Abstract
Building off recent research on gender-neutral language, this paper will examine the use of folks and folx concerning usage and perceived neutrality. Since the rise in awareness of non-binary identities and how greetings such as guys and dudes are inherently masculine, thus marginalizing both women and non-binary individuals, there has been an increased need for a gender-neutral way to address groups of people. One suggestion is to use the word folx, which is a variation of the word folks where the ‘-ks’ is replaced with an ‘-x.’ Using “folx incorporates the x that is being widely used to bring in more identities to conversations, such as womxn, Latinx, and alumx” (Robertson, 2018: 47), thus adding to a tradition of using ‘x’ or ‘-x’ to show inclusivity. This paper argues that the use of folx is meant to index the support of non-binary individuals and show inclusivity through language. However, it is not any more or less neutral than the original folks and is not viewed as a better alternative. To assess the perceived neutrality of both folks and folx, I created a survey that was distributed through social media such as Swampy Memes for TWAMPy Teens, Swampy Memes for LGBTQ Teens, and my personal social media accounts. The survey first gauges the perceived gender of various words such as guy, dude, womxn, women, and so on. Then it focuses on the experience’s participants have with both folx and womxn along with why they chose to use that specific spelling and their perception of each word. Finally, the survey concludes with demographic information to determine which group is most likely to use folx than folks along with the social media site they use the most. I found that the use of folx is not widespread nor is it used outside of LGBT+ communities, but its usage is a way to index support and recognition of non-binary individuals. Even though folks is just as neutral and more common than folx the ability to purposefully show social awareness and use fewer characters are the driving forces behind why people use folx.
Introduction
As the awareness of non-binary and gender non-conforming identities rises, there has been a shift to using non-gendered language when referring to a group of people. The shift has caused greetings like guys to fall out of use in favor of words like folks. Online, there has been another shift from using folks to using a variation where the ‘-ks’ is replaced with an ‘-x,’ thus making the spelling folx. Using “folx incorporates the x that is being widely used to bring in more identities to conversations, such as womxn, Latinx, and alumx” (Robertson, 2018: 47), thus adding to a tradition of using ‘x’ or ‘-x’ to show inclusivity. While initially, the change does not appear to make the word more neutral, this paper argues that the use of folx is meant to index the support of non-binary people. However, that spelling is not more inclusive or neutral than folks, and the overall popularity of the term will not increase due to the original spelling already being perceived as neutral.
Literature Review
To understand the need for gender-neutral language it is important to understand what it means to be gender variant. As an umbrella term non-binary “defines several gender identity groups, including (but not limited to): (a) an individual whose gender identity falls between or outside male and female identities, (b) an individual who can experience being a man or woman at separate times, or (c) an individual who does not experience having a gender identity or rejects having a gender identity” (Matsuno and Budge, 2017). One identity that falls under ‘non-binary’ is ‘genderqueer’ which Monroe (2005) defines as “any type of trans identity that is not always male or female. It is where people feel they are a mixture of male and female” (13). While non-binary falls under the label of transgender which Stryker defines as “people who move away from the gender they were assigned at birth, people who cross over (trans-) the boundaries constructed by their culture to define and contain that gender” (2008; 1) which allows for non-binary people to use the transgender label if they so choose. The main difference between binary transgender people and non-binary transgender individuals is that binary transgender people identify wither either of the binary genders, either male or female, while non-binary people identify beyond the binary.
Gender-neutral language “has been identified not only by feminists seeking to deemphasize gender and promote inclusivity but by many members of transgender communities who seek a language that will aid them in expressing identities that fall outside of the binary genders of male and female” (Hord 2016; 1) which would allow for a more inclusive way to speak. Having an identity acknowledged in speech is “very important to one’s ability to have their identity understood by others and recognized in everyday speech interactions” (Hord 2016; 1) and if a person’s identity is not being mirrored back to them, then they are being invalidated. For transgender individuals, which includes nonbinary people, “being misgendered – having someone prescribe an incorrect gender to you through the use of a pronoun or gendered term – is a prominent issue” (Hord 2016; 3) that is seen as a sign of disrespect. Misgendering groups can occur in the “practice of using words like woman and man to refer interchangeably to a person’s physiology (e.g. ‘women’s bodies’), childhood socialization (e.g. ‘how women are raised’), perceived gender (e.g. ‘women often experience street harassment’) and gender identity (e.g. ‘women may be inclined to have other women as friends’)” (Zimman 2017; 86) and this same idea applies to group greetings.
Often “overtly gendered nouns, such as woman, female, girl and lady or man, male, guy and dude” are used in casual greetings and to address groups which “function in large part to index the gender of the referent” (Zimman 2017; 89) and being inherently gendered as male or female thus ostracizes non-binary people within the greeting. A prime example of overtly gendered nouns to refer to a group of people is the word dude. In Kiesling’s (2004) research on the usage of dude, he found “that dude is a term that indexes a stance of cool solidarity for everyone and that it also has second orders of indexicality relating it to young people, young men, and young counter-culture men” (300). The inherent association of dude with men and masculinity is a reason the term has been deemed as not gender-neutral. Even though dude “is used mostly by young men to address other young men [and] its use has expanded so that it is now used as a general address term for a group (same or mixed gender) and by and to women” (Kiesling 2004; 282) the indexing to maleness still leaves the term heavily gendered in the eyes of many. The word guys has the same problem as dude, where it can be perceived neutrally but is still heavily gendered.
For those who are against gendered greetings, the solution is the use of folks as it does not have the heavily gendered connotation that guys and dudes have. Nevertheless, there have been instances of the word folx being used instead of folks. The addition of an ‘-x’ to indicate gender neutrality and inclusivity is not a new concept and has gained popularity through terms such as Latinx1. There are “some cultural commentators claim that the word “Latinx” emerged around 2004 from queer communities on the Internet who favored a non-binaristic gender-inclusive term” (DeGuzmán, 2017; 216) but the exact conception of the term cannot be defined due to how it has only recently gained mainstream popularity. From a linguistics standpoint with Spanish being a grammatically gendered language using ‘-x’ as a suffix act “to gender neutralize the term, while also providing a term for those who are transgender or queer” and “offers a decent alternative to [the] unnecessary imposition of gender” (de Onis, 2017; 81-82). Even though there is some debate in the public sphere over the function of -x within the Spanish language, DeGuzmán argues that it works in both Spanish and English, where “in Spanish, the denomination becomes “Latineh-kees” and in English “Latin-x”” (2017; 217). DeGuzmán also argues that “by substituting an “x” for the usual binary gender terminations “o,” “a,” “o/a,” and “a/o,” attention is shifted away from binaries to the more open-ended, ambiguous “x.” This “x” can mean anything. It is the “x” of an algebra in which any value may be assigned” (2017; 220), and for some people, that can feel liberating. Explicitly using ‘-x’ can index an awareness and care towards “social justice for queer and non-gender-conforming bodies” and in the case of folx using the ‘-x’ can be “about making a public and political statement” (de Onis, 2017; 85) much like using Latinx. There is also the view that “the “x” functions as a marker of presence—particularly of presence in a space” (DeGuzmán, 2017; 220) which can be applied more broadly to include the use of “x” in other words to show the existence of a minority and therefore allowing them to take up space which is what the “x” in folx is doing.
