Abstract
Increasingly, the language of female reproduction is changing, so terms directly referencing people’s sex are replaced with terms obscuring sex, a language form commonly called “inclusive language” but more accurately is “desexed language.” Desexed language is promoted as assisting individuals experiencing an inner sense of themselves (a gender identity) in conflict with their sex, a state described as being transgender or gender-diverse. It seemingly assumes no harm to the general population. However, the scant existing research suggests it may not be well accepted or understood. There are a variety of types of desexed language, including globalizing language (e.g. replacing “women” with “people”), biology-based language (e.g. “lactating individuals,” “menstruators”), neologisms (“chestfeeding”), appropriation of terms with other meanings (“sex assigned at birth”), and additive language (e.g. “women and birthing people”). Second- and third-person language (e.g. “if you are sexually active,” “those who are pregnant”) can be a type of desexed language depending on context. Desexed language is likely to have an adverse impact on people with low health literacy and language skills, risk alienation, and cause confusion, especially in non-Western countries and cultures. It may even cause harm to transgender and gender-diverse people who also need clear health communications as well as specialized healthcare. Widespread use of desexed language is contrary to the usual practice of implementing targeted tailored communications for those with specialized needs while using the most effective language for most people for general communications. Comprehensive research on the impact of desexed language is urgently needed.
Background
There is a growing trend, especially in English-speaking countries, to use what is commonly referred to as “inclusive language,” particularly when discussing female reproduction. This language form is intended to assist individuals who experience an inner sense of themselves (a gender identity) in conflict with their sex, a state described as being transgender or gender-diverse
[1]. “Inclusive language” may also be called “desexed language,” “gender inclusive language” or “gender identity inclusive language.” In this paper, we prefer the term “desexed language” as it describes how language has changed. In addition, the challenges presented by this language form indicate the descriptor “inclusive” is a misnomer. Desexed language involves replacing terms that directly reference sex, such as “women” and “mothers,” with terms that avoid referencing sex, such as “pregnant and birthing people,” “parents,” and “families.” Given the association between femaleness and breasts, “breastfeeding” may be replaced with terms such as “human milk feeding,” “lactation,” “chestfeeding,” or “bodyfeeding.”
Similarly, terms describing female reproductive organs are sometimes changed. For example, the vagina may be called the “front hole,” “bonus hole” or “internal genitals.” Desexed language is very apparent in matters related to pregnancy and breastfeeding because these are female reproductive processes in which sex is central and may be experienced by gender-diverse people. Notably, the same trends are rarely seen in language around men’s health.
We note that terms like “women,” “men,” and “mothers” are sometimes used to refer to reflect gender identities that individuals might have rather than their sex. These are recently instituted meanings not yet presented in many dictionaries, including the Oxford English Dictionary. To be clear, in this paper, unless otherwise specified, we use the terms “woman,” “women,” “man,” “men,” “mother,” “father,” “girl,” “boy” to refer to people of each sex rather than signifying gender identities.
Desexed language differs from what the United Nations (UN) calls “gender-inclusive language”
[2]. The UN uses this term to describe language that promotes equality between the sexes and avoids sex stereotypes. This involves avoiding referencing sex when sex is
irrelevant in a particular context
. For example, terms such as “firefighters,” “police officers,” or “humankind” should be used rather than “firemen,” “policemen,” or “mankind,” respectively. The UN’s gender-inclusive language also involves using both male and female pronouns and sexed terms such as “boys,” “girls,” “men,” and “women” where appropriate to ensure the involvement of both sexes is visible when relevant
[2]. By contrast, desexed language intends to obscure sex or make it invisible in situations when sex is relevant.
Originally, desexed language was intended to facilitate one-to-one conversations with transgender and gender-diverse people, using their individually preferred terms to ensure they are not distressed and feel respected and understood, especially in healthcare settings
[3]. However, desexed language has expanded and is now used more broadly, including in written and spoken communication intended for the general public
[4].
The push for organizations and individuals to desex language in public-facing healthcare materials assumes that desexed language benefits the transgender and gender-diverse population and seemingly also that there is no harm to the general population. However, the impact of the broad use of desexed language has not been adequately evaluated for appropriateness, acceptability, clarity, efficacy in communication, or fairness. There is reason to believe there may be significant adverse impacts
[4], but research is lacking in determining the details and extent. What little research exists suggests this language may not be well-accepted in healthcare settings and could erode trust in healthcare providers
[5]. As we will describe, it may not even provide all the anticipated benefits to transgender and gender-diverse people, and there could even be unintended harm to them.
