As TedX sparks controversy by using ‘womxn,’ — how do we untangle the confusion if the community the word is aiming to support, is rejecting it on the basis of offence?

• Last week, Tedx announced forthcoming autumn schedule using the term ‘womxn’
• Tedx London has defended use of the word, saying the term was ‘more inclusive’ and ‘shed light on the institutional barriers womxn have faced’
• Use has been met with fierce criticism, with one denouncing it ‘misogynistic’ and another saying the organisation was trying to be ‘fashionable’

TedxLondon — an independent, volunteer-run offshoot of the US Ted brand — has renamed its TedxLondonWomen conference as TedxLondonWomxn to “explicitly include non-cisgender women”. It made the announcement on Twitter, writing “Hello you! TedxLondonWomxn is coming back (virtually)!” After “womxn” started to trend on Twitter, it added an explanation: “No, that’s not a typo: ‘womxn’ is a spelling of ‘women’ that’s more inclusive and progressive. The term sheds light on the prejudice, discrimination, and institutional barriers womxn have faced, and explicitly includes non-cisgender women.”

The announcement has drawn heavy criticism, with feminist campaigners arguing that the term “womxn” erases biological women, and some trans activists pointing out that it suggests “trans women aren’t women” and must be given their own separate word. Trans broadcaster India Willoughby added: “On behalf of every trans woman in history that has actually transitioned, please shut up. These people are nutters. Ignore them.”

A number of brands have made the move to use this language in their copy, the intention always and unanimously to be more inclusive; a drive for representation. The letter change in the word was initially embraced as a response to much of our gendered language not representing large communities of consumers. However, much of the debate online has been centred around criticism for the move towards this language, by brands aiming to represent communities they serve, without actually speaking to them. “Why is it that the so-called ‘inclusion’ of trans-identified women seems to always involve the attempted erasure of actual women? How much more ‘inclusive’ can the word ‘woman’ be when it represents 3.5 billion humans: just over half of the world’s population?” said Justice for Women co-founder Julie Bindel. “Are they calling men ‘mxn’? Thought not. The word ‘men’ will remain intact, because being ‘more inclusive’ means asking nothing of men and demanding that only women make sacrifices to accommodate the feelings of a tiny group”.

Where does the word come from, and why has it changed? “Folx,” “womxn,” and “Latinx” are all terms that have all spiked in Google searches over the last five years and have become the subject of lengthy subreddits focused on understanding the problematic nature of binary-centered language. They’re intended to promote inclusivity, but given that intent and impact are two very different things, there’s debate around whether the “x” actually makes a word more inclusive.

In an article on Well+Good, according to Cornelia Lahmann, PhD, a linguistic expert with the language-learning platform Babbel, language evolves to fit cultural needs. “Language is part and parcel of what we call culture, but also a driver of culture,” Dr. Lahmann says. “As our culture changes, we may need new words or [to] reconsider existing words…language affects how we view the world and behave.” The uptick in use of and interest in words using “x” (like folx, womxn, and Latinx), then, is a direct reflection of society’s need for terms that support identities that don’t fit in a gender binary, like genderqueer, trans, and agender people, among many others.

The ‘x’ has been used throughout history to represent ‘unknown quantities,’ or ’speculation’ in Maths, and originated in 1971, but has only been visible more recently, in the last decade.

It is a difficult argument to challenge that the word is trendy, or fashionable. Whilst the nature of those descriptions can induce feelings of fickleness and empty gestures, it has become a trend — albeit one with the intention of progression. Many female founded, female focused brands are changing their language, on websites and marketing, in order to attempt to make their proposition more inclusive. These alterations, whilst flammable, are directed towards inclusivity, although critics argue that it can have the opposite effect. A strong sentiment is that, in its effort to be inclusive of genders beyond cisgender women, the term ‘womxn’ left many people feeling as though their trans and/or non-binary identities were being erased, or lumped in with their assigned gender at birth. The decision has also sparked a swathe of negative comments, with critics saying not using the term woman is ‘misogynistic’ and questioning how you might pronounce ‘womxn’. Whilst the lazy argument is that this is political correctness gone mad, and, where does the line end in terms of rewriting history to represent everyone, the backlash has surprised some people, forcing them to rethink their commitment to the evolution of the spelling. In an attempt to create a more inclusive, representative culture, the community has responded by suggesting the opposite has been achieved.

As with all language, it is objective, complicated and left open for interpretation. The intent remains to be important. This isn’t a debate about language and etymology. This is a commitment to and a passion for, equality.