This same process of changing the spelling of a word to reflect one’s stance on a social issue can be seen with changing the spelling of women to womyn and, more recently, to womxn2. In the spring of 1991, the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, “widely publicized as the first “politically correct” dictionary,” added womyn as an alternate spelling to women” (Steinmetz, 1995; 430). At the same time womyn was being excluded from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and Anne Soukhanov, the executive editor at the time, justified the decisions because “the evidence showed that it is used chiefly in the literature of women’s issues and that when it does occur in general sources, more often than not it is enclosed in “shutter quotes” or briefly glossed, often in a jocular manner” (Steinmetz, 1995; 430) which caused the editors to believe the word had not yet gained widespread usage. As Steinmetz points out in his article, womyn had been cited on many occasions between 1976 and 1994, with some of the articles justifying the usage of womyn instead of women. For example, the “Shanties, Shakespeare, and Sex Kits: Confessions of a Dartmouth Review Editor” from the Fall of 1989 views the usage as “another feminist operating technique in the avoidance of the words “man” and “his.” Thus, women become “wimmin,” “womyn,” and, most frequently, “womben”” (Steinmetz, 1995; 433). Many of the sources cite the use of womyn as a way to “take the ‘men’ out of ‘women’” (Steinmetz, 1995; 434), which is the main reason for the alternate spelling. Although it should be noted that there is not a consistent idea of how to remove the men from women and Steinmetz found that “North American users prefer the spelling womyn whereas British users opt for wimmin” but “both spellings, however, seem to have originated in the United States in the mid-1970’s”(1995; 437). Other justifications of the change in spelling include using “the alternate spelling of women (wimmin) as a means of self-empowerment and as a political stance against the patriarchy which we as wimmin face on a daily basis” (Burnett, 1998; 33) and the more recent use of ““womxn” as a symbol of resistance to move beyond a monolithic, white-dominant, cisgender, man-centered understanding of “womxnhood” and move toward a more inclusive and empowered meaning” (Ashlee, Zamora, & Karikari, 2017; 102). The change in spelling that women underwent appears to be the same processes that folks is experiencing with a variation that puts a spotlight on social justice.
Methodology
To research the perceived neutrality of folks versus folx, I distributed a survey across my personal Facebook page, Twitter page, and two William and Mary Facebook groups called Swampy Memes for TWAMPy Teens and Swampy Memes for LGBTQ Teens. The survey begins with participants ranking the words: guys, y’all, girls, folx, men, women, folks, womxn, everyone, dudes, ladies, boi, and gurl on a zero to five scale. On the scale, zero is very masculine, five is very feminine, and three is completely neutral. Then participants were asked about their usage and experiences with the words folx and womxn since they both utilize an ‘x.’ I chose to use womxn instead of Latinx because it removed the possible variable of grammatical gender and focused on the alternate spelling of words that did not require a spelling change. For both terms, participants were asked if they have ever seen them used instead of the original spelling, folks, or women/woman, and then if they have ever used the alternate spellings. If they have used the alternate spellings, they were asked why, and if not, they were asked why they think someone would use the alternate spellings. The survey then concludes with demographic information such as age, race, gender, sexuality, and most frequently used social media sites since the popularization of folx appears to have happened online.
Findings
This survey garnered 273 responses in total between October 24th, 2019, and November 18th, 2019. In the first task on the survey (figure 1), both folx and folks had a majority neutral rating (around a two or three on the provided scale), but out of the 273 participants, 162 ranked folx as a three while 142 ranked folks as a 3. Also, four participants ranked folx as masculine (a zero or one), and six ranked it as feminine (four or five), no one ranked folks as feminine, and four people ranked it as masculine. So, 82% of participants perceived folx as neutral while 85% perceived folks as more neutral.
Despite both being perceived as neutral only 28.27% of participants have ever encountered folx being used to address a group of people, and only 17.91% have ever used folx instead of folks. For those who have used folx to refer to a group of people, the two main reasons for doing so are seeing folx as more inclusive and showing support for nonbinary people. The second most popular reason is that participants saw other people using folx instead of folks and started doing so. One participant said “I like it aesthetically, but I wouldn’t use it in a formal context. I don’t see it as being more inclusive than “folks”” and another uses folx because it uses “fewer characters for Twitter.”
