day-to-day interaction basis [you know, where you might actually be interacting with trans people, kind of the point of the article], any individual’s chromosomal sex/reproductive capacity is irrelevant. So why not be respectful?
Ozy – as usual I do find the whole issue of language – how it is created – defined – used …. well to me it’s fascinating! But – I do have to take exception with this:
“Basically, trans-inclusive language is an exercise in thoughtfulness and mindful writing.
The written word has two phases – 1) the writing followed by 2) the reading. I love it when people are mindful as they write …. but despair out how mindless so many are when they read.
NO matter how mindful you are there is no way anyone person can be mindful of how what they have written can and will be MIS interpreted and MIS used by others. It has been ever thus! P^)
It’s easy to get tied up on knots and I do have to point out that waht you have said implies that only cis men have penises – and then all trans men don’t have them! Whoops! Aint language a tricky little sucker! P^)
When Ozy says ‘cis men’s relationship to their penises’, that doesn’t imply that only cis men have penises, just that cis men may generally relate to their penises in a different way than, say, trans women with penises.
This is just personal preference, but I like “folk” (e.g. trans folk) as opposed to “people.”
For one thing, it’s one syllable, which is nice; for another, it invokes the phrase “queer as folk,” which itself invokes the phrase, “there’s nowt so queer as folk”, meaning “there’s nothing as strange as people.”
The latter is significant here because queer is a word with multiple meanings: queer can mean odd, or it can be used to refer to nonconformity with regard to sex or gender.
I personally feel that there is an individual gender for each and every person on the planet — meaning we’re all a little weird, off, or, for lack of a better phrase, “queer,” though some are more queer than others.
Ergo, for me, the word “folk” invokes people in all their variety and glory.
I wish there were different words for male/female depending on whether you’re referring to sex or to gender. there are times when it is useful to refer only to one or the other without having to spend a bunch of time trying to carefully explain the difference.