Gender identity, as a concept, arose in the United States (US) in the 1960s
[6]. It is commonly described as a person’s inner sense of their gender, and individuals may state a gender identity as man, woman, non-binary, or something else. However, there is no agreement on what gender identity is, and (as above) definitions tend to be circular in nature and may also include disparate concepts
[7]. The universality of gender identity may be claimed but is disputed
[8],
[9]. There are many questions unanswered; for example, how does gender identity apply to people who are incapable of understanding it, such as infants or adults with profound intellectual disability
[10]?
There is much uncertainty about how many people are transgender or gender-diverse. The 2021 Census of England and Wales reported about 0.5 % of adults indicated they were transgender or gender diverse
[11]. However, the gender identity question was confusingly written
[12], and this data has been downgraded for unreliability
[13]. A US government survey found that 0.6 % of people aged 13 and older identify as transgender, with numbers skewing more heavily toward younger persons, with 1.4 % of persons aged 13–17 identifying as transgender
[14]. Evidence suggests that the numbers are growing, particularly in Western countries and particularly amongst adolescents and young adults, thus including a larger proportion of females of reproductive age
[15],
[16],
[17]. Transgender and gender-diverse people are much more likely to carry diagnoses of autism or other neurodevelopmental traits
[18].
Types of desexed language
There are several types of desexed language (see
Supplemental Table 1). First, there is globalizing desexed language, in which “mothers” and “women” become “parents,” “people,” and “families.” Substituting “human milk feeding” and “lactation” for “breastfeeding” also falls into this category. This type of desexed language easily conveys unintended meanings as the desexed terms are not synonyms for the sexed terms they replace. The use of “people” is particularly problematic, as confirmed by an analysis of billions of words on the internet, which showed that “people” or “person” is commonly construed to mean “men
[19].”
In some cases, desexed language becomes effectively a type of “coded language” that is understandable to insiders but may not be to others. The use of “breastfeeding families” as a replacement for “breastfeeding mothers” is a common example. For example, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that “many families do not breastfeed for as long as they intend to”
[20]. Readers who are enculturated to understand that “families” can be used as a replacement for “mothers” will easily understand the intended meaning in most circumstances. However, those not accustomed to desexed language or non-native English speakers may picture both fathers and mothers or question what is being communicated. In addition, the use of “families” instead of “mothers” implies that the decisions around breastfeeding and weaning are not ultimately up to the mother, but also up to others in her family, thereby failing to acknowledge the mother’s agency.
Next, there is biology- and organ-based language, such as “menstruators,” “lactating individuals,” “birthing people,” and “people with vaginas.” This language is inherently dehumanizing because it reduces people into bodily functions or parts of their anatomy. It is thus problematic from the perspective of human rights and dignity. This language is nearly always limited to describing female anatomy and physiology rather than male
[21].
Thirdly, there is language that creates new terms or neologisms or appropriates existing terms to accommodate transgender and gender-diverse people. This would include terms such as “chestfeeding,” “bodyfeeding,” and “front hole.” The increased use of “sex assigned at birth” would also be in this category. This latter term was originally used in the context of people born with differences of sexual development (DSDs), also called intersex variations
[22]. While most infants with DSDs are able to be identified as either male or female at birth and raised in that sex, a small proportion either do not have a clear sex even after medical evaluation or it is decided it would be better for them to be raised opposite to their sex, and so they are truly “assigned” a sex. Our analysis using Google Ngram shows that since 2010, there has been a sharp increase in the use of the term “sex assigned at birth” with it now commonly being applied to anyone. This is seemingly out of consideration for transgender and gender-diverse people. This term implies that sex is not an inherent or stable category but rather arbitrary and fluid, and frequent use of this term helps to reinforce this idea
[23]. The misuse of “sex assigned at birth” may undermine public confidence in health providers
[24] and is insensitive to the extent and impact of sexism in a world where female infants are still subject to extreme prejudice, such as infanticide, but could be saved if sex was truly “assigned.” “Sex recorded at birth” or “registered” at birth would be more accurate.