As for the perception of using folx instead of folks, most participants felt like someone would use the former to be more inclusive, followed by using it to make a political statement. 32 participants selected ‘other’ and wrote in their opinion on why someone would use folx. One participant saw the change from folks to folx as “adding an x in to fit in with Latinx and such – I guess it’s more inclusive to nonbinary people? But Folks in of itself is super neutral. Seems redundant. And I’m pretty far left,” yet the main reason participants wrote in is, as one person put it, “to seem more inclusive even though folks works just as well.” Two respondents felt as though the alternate spelling exists “because people take southern ways of speaking and then change them because they’re mf dummies” and “to remove the rural, conservative stigma surrounding folks.” Another sentiment people brought up is how people use folx “because they think it makes them more woke,” which is to say that the person using it appears more socially aware and “to signal to readers that they’re committed to inclusivity.” Finally, an idea brought up is that folx is used “because they don’t realize that folks is already neutral.” One participant said, “I have never seen any explanation where folx makes sense instead of folks – it’s ALREADY neutral.” Accounting for sexuality within this data out of the 28.27% who have seen folx used to refer to a group of people 73.13% identify as LGB+ and 28.33% being transgender or nonbinary. As for those who have used folx, all of them are LGBT+.
Demographically, a large majority of respondents are between the ages of 18 and 30, with a statistically insignificant amount being older than 30. Meaning, that those responding to my survey are mainly college students and/or people in their 20’s since that is who is in the Facebook groups I posted the survey on and my general friend group. Racially 83.77% of the participants are white, which is not surprising considering that a majority of William and Mary is white, and most of the people I am friends with on Facebook are white due to where I grew up. For gender, 68.09% of respondents identify as cisgender women, 20.43% identify as cisgender men, and 11.48% identify as transgender or nonbinary. As for sexuality, 50.42% of participants identify as heterosexual, with the rest identifying as LGBT+. Finally, the most used social media site is Facebook, followed by Instagram and Twitter.
Discussion
Originally, I expected to find more people being aware of the usage of folx, but only slightly more than a quarter of my sample has ever seen it and even less have ever used it. Unsurprisingly though, a vast majority of people who have encountered folx and all of those who use the term are LGBT+, which makes sense considering the term appears to circulate a lot on LGBT+ social media. Like womyn, folx appears to be mostly used in feminist and LGBT+ circles, causing the lack of awareness and usage by outsiders, in this case, mainly heterosexual people. Now there is a possibility that the cisgender, heterosexual culture at large, has not caught on to the use of folx to index support of non-binary people, but that is unlikely due to folks being seen as just as neutral and inclusive.
As noted by a few of my respondents, the shortening of folks to folx could also be a result of character limits on social media platforms such as Twitter. By being able to replace -ks with -x a person saves one character they could use elsewhere. It was also brought up that people saw the usage of folx as a performative act where the point was not to be more neutral but instead to show off their social awareness towards nonbinary people and being performatively inclusive to make a point. Also, out of all the social media options, the only one referenced to by name for those who have seen and used folx is Twitter. If folx originated on Twitter and started as a way to save characters in a tweet then, it is possible that the association with showing support for non-binary people was tacked on later as a reaction to Latinx. However, overwhelmingly, those who participated in my survey saw folx as a performative act rather than as shorthand for folks. By positioning folx as simply a social performance, it is possible that the term will only be used by niche online communities. Folx being a performative act online would also make sense because the pronunciation of folx and folks is exactly the same, so the way one would write the word becomes negligible when talking.
Unlike the usage of Latinx where a gender-neutral version of Latino/Latina is needed, the use of folx is seen as unnecessary due to folks already being neutral. As some of my participants wrote in, the addition of folx appears redundant because folks is already neutral, and according to the data from the first task on the survey, both terms are perceived with the same level of neutrality. They seemed to dismiss its usage as just a way to take something that is not an issue, folks not being inclusive enough, and making it more inclusive. Although one respondent raised the point that folks tends to have a very Southern and conservative connotation, which might be why people felt the need to change the spelling to distance themselves from appearing Southern and conservative. A further point of research could be comparing y’all and folks as gender-neutral greetings through the perception of Southerness since the use of y’all appears to have increased on social media. The co-opting of the lexical feature of Southern dialects combined with the distaste form said dialects could be a contributing factor to changing the spelling of folks.
