2 Identity Terms

Language is political, hotly contested, always evolving, and deeply personal to each person who chooses the terms with which to identify themselves. To demonstrate respect and awareness of these complexities, it is important to be attentive to language and to honor and use individuals’ self-referential terms (Farinas 2015). Below are some common identity terms and their meanings. This discussion is not meant to be definitive or prescriptive but rather aims to highlight the stakes of language and the debates and context surrounding these terms, as well as to assist in understanding the terms that may frequently come up in our classroom discussions. While there are no strict rules about “correct” or “incorrect” language, these terms reflect much more than personal preferences. They reflect individual and collective histories, ongoing scholarly debates, and current politics.

People of color is a contemporary term used mainly in the United States to refer to all individuals who are non-white. It is a political, coalitional term, as it encompasses common experiences of racism. People of color is abbreviated as POC. Black or African American are commonly the preferred terms for most individuals of African descent today. These are widely used terms, though sometimes they obscure the specificity of individuals’ histories. Other preferred terms are African diasporic or African descent, to refer, for example, to people who trace their lineage to Africa but migrated through Latin America and the Caribbean. 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, as it represents a time when many forms of institutional racism during the Jim Crow era were legal. Increasingly, the term “people of the global majority” is preferred, in reference to minoritized people of color throughout the globe (as the majority of people on this planet are members of minoritized groups). Some prefer the term racialized over people of color, as racialized underscores the power dynamics of who gets marked as having a race, and who does the marking (racialized is further defined in the Unit II section “Race.”) Similarly, it is better to use the term enslaved people, or person, rather than slaves,  or slave. Enslaved emphasizes how relatively powerful (and usually white) human beings were enslaving disempowered (and usually Black) human beings, whereas “slave” defines an enslaved person as an object, and moreover erases who turned that human being into a “slave.”

Believe it or not, “Caucasian” is a racist term, despite its continued, common use in the U.S. (Mukhopadhyay 2008). The reason “Caucasian” is considered racist today is because this racial category emerged in the 18th century, when Europeans were inventing different racial groupings (under the guise of science), and moreover ranking these racialized groups in a hierarchy, placing “Caucasians” at the top. (See Unit II, chapter 13 for a more thorough explanation of why race is not in fact biological, and the historical emergence of scientific racism.)

Throughout this text, we use the following definition of disability: having a physical or mental condition that may limit movement, senses, or activities (including, for example: anxiety, depression, ADHD, diabetes, arthritis, low vision).^[1] Some people prefer person-first phrasing, while others prefer identity-first phrasing. People-first language linguistically puts the person before their impairment (physical, sensory or mental difference). Example: “a woman with a mobility device.” This terminology encourages temporarily able-bodied people to think of those with disabilities as people. 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 condition, which can be understood as devaluing the condition. Those who prefer identity-first language often emphasize embracing their disability, or difference, as an integral, important, valued aspect of themselves, which they do not want to distance themselves from. Example: “a disabled person.” Using this language points to how society disables individuals (Liebowitz 2015). (The social model of disability is discussed further in Unit II, in the sections “Social Constructionism,” and “Ability.”) Many terms in common use have ableist meanings, such as evaluative expressions like “lame,” “retarded,” “crippled,” and “crazy.” It is important to avoid using these terms. (Some disability rights activists and scholars have reclaimed “crippled” with the abbreviated “crip,” but if you are not a member of the crip community, you should avoid using this term.) Although in the case of disability, both people-first and disability-first phrasing are currently in use, as mentioned above, this is not the case when it comes to race.

Transgender generally refers to individuals who identify as a gender (e.g., woman) that is not traditionally associated with the sex category assigned to them at birth (e.g., female). The term is used as an adjective (i.e., “a transgender woman,” not “a transgender”), however some individuals describe themselves by using transgender as a noun. The term transgendered is not preferred because it emphasizes ascription and undermines self-definition. Trans is an abbreviated term and individuals use it self-referentially these days more often than transgender. The term transsexual is a medicalized term, and generally indicates a binary understanding of gender wherein an individual identifies with a gender that does not “match” the sex category assigned to them at birth. Many trans people find “transsexual” offensive today. A person’s transition is internal and social, and may or may not be external or physical. Some individuals who transition do not experience a change in their gender identity since they have always identified in the way that they do. Trans* is an all-inclusive umbrella term which encompasses all nonnormative gender identities (Tompkins 2014). Non-binary and genderqueer refer to gender identities beyond binary identifications of man or woman. The term genderqueer became popularized within queer and trans communities in the 1990s and 2000s, and the term non-binary became popularized in the 2010s. Agender, meaning “without gender,” can describe people who do not have a gender identity, while others identify as non-binary or gender neutral, have an undefinable identity, or feel indifferent about gender (Brooks 2014). Genderfluid people experience shifts between gender identities. Cisgender or cis refers to individuals whose gender identity aligns with the sex category assigned to them at birth. Some people prefer the term non-trans. 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. When in doubt, ask respectfully. Intersex people are born with physiological sex traits that are either ambiguous to the outside observer (such as with external genitalia) or that overlap in different ways. For example, someone may be born with XY chromosomes and also have ovaries. Or someone may produce testosterone in the range more typical for males and yet have a vaginal opening and develop breasts. The term “hermaphrodite” is outdated and considered highly offensive to most intersex people today. About 1 in 2000 babies are born intersex, but unfortunately most medical practitioners are trained to surgically alter infants to conform to the sex/gender binary. (See Unit II for more on the social and medical discrimination that intersex people face).