Next, there is what is commonly called additive language, in which words are added so that the word “women” become phrases such as “women and birthing people.” This phrase assumes the reader understands and accepts terms such as “birthing people” and the gender identity concept embodied therein. While not necessarily intended, additive language shifts the meaning of the term “women” from a sexed term meaning all adult females to a gender-identity-based term, which includes males who identify as women and excludes women who do not claim a gender identity
[25]. For this reason, additive language should not be used in legal or policy documents, where the gender identity meaning of “women” may be presumed, making it unclear who is meant. An alternative, “women, including those who identify as birthing people” makes it clear that women is a sexed term but nullifies the reasoning for adding terms as it includes transgender and gender diverse females under “women,” and still leaves the problem of readers who do not understand the term “birthing people.” Additive language also increases the length and complexity of a sentence, making it more difficult to understand for people with lower literacy skills and those with dyslexia
[26]. “Women and birthing people” may also imply that women are not people.
Finally, there is the use of the second- or third-person language, which omits nouns referring to “people.” Examples include “if you are pregnant or breastfeeding,” “those who are pregnant or breastfeeding,” “others who are pregnant,” or “anyone who is pregnant.” If the target audience is left unclear in order to obscure sex, this language may cause the target audience to miss the message. For example, “If you’ve ever been sexually active, you should start having regular Pap tests by the time you’re 21”
[27] deliberately obscures sex when it is relevant, which may cause the target audience, females, to miss the message. One would need to use images or sexed language first in order to reach the intended audience.
Nonetheless, using the second person “you” is generally beneficial in health communication when used appropriately, as it speaks directly to the reader and can assist in holding attention and emphasizing personal relevance
[28]. Second-person language is suited for informational materials for the general public and not for scientific discourse or policy in which sex must be made clear when relevant. Third-person language (e.g. “those who are pregnant”) is generally not suited for public health communications as it places distance between the message and the reader and might cause people in the target audience to miss or not apply the message themselves (“those who are pregnant should get a flu vaccine.”) It might be suitable for providing guidance to healthcare providers, and for scientific discourse and policy, but the group about whom the language is directed must also be made clear. Using second- or third-person language in order to deliberately obscure sex when sex is relevant can be considered a type of desexed language.
Many difficulties in understanding arise from confusing sex, sex characteristics, gender, and gender identity. Sex refers to the reproductive categorizations, male or female, relevant to all multicellular animals, including humans, and defined by the type of gametes the body is designed to produce
[29]. In humans, sex cannot change. However, in describing transgender individuals, it is not uncommon to see terms such as “female-to-male” or “male-to-female,” which is often how transgender patients may be described in a medical record instead of a more accurate notation such as “transmasculine individual (recorded as female at birth).” “Female-to-male” language, as well as references to the outdated term “sex change operation” (which is still sometimes used), misleadingly suggest that it is possible for humans to change sex. What these terms may instead reflect is an alteration of some sex characteristics, such as hormone levels or breast size. Indeed, people have changed their sex markers in their health records, and it is unclear the extent to which this type of language has facilitated these actions. Given the importance of sex to health care needs, treatments, and interpretation of test results, changing one’s sex marker may be detrimental to one’s health
[30],
[31] and also affect the integrity of health data sets and research relying on these data sets.
How desexed language is being used
Despite the lack of evaluation of impact, implementation of desexed language has occurred quickly and become widespread, particularly in Western English-speaking countries such as the US, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. However, it also spreads beyond the West, reflecting US/Western cultural influence. It appears that desexed language is being used as an awareness-raising advocacy strategy in a climate where the legitimacy of transgender and gender-diverse people is perceived to be under threat. This may be one reason why desexed language is championed so strongly despite the lack of evidence for its efficacy, comprehension, or extent of harms.
In academia, editors have applied pressure on authors to use desexed language and terms such as “sex assigned at birth,” even in publications for global audiences and with authors from countries where such language is not in use and gender identity is not relevant. This includes the
Journal of Human Lactation, the professional publication of the International Lactation Consultant Association
[32], and
The Lancet [33], one of the top medical journals in the world.
The Lancet’s publisher, Elsevier, has a template for author instructions for all of its 2,900 journals that includes a survey requesting authors to list their gender identity, even though gender identity is a concept not recognized by all individuals and may not be salient to authors from many cultures, particularly outside the West
[6],
[8].
Desexed terminology has resulted in inaccuracies in scientific publications, as Gribble and colleagues illustrated in their widely cited 2022 paper
[4]. In particular, scientific research may be misrepresented if research is quoted using “people” when only women or only men were studied.