Overall there are no strong feelings towards folx; instead, it is treated like a spelling variation some people choose to use. There is an understanding that its purpose is to be inclusive of non-binary people, but there has not been any major push to use folx or any harsh judgment being passed either way. While the sample I collected is not reflective of the greater population of those online or in the world advocating for the use of folx, it appears as if a very small number of people regularly encounter it or feel the need to use it. Since folks is just as neutral and more widely used, folx will most likely fall into obscurity like womyn and only be used by a niche group of people for a specific purpose causing it to not spread to the rest of society.
Conclusion
While folx and folks are perceived as equally neutral, the ability to index support for non-binary people is the main draw towards using folx. Even though many feel as though the usage is redundant and there is no widespread usage outside of LGBT+ spaces, it is too early to say whether folx is a fad or not. My data only represents a small number of mostly college-aged individuals and was not distributed to larger LGBT+ online platforms so opinions might differ outside of the researched sample. The usage of neutral language to address groups of people is still important, and figuring out ways to address groups without assuming everyone’s gender is still tricky, but substituting folks for folx is not how people are going about it. Neutral and inclusive language is important, which is why there has been a rise in the usage of words like Latinx, but when an already neutral word like folks gets changed, people feel less inclined to change their spelling habits. Overall, people will use folx, whether it is to save on Twitter characters or to show support for non-binary people. However, the original folks is still viewed as the preferred spelling that is more likely to continue to be used by a majority of people.
[1] There are op-eds being written where the usage of Latinx is being brought into question. Some people suggest using Latine instead, while others feel as if neither is necessary.
[2] The use of womxn is much more recent than the use of womyn or wimmin, which is why there is no scholarly research on it. However, many news media outlets have articles referencing the use of womxn as a more inclusive version of womyn. The issue with womyn is the association with TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) ideology that views gender as essential, and therefore, transgender people are just confused and do not exist. While the use of womxn has not been around enough to be studied in an academic fashion my inclusion of it in this paper is meant to reference it is used in non-academic environments.
Bibliography
Ashlee, Aeriel, Bianca Zamora, & Shamika N Karikari. (2017): We Are Woke: A Collaborative Critical Autoethnography of Three “Womxn” of Color Graduate Students in Higher Education. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 19.1 89-104.
Burnett, L. (1998). Different youth, different voices: Perspectives from young lesbian wimmin. Children Australia, 23(1), 33-37. doi:10.1017/S103507720000849X
de Onis, Catalina. (2017). What’s in an “x”?: An Exchange about the Politics of “Latinx”. Chiricú Journal: Latina/o Literatures, Arts, and Cultures. 1. 78. 10.2979/chiricu.1.2.07.
DeGuzmán, M. (2017). Latinx: ¡Estamos aquí!, or being “Latinx” at UNC-Chapel Hill. Cultural Dynamics, 29(3), 214–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0921374017727852
Hord, L. C. (2016). Bucking the Linguistic Binary: Gender Neutral Language in English, Swedish, French, and German. Western Papers in Linguistics/Cahiers linguistiques de Western, 3(1), 4.
Kiesling, S. F. (2004). Dude. American Speech, 79(3), 281–305. doi: 10.1215/00031283-79-3-281
Matsuno, E. & Budge, S.L. (2017) “Non-binary/Genderqueer Identities: a Critical Review of the Literature” Curr Sex Health Rep 9: 116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-017-0111-8
Monro, S. (2005). Gender Theory. In Gender Politics: Citizenship, Activism and Sexual Diversity (pp. 10-42). LONDON; ANN ARBOR, MI: Pluto Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt183q5wt.6
Robertson, N. (2018). The Power and Subjection of Liminality and Borderlands of Non-Binary Folx. Gender Forum, (69), 45-76.
Steinmetz, S. (1995). Womyn: The Evidence. American Speech,70(4), 429-437. doi:10.2307/455626
Stryker, S. (2008). Transgender history. Seal Press.
Sara Schmieder 