2LGBTQIA+ stands for: two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer (or questioning), intersex, asexual (or aromantic, or ally), and more. Queer is also used as a catch-all term for this ever-lengthening acronym. “Queer” was historically used in a derogatory way, but was reclaimed as a self-referential term in the 1990s United States. The two-spirit term was also developed in the 1990s by numerous Native American nations, as different tribes speak different languages and hence use different terms to refer to people who do not conform to binary genders or sexualities. Importantly, many Native American nations recognized more than two genders or sexualities well before colonial contact, and such people were not discriminated against until the imposition of colonial rule. (For more on the history of Two-Spirit, see Unit IV and Unit VI.) Bisexual is typically defined as a sexual orientation marked by attraction to either men or women. This has been problematized as a binary approach to sexuality, which excludes individuals who do not identify as men or women. Pansexual is a sexual identity marked by sexual attraction to people of any gender or sexuality. Polyamorous (poly, for short) or consensual non-monogamous relationships are open or non-exclusive; individuals may have multiple, consensual and individually-negotiated sexual and/or romantic relationships at once (Klesse 2006). Asexual is an identity marked by a lack of or rare sexual attraction, or low or absent interest in sexual activity, abbreviated to “ace” (Decker 2014). Asexuals distinguish between sexual and romantic attraction, delineating various sub-identities included under an ace umbrella, such as aromantic (or aro). In several later sections of this book, we also discuss the terms heteronormativity, homonormativity, and homonationalism; these terms are not self-referential identity descriptors but are used to describe how sexuality is constructed in society and the politics around such constructions.

Latine is a term used to describe people of Latin American origin or descent in the United States, while Latin American describes people in Latin America. Latina refers specifically to a woman of Latin American origin or descent, while Latino can refer specifically to a man of Latin American origin or descent; Latine is the gender-neutral term. Previously, some preferred the terms Latino/a or Latin@ as these include both the –o and –a endings to avoid the sexist use of “Latino” to refer to all individuals. Later, people began using Latinx as Latino/a and Latin@ still presumes a gender binary. Ending a word with “x,” however, is not typically found in the Spanish or Portuguese languages, so increasingly people are moving to Latine as the preferred gender-neutral term (Méndez 2023). Chicana, 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, Xicana, 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 Latine and Hispanic, Brazilians, for example, are Latin American but not Hispanic, while Spaniards are Hispanic but not Latin American. As Méndez wrote in 2023: “Hispanic is often insulting to many people of Latin American heritage, as it centers the heritage of the colonial powers responsible for the slaughter of Latin America’s 56 million Indigenous people during the largest genocide in history.” When in doubt, ask someone their preferred term, or use Latine.

According to statistics from 2023, immigrants from Mexico comprise only about 45% of the undocumented population in the U.S., while 34% of Mexican immigrants have become naturalized U.S. citizens, not to mention the nearly 40 million U.S.-born people who happen to be of Mexican descent (Batalova 2024, Moslimani et al. 2023). And yet the offensive term “illegal immigrant”—or worse, “illegal alien“—remains almost synonymous with “Mexican” in the U.S. (Flores & Schachter 2018). Take care not to assume someone’s citizenship status based merely on their ethnicity, language, occupation, or other characteristics. Documentation is a private matter, and in most cases it is neither appropriate, nor legal, to ask someone for paperwork regarding their immigration or citizenship status.

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, Indigenous 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 Indigenous, Indian, American Indian, Native, or Native American, or, perhaps more commonly, they refer to their specific tribes or nations (e.g., Ho-Chunk, Karuk). Because of the history of the term “Indian” in the U.S. context, like other reclaimed terms, outsiders should be very careful in using it, if at all.

Global South and Global North refer to socioeconomic and political divides. Areas of the Global South, which are typically socioeconomically and politically disadvantaged include parts of the African continent, Latin America, 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, implying that areas with more resources and political power are somehow superior to those with less resources and less power (Silver 2015). The terms Global South and Global North carry the same problematic connotations, but tend to be used more frequently. In addition, although the term Third World has been problematized, some people do not see Third World as a negative term and use it self-referentially. For instance, 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 or communist Second World, especially during the Cold War. 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. We use certain terms, like Global North/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), designates a form of neocolonialism (e.g., transnational capital) and signals the “NGOization” 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 Kaplan (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 frequently do not exist.