What to Say Instead of “Womxn” and Why It Matters
originally published November 18, 2021; revised April 18, 2025
When we seek to use inclusive language, our intention might not always match the impact of our word choices.
Words like womxn and women+ were once applauded in so-called radical spaces for attempting to acknowledge and include trans and non-binary folks. Today, these terms aren’t as inclusive as they once claimed to be.
Let’s break this down.
Trans Women Are Women—No Asterisk Needed
Terms like womxn and women+ imply that trans women are somehow separate from the word women. This suggestion—that trans women require an “update” to the word to be included—is based on a misunderstanding at best, and an act of exclusion at worst.
If we affirm that trans women are women (spoiler: they are), then the word “women” already includes them. No additional symbols or characters are necessary. The idea that we need to modify the term is rooted in a cisnormative understanding of gender—a belief system that centers cisgender people and sees their identities as the default.
Using the word women, full stop, is inclusive of both cis and trans women. The fact that dominant culture doesn’t yet recognize this truth is part of the cultural shift we must work toward.
The Histories Behind the Words
There’s important context to understand about how these alternative spellings came to be:
Womyn emerged in the 1970s as an effort to separate the word "women" from the word "men" as part of feminist language reform. However, it was quickly co-opted into trans-exclusionary feminist spaces, most notably the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival, which enforced a “womyn-born-womyn” policy that explicitly excluded trans women.
Womxn was initially offered as a more inclusive term—one that sought to honor the existence of trans women and signal inclusivity. In its time, it was a well-meaning attempt. But as our collective understanding has evolved, many of us see how it still subtly reinforces transness as “other” and risks upholding the very binary it claims to subvert.
Language evolves. And as our understanding of gender and inclusion deepens, so must the ways we communicate.
What About Non-Binary and Genderqueer People?
Here’s where it gets even more complex: These so-called “inclusive” terms—womxn, women+, womanish—are often used to signal inclusion of non-binary and genderqueer people. But in doing so, they risk reducing us to the margins of a binary framework we don’t belong to in the first place.
Non-binary people aren’t a footnote to womanhood. We aren’t an afterthought to men or women. And placing us under a “+” or a stray “x” is not the liberatory gesture it’s often framed to be. It’s another example of how dominant language frameworks—even well-meaning ones—can reinforce the very systems of power and exclusion they aim to disrupt.
Language Alone Is Not Liberation
So, what’s the alternative?
In my workshops, we talk a lot about intent vs. impact. About how language can be both powerful and performative. About how true allyship—or co-conspiracy, to use Bettina Love’s framing—is about action, not just optics.
When we create offerings, spaces, events, or containers, we need to:
Be specific. Who is this for? Say it clearly. Instead of relying on shorthand like “for women,” try: “This space is designed for people who have experienced gender-based oppression, including cis women, trans women, and others impacted by misogyny.”
Get descriptive. If your content is related to physical bodies or medical realities, say what you mean. Phrases like “birthing people” or “folks who menstruate” can offer clarity without reinforcing binary norms.
Do the deeper work. Changing language doesn’t automatically shift the dynamics of power in a room, a business, or a movement. If your space isn’t actually affirming for trans people—or if you haven’t taken considerations to create a culture of accountability and repair when harm happens—then changing your copy isn’t enough.
Don’t Just Say “Inclusive.” Be Inclusive.
We live in a culture that rewards performance—especially in online spaces. Performative inclusion is not the same as liberatory practice.
It’s not about using the “right” word. It’s about interrogating why we use the words we do, who we’re trying to center, and how our choices either reinforce or challenge the status quo.
The equity and inclusion work I facilitate is grounded in frameworks of power, privilege, and systemic awareness. It’s about seeing language not as a checklist or a script, but as a reflection of deeper values and lived commitments.
Let’s stop creating new words to patch over old problems.
Let’s start building cultures—and communities—that truly affirm the full spectrum of gender.
Want to Learn More?
If you’re navigating these questions in your workplace or personal life, I offer consulting, workshops, and training on these exact themes. Learn more about:
Creating Safer Spaces
Trans 101+: Foundations for Allies + Advocates
Conscious Marketing for Equity-Driven Work