Accurate and trans*-inclusive language as a starting point to unite feminist struggles
In Belgium, the 11th of November is not just Armistice Day but also Nationale Vrouwendag, National Women’s Day. As the day approaches, I would like to appeal to feminist activists and organisers to choose a clear, uniting and accurate language for their writing and events.
By Lee Eisold
In many countries, trans*-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) are becoming louder and trans* rights are publicly discussed as if they were two legitimate sides of an argument. Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling is probably the most well-known example of these self-proclaimed feminists that deny trans* and non-binary people their identities, exclude trans* women from women-only spaces and label trans* masculine people as victims of internalised misogyny. Due to her popularity, she manages to reach a wide audience and contribute significantly to the popularity of terf narratives.
Rowling might be one of the loudest but she is not alone. In Germany, the planned introduction of a self-determination law (similar to the Belgian one) that allows trans* people to easily change our names and gender markers on legal documents has triggered heated debates in the media. It is now possible to openly question our rights even in left-leaning newspapers. Violent physical attacks on trans* people are rising and Kim de l’Horizon, the non-binary winner of this year’s German Book Price needs professional protection.
Everyone who identifies as a woman is a woman. Trans* women are women. They should be included in the general definition of women. If for you, the word ‘women’ needs a special addition to include trans* women, you are playing into the idea that trans* women are not real women
Although hostile discussions of trans* rights and lives hold a less central place in current Belgian debates, they are nonetheless present in universities and media. Groen politician Jenna Boeve, for example, regularly receives trans*-hostile comments when she speaks and acts in public. The platform that Griet Vandermassen receives with her regular column in De Standaard is another clear sign that also in Belgium, trans* and non-binary people’s right to a good and self-determined life can be openly rejected without consequences. Against scientific evidence, her texts question that mental and physical healthcare for trans* and non-binary people are effective and life-saving. The columns in which she spreads this dangerous misinformation as well as those in which she calls unconditional respect for all gender identities ‘extremism’, are clearly geared towards creating a moral panic that will make it even more difficult for us to be accepted and to receive affirming healthcare.
In 2019, the Belgian Constitutional Court ruled that the government has to create a legal option to register genders outside of the male-female binary. So far, the only change planned by the government is to no longer display binary gender on ID cards. If any further-reaching changes were to be introduced in the future, it is not unlikely that the already existing trans*-hostile narratives will gain a similar force as they have in Germany.
In this climate, it becomes increasingly important for organisations, events, spaces and articles to define what they mean when they say and write ‘women’ — to position themselves against TERFs and emphasise that trans* and non-binary people are welcome. Imprecise attempts to do so are without doubt well-intentioned but they are also clumsy and sometimes painfully reproducing misleading, trans*-hostile narratives.
Unwittingly playing into trans*-hostile narratives
One way to supposedly signal inclusiveness is adding an asterisk to the term ‘women’ (women*), sometimes followed by the explanation ‘all those who identify as women’. This is an empty phrase. Everyone who identifies as a woman is a woman. Trans* women are women. They should be included in the general definition of women. If for you, the word ‘women’ needs a special addition to include trans* women, you are playing into the idea that trans* women are not real women. If you want to highlight that trans* women are welcome, you can simply say so. You could, for example, substitute ‘women’ with ‘cis and trans* women’ or explain: “Trans* women are of course included in our understanding of women and are welcome.”
You might have noticed that I am only writing about trans* women in connection with this formulation. The word ‘women’ (with or without asterisk) can not be used to include other trans* and non-binary people — especially not those who were labelled as female when they were born (‘assigned female at birth’ or ‘afab’ for short). Trans* men and afab non-binary and genderqueer people are not women and we do not ‘identify as women’ either. Being misgendered as women is the microaggression we face and fight every day. We will not feel addressed and welcomed by the term ‘women’ but rather pushed out or forgotten.
The importance of exact terminology
In passing, I have already introduced another way of talking about gendered experiences: ‘assigned male/female at birth’ (amab/afab), describing the gendered label that is put on our bodies when we are born. Alternatively, some people speak about ‘male/female socialisation or upbringing’. These formulations can be helpful in certain contexts, such as this article. ‘Assigned male/female at birth’ might be appropriate to speak about the gendered assumptions and stereotypes that people face, especially during childhood and, for trans* people, before the start of their (inner/social/medical/legal) transition. It can also be a useful umbrella term for the shared experiences of trans*, non-binary and genderqueer people who were assigned the same gender at birth. For example, trans* men are not the only ones who might get mastectomies (the surgical removal of breasts). Some afab non-binary people do as well.
All of these formulations are context-specific: they are helpful and appropriate in some contexts but inaccurate or even painful and exclusionary in others
Another formulation you might encounter is ‘who is read male/female’. It describes how other people perceive the person in question without assuming that this perception is correct. This can be necessary when you are describing a person whose gender identity you do not know. It signals that you are aware that not everyone who looks male to you is indeed a man. It emphasises that gender identity cannot be deduced from a person’s outward appearance.
In the context of health, pregnancy or sexuality, it can be important to speak about bodies. Explicitly naming body parts, organs and hormones or their functions is the most accurate formulation here. Many (not all) people with uteruses can get pregnant. This is independent of their gender identity and even of the presence or absence of hormones or other body parts.
All of these formulations are context-specific: they are helpful and appropriate in some contexts but inaccurate or even painful and exclusionary in others. Be careful not to overuse them. Think about what you really want to say and if it is necessary to refer to a certain part of people’s experience that, for some trans* people, might be painful. For example, it is correct that I was assigned female at birth and am read female by many. However, this is a painful reality that I would prefer you not to emphasise unless it is absolutely central to your point.
Be aware that the formulations above overlap but are not synonymous. Someone might have been assigned female at birth but is today perceived as male in everyday situations, while at the same time having the ability to become pregnant. Someone else might have been assigned male at birth but experiences misogyny and sexism daily because they are read female.
From Women’s Day to International Day of Feminist Struggle
For occasions such as (inter)national days, I would like to highlight a formulation that is becoming increasingly popular in left-leaning contexts in Germany: In recent years, some activist groups, organisers and writers have renamed the 8th of March as Internationaler Feministischer Kampftag, which translates to International Day of Feminist Struggle or simply International Feminist Day.
This is a unifying terminology. It allows all feminists to come together, independent of gender identity. It works without reducing trans* and non-binary people to how others see us or what others ascribe to us. It helps to emphasise shared values, visions and utopias in a collective fight against patriarchal oppression and for rights and equality.
Are you prepared to react in a respectful way towards a participant who you (and society more broadly) read as male? If you host a space that welcomes everyone who experiences sexism, including trans* and non-binary people, are you careful not to assume that everyone present is a woman?
From language to actions
Of course, the right terminology is only the first step. If you invite and welcome us, you also need to think about the practicalities. If you plan a women-only event that is also open for trans* women (and maybe even non-binary people), please remember that they might not look the way society imagines women. Are you prepared to react in a respectful way towards a participant who you (and society more broadly) read as male? If you host a space that welcomes everyone who experiences sexism, including trans* and non-binary people, are you careful not to assume that everyone present is a woman? Are you willing to get rid of formulations such as ‘us women’ when you talk about misogyny and patriarchal oppression? Are you also prepared to navigate other participants’ discomfort and correct their misgendering? How can you make sure that this space is safe enough for trans* and non-binary people, so that we actually feel welcome?
* I write trans* with an asterisk to signal a wide variety of trans* identities. I use trans* as an umbrella term for many, including non-binary or agender, genderqueer identities. However, not all non-binary people and people with other identities outside of the gender binary (male-female) use trans* as a label for themselves. I try to take this into account by adding non-binary as a second umbrella term.
Lee Eisold is a non-binary person who moved from Germany to Belgium in 2021 to start a PhD at KU Leuven. Lee looks at queer issues and different forms of discrimination both from a personal and activist as well as a research perspective.
