2: Identities and Other Terms

Gender

Transgender (or trans) generally refers to individuals who identify as a gender other than the one that they were assigned at birth. The term is used as an adjective (e.g., “a transgender woman” rather than “a transgender”); however, some individuals may describe themselves by using transgender as a noun. The term transgendered is not used because it emphasizes ascription and undermines self-definition. The term transsexual is also not preferred as it has been medicalized and emphasizes biological sex rather than gender. Transition – the process of revealing one’s true gender – can be internal, social, legal, and/or medical. Trans* is an umbrella term that encompasses all gender-diverse identities (Tompkins 2014), and thus is intended to be inclusive and denote that trans includes nonbinary identities rather than only the binary identities of trans woman and trans man. Nonbinary and genderqueer refer to gender identities beyond binary of woman or man. The term genderqueer became popularized within queer and trans communities in the 1990s and 2000s, and the term nonbinary became popularized in the 2010s (Roxie 2011). Agender, meaning without gender, can describe people who do not have a gender identity, have an undefinable identity, are gender-neutral, or feel indifferent about gender (Brooks 2014). Genderfluid people experience shifts between gender identities and/or expressions. Cisgender (or cis) refers to individuals who identify with the gender assigned to them at birth. Additional gender identity terms exist; these are just a few basic and commonly used terms. Again, the emphasis of these terms is on viewing individuals as they view themselves and using their self-designated names and pronouns.

Sexuality

Queer as an identity term refers to a non-categorical sexual identity in which people prefer not to be boxed into a specific category. It is also used as a synonym for all LGBTQ+ individuals: (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer, plus other identities such as two-spirit, asexual, pansexual, and so on). The term was historically used in a derogatory way, but was reclaimed as an affirmative and self-referential term in the 1990s United States. Lesbian and gay refer to women and men who are primarily or exclusively attracted to other women and men (respectively). Bisexual (or bi) was historically defined as someone attracted to both women and men, though this conceptualization has been problematized as a binary approach to sexuality that excludes individuals who do not identify as men or women. Some bisexual-identified people prefer to describe it as an attraction to more than one gender. Pansexual (or pan) is an identity marked by sexual attraction to people of any gender, or attraction regardless of gender. Asexual (or ace) is an identity marked by a general lack of sexual attraction (Decker 2014), or attraction that develops after a meaningful connection (demisexual) or that varies (graysexual). People who identify on the asexual spectrum distinguish between sexual and romantic attraction, highlighting that romance and sex are not necessarily tightly linked and that asexual people can have romantic relationships. Polyamorous (or poly or polyam) or ethically nonmonogamous (or ENM) identities refer to people who have relationships that are open or non-exclusive. Poly and ENM individuals may have multiple consensual and individually-negotiated sexual and/or romantic relationships at once (Klesse 2006).

Race and Ethnicity

People of color (or POC) is a contemporary term used mainly in the United States to refer to all individuals who are non-white (Safire 1988). It is a political, coalitional term, as it encompasses common experiences of racism. Colored people is an antiquated term used before the Civil Rights movement in the United States and the United Kingdom to refer pejoratively to individuals of African descent. The term is now taken as a slur in the US, as it represents a time when many forms of institutional anti-Black racism during the Jim Crow era were legal.

Black or African American are commonly preferred terms for individuals of African descent today. These are widely used terms, though sometimes they obscure the specificity of individuals’ histories. Examples of other preferred terms are African diasporic or African descent, to refer to people who trace their lineage to Africa but migrated through Latin America and the Caribbean. Asian or Asian-American are identities for people of Asian descent in the United States. As with other racial groups, Asian cultures are diverse and numerous, and some people prefer to use identity terms such as Korean-American or Laotian as these terms connect the individual to their specific ancestral culture and help combat generalizations about ‘Asians.’ In fact, the diversity and complexity that exists within the common categories of ‘race’ in the U.S. (Black, Latinx/Hispanic, Asian, Indian/Native, and white) highlight how racial categories gloss over nuances in experience and identity of individuals that fall into one racial group. For instance, the racial category ‘Asian’ includes the ethnicities Korean, Laotian, Japanese, Indian, Filipino, Vietnamese, Chinese, and more and the racial category ‘Black’ includes the ethnicities Nigerian, Jamaican, Barbadians or Bajans, Egyptian, Ghanaian, Haitian, and more and include both people whose ancestors were enslaved in the U.S. and those whose were not. While experiences and outcomes vary widely among these groups, they are often overlooked or generalized under the category ‘Asian’ or ‘Black.’

A recent Pew Research Center study found that “about half of Asian Americans describe themselves most often by their ethnicity,” though identification varies by factors such as immigrant status and ancestral origin. What does the prevalence of identification with an ethnic group rather than (or in combination with) a racial group suggest about the use of racial categories in the US? Do you feel that racial categories are useful? What are the pros and cons of racial categories?

See the chart image describing Asian American identity here <https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2023/05/RE_2023.05.08_Asian-American-Identity_1-01.png>.

See the report Asian Identity in the U.S. here <https://www.pewresearch.org/2023/05/08/asian-identity-in-the-us/>.

Ruiz, Neil G., Luis Noe-Bustamante, and Sono Shah. 2023. “Asian Identity in the U.S.” Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/2023/05/08/asian-identity-in-the-us/ on August 15, 2024.

Latino is a term commonly used to describe people of Latin American origin or descent in the United States, while Latin American describes people in Latin America. Latino can refer specifically to a man of Latin American origin or descent whereas Latina refers specifically to a woman of Latin American origin or descent. The terms Latino/a and Latin@ include both the –o and –a endings to avoid the sexist use of the masculine word ‘Latino’ to refer to all individuals (recall our discussion of androcentrism). Some people prefer Latinx or Latine to avoid either the –a or the –o gendered endings to explicitly include individuals of all genders (Ramirez and Blay 2017). Chicano, Chicano/a, Chican@, and Chicanx similarly describe people of Mexican origin or descent in the United States, and may be used interchangeably with Mexican American, Xicano, or Xicano/a. However, as Chicano has the connotation of being politically active in working to end oppression of Mexican Americans, and is associated with the Chicano literary and civil rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s, people may prefer the use of either Chicano or Mexican American, depending on their political orientation. Xicano is a shortened form of Mexicano, from the Nahuatl name for the indigenous Mexica Aztec Empire. Some individuals prefer the Xicano spelling to emphasize their indigenous ancestry (Revilla 2004). Hispanic refers to the people and nations with a historical link to Spain and to people of country heritage who speak the Spanish language. Although many people can be considered both Latinx and Hispanic, Brazilians, for example, are Latin American but neither Hispanic nor Latino, while Spaniards are Hispanic but not Latino. Preferred terms vary regionally and politically; these terms came into use in the context of the Anglophone-dominated United States.

Indigenous refers to descendants of the original inhabitants of an area, in contrast to those that have settled, occupied or colonized the area (Turner 2006). Terms vary by specificity; for example, in Australia, individuals are Aboriginal, while those in Canada are First Nations. Aboriginal is sometimes used in the Canadian context, too, though more commonly in settler-government documents, not so much as a term of self-definition. In the United States, individuals may refer to themselves as Indian, American Indian, Native, Native American, or perhaps more commonly they may refer to their specific tribes or nations. Because of the history of the term, ‘Indian,’ like other reclaimed terms, outsiders should be careful in using it.

Not all individuals may identify with or be categorized under one racial category. Mixed-race, biracial, and multiracial individuals identify or fall into multiple identity categories. Some people prefer to denote the combination of their identities such as the identity Blasian which points to both Black and Asian descent or Afro-Latin which points to both African and Latin descent.

Social Class

Social class categories and identities vary and rely on multiple factors including income, wealth, education, and occupational prestige. Generally, those who may identify with or be categorized in the upper-class have much wealth and high incomes, and often have high levels of education or job prestige (e.g., CEOs, celebrities, heirs to fortunes). Those who identify as middle-class typically have a comfortable income and some wealth, college or graduate-level educations, and highly or somewhat prestigious occupations (e.g., attorneys, doctors, higher-level managers, real estate agents), though there is much variation and some people distinguish between ‘upper-middle’ and ‘lower-middle’ classes. Those who are working-class may or may not have a comfortable income, and typically have little wealth, some college education or less, and lower job prestige (e.g., workers in construction, manufacturing, or shipping, lower-level managers, truck drivers). Those who identify or can be categorized as poor or low-income have little income, wealth, education, and job prestige (e.g., workers in retail or fast-food and other part-time or minimum-wage positions). Social class identity is not static as there is the potential for social mobility (moving upward or downward on the social class hierarchy), though this is rare. Though an individual’s current social class status can dictate their identity, their upbringing matters and should not be discounted. For instance, someone who was raised middle-class has social class benefits and privileges even if they are currently low-income or working-class. In future chapters we will return to this and other issues related to both race and social class.

Disability

Some people prefer person-first phrasing, while others prefer identity-first phrasing. People-first language linguistically puts the person before their physical, sensory, or mental impairment, such as “a woman with vision loss.” This terminology is humanizing as it encourages nondisabled people to think of those with disabilities as people (Logsdon 2016). The acronym PWD stands for “people with disabilities.” Although it aims to humanize, people-first language has been critiqued for aiming to create distance from the impairment, which can be understood as devaluing the impairment. Those who prefer identity-first language often emphasize embracing their impairment as an integral, important, valued aspect of themselves, which they do not want to distance themselves from. They may prefer language of “a disabled person,” which points to how society disables individuals (Liebowitz 2015). Many terms in common use have ableist meanings or histories, such as evaluative expressions like “lame,” “retarded,” “crippled,” or “crazy,” and some terms are now considered slurs and should be avoided in conversation. However, as with the term ‘queer,’ some ableist terms have been reclaimed in U.S. academia and social justice movements, such as with the term ‘crip.’

Global

Multiple terms refer to global-level socioeconomic and political divides. Areas of the Global South, which are typically socioeconomically and politically disadvantaged, include Africa, Latin America, parts of Asia, and the Middle East. Generally, Global North areas, including the United States, Canada, Western Europe and parts of East Asia, are typically socioeconomically and politically advantaged. Terms like Third World, First World, developing country, and developed country have been problematized for their hierarchical meanings, in which areas with more resources and political power are valued over those with less resources and less power (Silver 2015). Although the terms Global South and Global North carry the same problematic connotations, these tend to be the preferred terms today. In addition, although the term Third World has been problematized, some people do not see it as a negative term and use it self-referentially, such as with Third World Feminists. Also, Third World was historically used as an oppositional and coalitional term for nations and groups who were non-aligned with either the capitalist First World and communist Second World especially during the Cold War. For example, those who participated in the Third World Liberation Strike at San Francisco State University from 1968 to 1969 used the term to express solidarity and to establish Black Studies and the Ethnic Studies College (Springer 2008). We use certain terms like Global North and Global South throughout the book, with the understanding that there are problematic aspects of these usages.

Transnational has been variously defined. Transnational describes migration and the transcendence of borders, signals the diminishing relevance of the nation-state in the current iteration of globalization, is used interchangeably with diasporic (any reference to materials from a region outside its current location including people who have dispersed or been dislocated from their culture of origin), designates a form of neocolonialism (new forms of colonialism such as transnational capital), and signals the NGOization (increasing development of national governmental organizations) of social movements. For Inderpal Grewal and Caren Kaplan (2001), the terms “transnational women’s movements” or “global women’s movements” are used to refer to U.N. conferences on women, global feminism as a policy and activist arena, and human rights initiatives that enact new forms of governmentality. Chandra Mohanty (2003) has argued that transnational feminist scholarship and social movements critique and mobilize against globalization, capitalism, neoliberalism, neocolonialism, and non-national institutions like the World Trade Organization. In this sense, transnational refers to “cross-national solidarity” in feminist organizing. Grewal and Caplan (2001) have observed that transnational feminist inquiry also examines how these movements have been tied to colonial processes and imperialism, as national and international histories shape transnational social movements. In feminist politics and studies, the term transnational is used much more than “international,” which has been critiqued because it centers the nation-state. Whereas transnational can also take seriously the role of the state it does not assume that the state is the most relevant actor in global processes. Although all of these are technically global processes, the term “global” is oftentimes seen as abstract. It appeals to the notion of “global sisterhood,” which is often suspect because of the assumption of commonalities among women that often times do not exist.