Uplifting Diverse Genders: Beyond “Women and Non-Binary”

This article is a repost promoting content originally published elsewhere. See more things Dan's reposted.

( )

Some organizations are beginning to take steps to be more inclusive by outlining in their mission statement that they welcome both women and non-binary people. However, this approach only scratches the surface of the needs for inclusion of diverse genders. While it’s certainly a good start, I’m here to discuss why the language of “Women and Non-Binary” can be problematic and how we can do better.

If your goal is to uplift marginalized genders, stating that your opportunity is open to “Women and Non-Binary people” has two important pitfalls:

  1. Including non-binary people in feminine coded spaces perpetuates the misconception that all non-binary people identify with aspects of femininity.
  2. Focusing only on non-binary people and women leaves out trans men, who are often overlooked and need just as much support.

Quinn Crossley acknowledges how good it is to have spaces for specific marginalised genders and how it’s even better to ensure that non-binary genders are considered too, but then they go even further by making four further recommendations, as follows:

  1. Remove gendered terms from your group’s name.
  2. Avoid language that lumps non-binary people in with a binary gender.
  3. Be specific about who is included in your mission statement.
  4. Use inclusive language when communicating with group members.

These are really great, and I’d recommend that you go read the original article (even if you have to put up with Medium’s annoying popups) if you’re looking for a fuller explanation of the arguments. What’s especially valuable about them, to me, is that they provide a framework for thinking differently about non-binary inclusion, as well as examples from which you can derive action points for your own groups. They’re all relatively-easy ideas to implement, too: if you’ve already got a moderately-inclusive group, you can make just a few minor tweaks to your stated values and your organisational language and reach a whole other level.

(Quick confession: I still don’t get the appeal of “folxs”, though; “folks” already felt to me personally to be completely free of gender. This might just be another one of those things I haven’t gotten my head around yet, though, like how – and I say this speaking as a bisexual person – there’s somehow necessarily always a difference between bisexuality and pansexuality.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *