Reconsidering “inclusive language:” Consequences for healthcare and equitableness of a growing linguistic movement to address gender identity with a path forward

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.