7/6/2023 0 Comments Folks vs folxIs it so bad to put in a little effort in that regard? But Often, They Do More Harm Than Good You might have to get creative, or use a few more words than you want. It’s not the worst thing in the world to just be specific in our language. It’s true that, if you really have to go there, there isn’t a good word for “non-cis-men.” But even if there was, having a “catch-all” term to describe everyone but cis men still centers them as a point of reference. Trans and non-binary people actually aren’t a sub-category of “real” or “regular” women – which is what “womxn” implies. Who identifies with “womxn” other than cis women who are attempting to signal inclusivity? I, and every other trans woman I know or have ever heard of or can imagine, identify as a woman. I recently got a PR e-mail about an “intentionally diverse” conference featuring a slate of “BIPOC, women/womxn, non-binary speakers.” But what does this actually mean? What is the point of using “womxn” if you also use “women”? Who are these “womxn,” especially when the statement also says “non-binary?” On their website, every speaker featured uses she/her pronouns, except for one person who also uses “we/they” in addition to “she.” Īs with the acronym BIPOC, there’s still a lot of confusion about what these terms mean. Screenshot of Google Image search results for “womxn,” captured by author At Best, Performative Spellings Are Confusing “Inclusive” spellings have a long, meaningful history, but the current usage, especially replacing certain vowels in words with an “x,” leaves much to be desired – and might actually be actively harmful. This is only one aspect of the language-based performative allyship that’s suffused social discourse over the last few years (acronyms can also be head-scratchers – see our roundtable “What Do We Mean When We Say BIPOC”). Putting the x in “womxn,” for example, just reinforces to me that I’m not a “woman” – I’m a “womxn.” And is “womxn” inclusive of non-binary people? I have my doubts. It’s easy, and is typically as useful as you’d expect from an effort that requires essentially no effort. The cultural discourse version of defaulting to bathrooms is performatively “inclusive” spelling. Then the pandemic started and I never heard from them again. Tweet from and IG post from gently informed them that it was actually neither, and that there were clearly more foundational conversations that needed to happen before we got to the Slack channel question. One of the top-of-line, most important questions for me to weigh in on: was changing their “women’s” Slack channel to a “womxn’s” Slack channel a powerful move toward inclusion, as some members of the leadership team believed, or a disrespectful encroachment on cis womens’ spaces? Would making a Slack channel specifically for trans and non-binary people be a better move? In early 2020, I was asked to consult a San Francisco startup – they wanted the company to be more inclusive of LGBTQ+ people. Absent from actual culture shift at an organization, a gender-neutral bathroom is essentially a ghetto. But it’s hardly “inclusive” to create separate spaces for the weirdos to go pee, separate from everyone else, with the concomitant outing that frequently entails. Gender-neutral bathrooms are fine, especially if all bathrooms are gender-neutral. It would be miles more transformative if a workplace’s culture meant trans people could use whatever bathroom worked best for them without fearing harassment, for example. It’s one of the easiest, and one of the least significant, “inclusion” initiatives an organization can make. And every time – literally every single time – the cis people in the room would focus on gender-neutral bathrooms. During these trainings I would discuss a range of initiatives, strategies, and proposed policies organizations could undertake. I used to frequently facilitate trainings for corporations, organizations, and non-profits on how to be more inclusive to queer, trans, and gender non-conforming people.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |