What to Say Instead of “Womxn” and Why It Matters

originally published November 18, 2021; revised April 18, 2025; expanded 2026

QUICK LINKS:

+ THE SHORT ANSWER
+ TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN
+ THE HISTORIES BEHIND THE WORDS
+ NONBINARY & GENDERQUEER PEOPLE
+ THE LARGER PATTERN
+ GENDER & OUR AUDIENCE
+ WHAT TO SAY INSTEAD
+ FOUR QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

+ “DOESN’T THIS ERASE WOMEN?”
+ LANGUAGE IS A BEGINNING
+ COMMON QUESTIONS
+ FURTHER LEARNING

THE SHORT ANSWER

Use women when you mean women. Women includes trans women, and it always has. And also, be sure you’re ready to truly welcome, serve, and affirm trans women.

When you mean something more specific—a body, an experience, a life transition, a form of oppression—name that thing directly. People who menstruate. People impacted by misogyny. Women and gender-expansive leaders. Specificity does the work that an x or a + was reaching for.

Wondering which language fits your particular work? Try the free Gender-Inclusive Marketing Language Tool →

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 nonbinary 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

(This is a super abbreviated history.)

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 NonBinary 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 nonbinary 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.

Nonbinary 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.

The Pattern is Bigger than One Word

Altered spellings are one version of a much larger habit. Watch what happens in phrases like these:

• for women and anyone who menstruates

• for women and pregnant people

• for mamas and pregnant humans

• for women and nonbinary folks

• for women and people of all gender identities

First comes the main category: women. Then comes everyone else, arriving through an and.

Read structurally, the message lands as: this work is primarily for women, and also for some others who might fit here. The intention behind these phrases is almost always care. The structure still does something the intention did not choose.

Womxn, women+, and womanish are the same move compressed into a single word. An x, a +, and an and are all doing the same job: holding one category at the center and attaching everyone else to the edge of it.

Nonbinary people are not a footnote to binary identities. Trans people are not an addendum. And bodies, hormones, cycles, and reproductive experiences belong to people across the full range of gender identities.

Gender is Often a Shortcut

"I work with women."

It's one of the most common phrases in bios and taglines. Sit with it for a second, though, and a question opens up underneath it: which women?

Do you mean cis women? Cis and trans women? And what does that phrase say to someone who would benefit enormously from your work and happens to be a gender other than a woman?

Much of this traces back to conventional marketing advice, which has taught us for decades that the path to clarity runs through niching by identity:

• Women entrepreneurs

• Female founders

• Marketing for women

• Leadership for women

These phrases feel precise. They're built on assumptions, and assumptions—about gender and about everything else—flatten the actual experiences of the people we hope to reach.

Here's the irony: most of the time, gender is doing very little work in your marketing. The people navigating the experiences you support will recognize themselves the moment you're clear about what you actually do.

So the useful question shifts. Rather than asking is this for men or women?, we get further with:

• What experience is this for?

• What need does this meet?

• What context is this person navigating?

• What language helps someone recognize themselves and understand that this work is for them?

Clarity is available without the binary.

What to Say Instead

Here are six situations, and what to reach for in each:

• When you actually mean women

  Say women. The word already includes trans women, and using it plainly is part of how that becomes obvious to everyone else.

  When you want to be specific about who you're gathering, name them:

  • Women

  • Cis and trans women

  • Queer women

  • Women of color

  • Black women and Black nonbinary people

  • Women and gender-expansive leaders

  That last construction earns its and because both groups are named as full categories rather than one being appended to the other.

  NOTE: if you’re not yet prepared to meaningfully hold space for trans and nonbinary people, that is work to note and do as you start to shift your messaging, positioning, or marketing.

• When you mean a body or a bodily experience

  Bodies and gender identities are separate things. Name the body directly:

  • People who menstruate

  • Pregnant people

  • Birthing parents

  • People navigating perimenopause and menopause

  • People with uteruses

  • People navigating fertility treatment

  • People experiencing pelvic pain

• When you mean a life transition

  • People navigating career change

  • People in the early years of parenting

  • People recovering from burnout

  • People navigating identity shifts and change

• When you mean people shaped by a system

  • People impacted by misogyny

  • People affected by gender-based violence

  • People whose careers are shaped by sexism

  • People navigating gendered expectations at work

  • Women and gender-expansive people living under patriarchy

• When you mean a practice or a need

  • People building a sustainable business

  • Practitioners rethinking their relationship with visibility

  • Caregivers looking for support

  • People learning to rest

• When gender is doing no work at all

  This is the most common case, and the easiest one to miss:

  • Participants

  • Clients

  • Practitioners

  • Business owners

  • Community members

  • Parents and caregivers

  • Leaders

WORKED EXAMPLES

• A WELLNESS OFFERING

  Instead of: for women's wellness

  Try: for people navigating menstrual and hormonal health

• A BUSINESS PROGRAM

  Instead of: for female entrepreneurs

  Try: for small business owners who care about impact and profit

• A COACHING CONTAINER

  Instead of: for women in transition

  Try: for people navigating life transitions, identity shifts, and change

• A LEADERSHIP PROGRAM

  Instead of: a leadership program for womxn

  Try: a leadership program for women and gender-expansive leaders navigating sexism and gendered expectations at work

  Or, when gender is beside the point: a leadership program for values-driven nonprofit leaders

• A MENOPAUSE OFFERING

  Instead of: menopause support for womxn

  Try: support for people navigating perimenopause and menopause

• A REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH EVENT

  Instead of: women's reproductive health

  Try: reproductive health education for people with uteruses

• AN AFFINITY SPACE

  Instead of a plus sign that asks people to guess whether they're included, name the actual community: a gathering for Black women and Black nonbinary people

Specificity is more respectful than a symbol.

Four questions before you use gender in your marketing:

Is gender actually relevant here?

Sometimes it absolutely is. A support circle for trans women, a program addressing workplace sexism, a space built around shared experience of misogyny—gender is the point in each of these, and naming it plainly might be the right call.

Am I naming a lived experience, or making an assumption?

Assumptions carry bias by design. They're worth interrogating every time.

Who might read this and feel like an afterthought?

Then ask the follow-up: who do I want to include, and how do I show that alongside telling it?

Could I be more specific without leaning on the binary?

Usually yes. And the more specific version is almost always the stronger marketing.

"Doesn't this erase women?"

This objection comes up often enough to answer directly.

Terms like pregnant people, birthing parents, and people with uteruses exist because of three straightforward facts:

• Some women cannot become pregnant.

• Some people who become pregnant are men or nonbinary people.

• Many people harmed by reproductive injustice are something other than cisgender women.

Language that accounts for everyone affected by gender-based oppression makes a movement more accurate, and accuracy makes it stronger.

Women's rights and trans rights move together. Reproductive justice advocacy reaches everyone affected by abortion bans. Work against gender-based violence addresses harm across all marginalized genders. Solidarity that centers the people facing the most compounded oppression—BIPOC/PGM, disabled, and unhoused members of trans communities among them—builds a better outcome for everybody in the room.

A feminism that excludes trans people is a smaller, weaker, more exclusionary thing than feminism.

Saying women clearly, and saying people who menstruate clearly, in the situations where each is accurate, adds precision. Nobody loses a word.

Language is Where the Work starts

‍Changing your copy shifts what people read. Shifting power in a room takes more.

In my workshops we talk constantly about intent versus impact, and about the difference between allyship as a signal and co-conspiratorship as a practice—Bettina Love's framing, and the more useful of the two.

Before you invite people in, work through this:‍ ‍

• Do your forms let people enter their actual name and pronouns?

• Are pronoun fields optional rather than required?

• Are your facilitators prepared to interrupt transphobia in real time?

• Do your examples and images include trans and nonbinary people beyond tokenization?

• Are your physical spaces and bathrooms accessible and inclusive to use?

• Do your policies name discrimination and harassment specifically?

• Is there a process for feedback, harm, and repair before harm occurs?

• Are you prepared to serve the people you're about to invite?

‍If a handful of these are open questions, that's where the real work is waiting.

And a few prompts to sit with, which tend to surface more than a checklist does:

• Who do I picture when I say women?

• What assumptions about gender are already built into my offerings and my content?

• When I describe my work as inclusive, how do I demonstrate that beyond the word itself?

• Who might feel uncertain or unwelcome in my space because of how I've described it?

• What would it mean, for me specifically, to decenter patriarchy in my work and my marketing?

Common Questions

• What if I want cis men to know my work isn't for them?

  This is the question underneath most gender-based niching, so it's worth answering plainly.

  Start with the practical: how often do cis men actually seek out your offerings? For most people I work with, the honest answer is rarely—and the language built to keep them out does far more work excluding trans and nonbinary people who genuinely want what you offer.

  Then the deeper piece. Building your marketing around who you're keeping out lets patriarchy set the terms. Relying on binary gender norms for your niching and your keywords is not the feminist flex it can feel like.

  When your work centers people navigating gender-based oppression, say that:

  This space is for people impacted by gender-based oppression, including cis and trans women and nonbinary folks.

  Notice the structure. The experience comes first and the groups are named inside it, rather than one group sitting at the center with everyone else attached at the edge.

  And when a space is genuinely restricted for safety—a survivors' circle, a specific affinity gathering—name that clearly and hold the boundary. Specificity serves you there too.

• Is womxn offensive?

  Intentions behind it are usually generous. The impact is that it marks trans women as a modification to womanhood and folds nonbinary people into a binary we sit outside of.

  Most trans and nonbinary people I know would rather see women used plainly, with specific language reserved for specific situations.

• Does "women" include trans women?

  Yes. Trans women are women, so the word already covers them. Cultural recognition of that fact is still catching up, and using the word plainly is part of how it catches up.

• Should I use "women+"?

  The plus sign asks readers to determine on their own whether they count. Name who you actually mean instead.

• Is "women and femmes" inclusive?

  It repeats the women and structure, with a second category attached to the first. If you're gathering people connected by an experience of gender-based oppression, name that experience. If you're gathering a specific community, name that community.

• Should I say "people with uteruses"?

  When you're talking about uteruses, yes. When you're talking about women, say women. The terms serve different purposes and both are useful.

• What does "people socialized as female" mean?

  It refers to how a person was raised and treated based on the sex assigned to them at birth. It carries assumptions worth examining before you use it, and it's rarely as precise as naming the specific experience you have in mind.

• What should I do after someone corrects my language?

  Thank them, change the word, and move on without an extended apology that puts them in the position of comforting you. Then look at whether anything underneath the word needs to change too.

• What about the term "biological sex"?

  I recommend sex assigned at birth, which is more accurate and less frequently weaponized. I've written about that here.

WANT TO LEARN MORE?

+ Apply this to your own work.
The Gender-Inclusive Marketing Language Tool walks you through five questions and returns language suited to your specific offer, audience, and context. Free, no email required.

+ Go deeper on the underlying ideas.
· Debunking the myth of biological sex
· Beyond the buzzword: why "safe spaces" aren't always safe
· Spiritual work shouldn't harm

‍+ Bring this work to your team.
I offer consulting, workshops, and training on gender-inclusive language, trans solidarity, and building cultures that hold up under pressure.

+ Keep reading.
Visibility Is Not Neutral, my Substack articles on marketing, power, and showing up online.

Debunking the Myth of Biological Sex

Published February 11th, 2025

Language evolves.

As we—as human beings, uncover more knowledge about our bodies and experiences, we also uncover false binaries we’ve historically accepted as Truth. One of the biggest? The sex binary—in this instance, sex refers to our physical characteristics—hormones, chromosomes, genitalia, and secondary sex traits.

But here’s the thing: bodies are more complex than a simple binary.

Gender ≠ The Body

Our current cultural reckoning invites us to understand that gender is not inherently tied to the body.

We also need to integrate understanding that sex, as we’ve defined it, is a construct with real world consequences, too.

Why Biological Sex is a Problematic Term

+ It has been weaponized to dismiss the lived experiences of trans and non-binary people, often used to invalidate gender identity and uphold exclusionary policies.

+ It is frequently invoked to justify discrimination in healthcare, sports, education, and legal protections.

+ It ignores the reality of intersex people, whose existence alone disproves the idea of a strict male/female binary.

The more accurate term: sex assigned at birth

Using sex assigned at birth acknowledges that:

+ It’s an assignment that may or may not resonate with the individual.
+ It’s based on genitalia, which does not define gender.
+ It does not necessarily relate to identity.
+ It is not binary—intersex people exist!