Health communications to the public may also be misleading. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a handout for the public stating that “The cleanest, safest food for an infant, in disasters or emergencies, is human milk”
[34]. This statement is inaccurate because experts recommend conventional breastfeeding in emergency situations and particularly recommend against feeding expressed breast milk in disasters
[35]. In emergencies, expressed milk or banked donor milk can become contaminated without access to refrigeration or clean water for cleaning feeding supplies and breast pumps. Those who feed by exclusively expressing and bottle feeding are recommended to transition to direct breastfeeding
[35].
In another example, Cancer Care Ontario in Canada
[36] provided a “Breast (Chest) Density Fact Sheet'' intended to help explain breast density issues so that patients can better understand their mammogram results. They also have a web page for healthcare providers about “breast (chest) density.” However, health professionals use the word “breast” for both male and female breasts. Furthermore, when used by medical professionals, “chest” refers to the rib cage and the organs within it, specifically excluding breast tissue. The use of the word “chest” to mean “breast” is inaccurate and risks confusion. Text explaining why “chest” is used says that “some people, including trans men, transmasculine people, and nonbinary people, may prefer the term “chest.”” However, the extent to which transgender and gender-diverse people prefer the term “chest” to “breast” in healthcare settings is unknown. Early research suggested a preference for “breastfeeding” over “chestfeeding” even in personal interactions among transgender individuals
[37], but preferences beyond this knowledge is lacking. While clinicians should speak in plain language
[38], using novel terms, non-professional terms, or slang may undermine a professional’s credibility and may not be universally understood. However, person-centered care allows for respecting a patient’s preferred terminology so long as clarity of communication can be maintained. When providing health care to transgender and gender-diverse people, explaining why particular terms are being used may assist in demonstrating respect and increasing understanding.
It should be noted that clarity about sex is relevant beyond reproductive issues
[24]. Sex greatly affects human physiology, including how drugs are metabolized, vaccine responsiveness, vulnerability to disease, and disease presentation
[39]. For example, coronary artery disease presents earlier in men
[39] and autoimmune diseases are more common in women.
Inequality can increase when language is centered around transgender and gender-diverse people
Clear and plain language in health communications is recognized as a core principle for health communication
[38]. For general communications in women’s health, this core principle aligns with using “women” and “mothers” as the default terms to refer to adult female and female parents whose healthcare needs are being addressed. Desexed language thus defies the plain language health communication principle by eliminating “women” and “mothers” as the default words and instead center the language around a small group of people, those who are transgender and gender-diverse.
Focusing attention on groups with specialized needs in general health communications is not usual practice. For example, in reproductive health, language is not centered around blind or deaf mothers, and we do not say “for those who can see or hear” whenever relevant in general communications. The public understands that people with specialized needs exist and assumes (rightly or wrongly) that their needs are separately accommodated. Similarly, we do not routinely center parents of twins by saying phrases like “your baby or babies” with every mention of infants. Those parents are typically accommodated by providing them with separate informational materials that address their specific needs, and such parents understand that general materials can apply to them without changing language. The provision of targeted communications for groups with atypical experiences and needs has a twofold purpose. (1) It prevents the complexity and compromising of clear communications for the general population. (2) It ensures that specialized needs are properly and fully addressed in a way not otherwise possible. A possible consequence of language centered around transgender and gender-diverse people is that attention is then diverted from others who also have specialized health needs who are not benefiting from any specialized language highlighting their unique situations. However, as we will discuss, transgender and gender-diverse people are also amongst those who have a variety of specialized reproductive needs that deserve separate attention.
In addition, as a human rights-based principle of communication, it is essential to be able to clearly identify women and mothers as a group. Society names what it values, and when women and mothers are no longer named, society signals that they are no longer valued, and that women's work, needs, and wants are unseen and unconsidered
[40],
[41]. When women are subsumed into “people,” discrimination is also made invisible
[40]. Women and mothers continue to be subject to discrimination in virtually every aspect of society worldwide, and in many countries, they are subject to stifling oppression and sex-based violence (for example in Afghanistan). The language of “people” is akin to “all lives matter”
[42], in which the marginalized status of women is not recognized. Unlike the term “breastfeeding,” the terms “human milk feeding” and “lactation” either do not include children or do not imply any personal relationship to a child
[40],
[43], and this makes children and their rights and needs invisible also.
