I don’t use the words womxn or women+. Here’s why.
originally published November 18, 2021, revised June 27, 2024
When we seek to use inclusive language, our intention might not match the impact of our word choices.
In my opinion, words like womxn and women+ are not as inclusive as many of us might think.
Though often applauded in "radical" spaces and communities, both of these terms imply that trans women need to be separate and distinct from the word women.
If we recognize that trans women are indeed women (surprise, they are!), we don't need another term to include their identities.
Which means that women is naturally an inclusive term—an umbrella term for cis and trans women, though clearly our dominant culture doesn't yet recognize it as such. This is part of the culture shift we all need to be working towards with our language and actions.
It's also important to note that womyn and womxn have two distinct undertones and histories, though both terms seek to challenge patriarchy.
Womyn was coined as part of the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, often referred to as MWMF or Michfest, a feminist women's music festival held annually from 1976 to 2015 that excluded trans women, claiming a "womyn-born womyn" policy.
Womxn was coined as a way to signal a more inclusive spelling of the word that aimed to recognize and honor trans women as women. At the time of its origin, womxn was considered a radically inclusive term. And with time, our language shifts and evolves.
I also wonder if folks consider non-binary identity and experiences when using terms like womxn, or the newer women+ and womanish. Ultimately, these supposedly inclusive terms ultimately reinforce and uphold the gender binary, reducing non-binary and genderqueer folks to a binary categorization. This is harmful, and the opposite of what I seek to challenge in my work.
FACT: Trans women are women. And grouping non-binary people with binary identities is harmful.
When we aim to create new language to "include" historically and currently marginalized populations, we may actually be further othering or marginalizing them. Getting intentional and critical with our language can have a significant impact.
I recommend we specify who our spaces are for—ie "this space will center those most impacted by patriarchy, sexism, and misogyny," or "this offering is designed for birthing bodies and bodies that menstruate."
We can recognize, affirm, and include more people with our language choices, and using more words isn't a bad thing!
And of course, maybe whatever you’re offering doesn’t need to be gendered as you share it with the world—ie if you’re someone who “works with women,” think about who you’re including/excluding with this messaging and what harmful cultural narratives you might be unintentionally perpetuating.