Language shapes reality. Words matter. Sex and gender are two distinct aspects of our embodied experience as human beings.

The more we shift how we speak about gender and sex, the more we can dismantle false binaries and affirm transgender, non-binary, and intersex people. Of course, we must also commit to taking action beyond language, too.

Actions to consider:

+ Shift Your Language – Use “sex assigned at birth” instead of “biological sex” when discussing the body.

+Correct Misinformation – If you hear someone reinforcing the sex binary, engage them in conversation.

+Advocate for Policy Change – Support inclusive policies in workplaces, schools, and healthcare settings.

+Center Trans & Intersex Voices – Follow, learn from, and amplify educators and activists doing this work.

Reflection questions:

+ Have I ever assumed someone’s gender based on their physical traits?
+ Where did I first learn about the sex binary? How has that shaped my beliefs?
+ How have I learned about and been shaped by the gender binary?
+ What are ways I benefit from these false binaries?
+ How can I create spaces where trans and intersex people feel affirmed and safe?

Understanding language is just the start. Allyship requires action.

Spiritual Work Shouldn’t Harm: On Gender, Power, and Sacred Practice

originally published January 16, 2023; revised April 18th, 2025

Let’s talk about the divine feminine and masculine—terms we see so often in coaching containers, spiritual communities, and wellness spaces.

These archetypes are frequently introduced with good intentions: to offer a framework for understanding different ways of being, feeling, relating. The divine feminine is typically described as soft, intuitive, receptive; the divine masculine as structured, directive, assertive.

But let’s pause here: how are these ideas being taught? Who are they centering? And what assumptions do they carry?

Because too often, teachings about the divine feminine and masculine rely on or replicate a binary view of gender—and in doing so, they reinforce cisheteronormativity. That is, they assume or normalize the idea that people are either men or women, and that their identities and experiences must align with their assigned sex at birth. They often equate femininity with “women” and masculinity with “men,” collapsing expression and energy into identity in ways that erase trans, nonbinary, genderfluid, and agender people entirely.

And let’s be clear: cisheteronormativity is not neutral.

It is a product of colonial systems designed to restrict, control, and harm. It's woven into the structures of white supremacy, patriarchy, and capitalism. And it's not just harmful to trans and queer folks—it distorts what’s possible for all of us.

In the wellness and spiritual worlds—spaces that often claim to be radical, liberatory, and inclusive—it’s especially important to notice when teachings quietly (or overtly) replicate dominant norms. When we invoke “divine feminine energy” as something to be embraced by women, or something that’s been lost and needs to be reclaimed from masculine overdrive, we must ask: Which women? Whose bodies? What kinds of femininity? And who gets left out or harmed in the process?

If you're a teacher, facilitator, coach, or healer working with these frameworks, I invite you to go deeper:

• Are you examining how these archetypes intersect with systems of power and oppression?

• Are you explicitly welcoming gender-expansive people into the space?

• Are you assuming your audience is cisgender unless told otherwise?

• Are you using language that reinforces binary ideas of embodiment or worth?

Because let’s be honest—if we’re not doing this work, we’re not actually practicing healing. We’re just rebranding dominant culture with a spiritual aesthetic.

As I’ve written elsewhere: healing work is only as liberatory as our willingness to confront how power moves. If your teachings don’t make space for trans, nonbinary, and all marginalized people to exist fully—not just quietly included on a slide or buried in your FAQ—then there’s more work to do.

As Michelle Cassandra Johnson writes in Skill in Action:

“We live in a toxic culture that affects us all. We are not encouraged to see it, so we must learn to see our culture and how it teaches us to transform the absurd into normal.”

This isn’t a call-out. It’s an invitation. To get curious. To notice what you’ve inherited and what you’re passing on. To reflect on who your work truly includes—and who it might unintentionally exclude. To begin again, with more clarity and care.

You don’t need to throw away every teaching about feminine and masculine energies. You do need to interrogate how they’re framed. You do need to acknowledge the power structures they’re rooted in. And you do need to expand your language, your references, your imagination—so that what you're offering can actually support all of us.