Desexed language and colonialism
It has been said that sexed language in reproductive health is symptomatic of what some call the “patriarchal” and “colonialist” nature of the “gender/sex binary.” As one group of authors argued, only the exclusive use of desexed terms such as “pregnant person” will be effective in dismantling the “cis-heteronormative” “gender binaries rooted in patriarchal and colonial oppression and provide for equality and justice”
[44]. However, there is no evidence for these claims. Rather, that sexual reproduction in higher organisms is a process requiring gamete contributions from a male and a female of the species is uncontested. Words to denote women and mothers exist in every language, having universal pertinence
[45]. This includes languages without different pronouns for each sex (e.g. Chinese and Swahili) and in cultures where specific accommodations are made for (usually male) individuals who do not conform to the social expectations of their sex (sometimes referred to as a “third gender”).
Recognition of the two sexes and their differentiation in language and the reproductive work of women is thus ancient and cross-cultural
[45]. Furthermore, there is no culture that does not place social significance on being male or female, even in countries that never experienced colonialism
[46] and prior to colonialism in countries that did
[47], although how this manifests varies, e.g. Japan
[46]. Being a female person with all that entails, including conceiving, gestating, birthing, and breastfeeding infants (all inherently sexed activities) or having the potential to do so, is a factor in shaping social expectations and the (positive and negative) treatment of women across cultures
[47]. Not recognizing this does not prevent it from being so but does impede advocacy towards women’s equality. However, it should be absolutely clear that the inherently sexed nature of sexual reproduction and the impact this has on the lives of women is unrelated to the fact that we should accept that human experience varies widely and that all people deserve dignity and respect.
Additional impacts of desexed language
Below are some additional factors to consider regarding potential adverse impacts of desexed language:
- (1)
Adverse impact on the health of people with low literacy, low health literacy, and low English skills:
Large proportions of people in even the wealthiest countries have low literacy skills; this includes 21 % of US adults and 16 % of UK adults
[48],
[49]. Globally, women are disproportionately impacted by low literacy, as two-thirds of the world’s functionally illiterate population are female
[50]. Non-native English speakers are also disadvantaged when language is more complex, and people with neurocognitive disorders such as dyslexia are adversely affected by more complex and longer sentences
[26]. Desexed terms, especially those referencing physiological processes or body parts, use more complex and less common language, making them more difficult to understand.
Poor health communication can have adverse outcomes and cost lives. Poor understanding of cervical cancer screening is a major reason why immigrant women in Australia participate in cervical cancer screening programs at lower rates than Australian-born women
[51]. Low health literacy is also a challenge for Aboriginal Australians, and Aboriginal women are less likely to be screened for cervical cancer
[52], are more likely to develop cervical cancer, and are more likely to die from cervical cancer than other women
[53]. With that understanding, it is difficult to justify cervical cancer screening education directed at “anyone with a cervix” rather than “women.”
- (2)
Alienation and potential erosion of trust for some people:
The use of some desexed language may be alienating and potentially erode trust in health providers
[5],
[24]. While there is very little research on the acceptability of desexed terminology, what exists suggests significant rejection. In Vermont, USA, a state known for its progressive politics, a qualitative study of low-income mothers reviewing proposed language changes to a healthcare-related survey showed some desexed terms were not well accepted
[5]. Some women objected so strongly to “chestfeeding” and “bodyfeeding” that they said they would not have completed the survey had these terms been used. One participant said that the term “bodyfeeding” brought her to recall having been raped and was extremely upsetting. A 2024 market research survey of 500 Black American adults found that respondents would be overwhelmingly less likely to trust medical providers who substituted terms such as “birthing people” or “people with uteruses” for “mothers” and “women.” Nearly half would be less comfortable if providers introduced themselves using their pronouns
[54]. Over 90 % of respondents preferred “breastfeeding” to “chestfeeding.”
- (3)
Confusion outside the English-speaking world and in non-Western countries:
The status of English as a world language means that the increasing use of desexed language has implications globally. English is utilized in many countries where gender identity is not culturally salient and where an understanding of the transgender or gender-diverse experience is, therefore, unusual. In these situations, terms such as “birthing people” may not be understood and cannot be accurately translated into local languages. Issues associated with increased confusion for those from non-English speaking backgrounds apply here. English publications for global audiences, such as many health and medical journals, will therefore likely be read by many people who may be unable to understand the text fully.
- (4)
Harm to transgender and gender-diverse people:
Transgender and gender-diverse people need clear and unambiguous health communications, including those related to sex-based needs, conditions, and symptoms, as much as any other group. They also need to know how their bodies work and to understand sex-specific health care requirements. Research is lacking on how to best provide clear communication related to sex to transgender and gender-diverse people, but it has been noted that it is needed. For example, the LGBTIQ + Health Strategy for the state of New South Wales in Australia describes the importance of accurate recording of sex for pathology testing but also the need to assist transgender and gender-diverse people to understand why this is the case
[55]. It is worth noting that transgender and gender-diverse people may also have poor literacy skills or low health literacy and require plain language health communications. In fact, they may be at increased risk of this; some research shows that young people seeking treatment at gender clinics are more likely to come from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds
[17], a characteristic associated with lower literacy and health literacy
[56].
In addition, when health facilities use desexed language when describing their services, they may give the impression that they can provide quality healthcare to transgender and gender-diverse people even when they do not have the capacity to provide specialized care. Pregnancy and breastfeeding care for transgender and gender-diverse people requires specific skills and knowledge, ideally a combination of basic training of all staff and specialist training for some staff. Areas in which knowledge may be needed include: managing the effects of stopping hormones on fertility, breastfeeding, and gender dysphoria; managing gender dysphoria through pregnancy, labor, birth, and breastfeeding; managing breastfeeding and feeding issues; and breastfeeding grief, particularly if there is a history of chest masculinization surgery
[4]; and creating a feeding plan with both parents, given their unique needs. Using desexed language when staff does not have the knowledge to properly care for transgender and gender-diverse people does not benefit this patient group.
Conclusion and the way forward
The rise in desexed language across health communications, health systems, scientific publications, the media, and in policy, legislation, and guidelines is a major change that has occurred without an evidence base to inform practice or elucidate impact. Desexed language has been advocated for in order to support transgender and gender-diverse people and instill a sense of belonging. However, using desexed terms has the effect of prioritizing this small population over a much larger group. It very likely places many vulnerable individuals at risk, particularly if used in health communications.
There are ways other than broad centering of language around the needs of groups with specialized needs that provide recognition and support. This includes people from different religious, cultural, and language backgrounds; people who experience disability or have medical conditions; those whose families are formed in different ways; those who have high-risk pregnancies or multiple births, infants born prematurely, or who are sick or have medical conditions. These groups are successfully accommodated using specialized communications and without major changes to general communications. Notably, there is no demand that broad language changes must be made under threat of “erasure” for these groups, even though some of these groups face discrimination and significant obstacles. These groups are also identified for specialized care and accommodated with trained staff and services. We must separate the use of language as an advocacy strategy to promote the visibility and legitimacy of individuals from a means of accurate communication to promote the health and wellbeing of all.
Language must be clear, understood, and accepted for effective communication. Communications must maintain and support human dignity and be respectful. Language should avoid terminology that is aversive to the intended audience. There is anecdotal evidence of misunderstanding, miscommunication, and aversion where desexed language is used, and the small amount of research that has been conducted suggests adverse consequences may be significant. However, only with comprehensive research can we know the impact of desexed language use, including who benefits and who is disadvantaged, and identify ways of mitigating disadvantage. Questions to be answered regarding desexed language include:
- ●
To what extent is desexed language understood or misunderstood, accepted or rejected by the general population as well as sub-populations, including those with low literacy or health literacy, low English language proficiency, various cultural or religious backgrounds, and transgender and gender diverse people?
- ●
Does the type and purpose of communications impact the effectiveness of communications including public service announcements, health informational materials, media communications, legislation, policy and guidelines, scientific publications, and one-to-one communications in health and non-health settings?
- ●
How might adverse impacts of the use of sexed and desexed language be mitigated, and how are competing and irreconcilable needs and rights in relation to sexed and desexed language best addressed?
Only with such research will we be able to maximize clarity, respect, and acceptability of communications and ensure that those who are transgender and gender diverse, the general population, and other groups with specific needs are protected and supported.
This research received no specific grant from public, commercial, or not-for-profit funding agencies. However, RM’s time was covered by FHI 360.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Melissa Bartick: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization.
Hannah Dahlen: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization.
Jenny Gamble: Writing – review & editing.
Shawn Walker: Writing – review & editing.
Roger Mathisen: Writing – review & editing.
Karleen Gribble: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization.
