Let’s reserve “right” and “wrong” thinking for language that is clearly, exclusively or primarily hateful, demeaning and dehumanizing.įor other language (ex. The point being, folx is a great example of something you may want to get “right.” And there’s no clear, one “right” meaning for it (as with BIPOC, and even “indigenous people.”) I’m all for speaking from a reasonably informed basis, so let’s keep learning about language. Even in this post, “ the origin of folx and why we should all use it.”

This was news to me, and it’s not universally “confirmed” that folx was originated or intended, or is experienced as inclusive of POC. The reason we need “folx” in addition to the gender-neutral “folks” is to indicate inclusion of other marginalized groups including people of color (POCs) and trans people.

In my initial response, I elided over an additional dimension of “folx” shared in that article:.

If I may ask: What are you deciding (for now)? But in the evolution of all these words (which share some elements, even as they also signify differences with each other), I have continued to use “cultural competency” to help folks bridge to the concept of DEI fluency that I anchor my work in. * “Cultural competency” has been critiqued and replaced with other frameworks (including cultural humility, equity literacy…) and I ultimately developed my concept of DEI fluency, which is a hybrid of definitions of cultural competency, cultural humility and equity literacy. After many conversations, in one of which I posed myself the question: could I communicate “blind spot” in other words just as clearly, without invoking able-ism? I’m piloting “invisible spot” now. * I took longer to digest the critique that “blind spot” is able-ist language.

* I have consciously committed to not using “crazy” and other formerly mental health-describing words in contexts like: that meeting was crazy I typically still write “folks,” although now more consciously (not as in: to make a point, but as in: with an opportunity to reflect).Īssuredly, you will find folx and folks who have other opinions.Īnd this goes beyond your question, but in the realm of ever-evolving lexicon, and my discernment of what’s “right”/”wrong” versus how else I may say something in my ongoing growth: Myself, I’m adding folx to my vocab, but have not replaced “folks” (as wrong) with “folx” (as right).

So, to be inclusive of the gender spectrum requires additional intention in our everyday systems, practices and language, and “folx” is (in my opinion) a high-usage, phonic opportunity. for folx sake here.) While folx is intended to be more gender inclusive, the argument doesn’t seem to be that folks is specifically or particularly gender-exclusive (like, for instance, “guys”), but that our dominant culture is. I too discovered folx, recently! In my understanding, yes the x is indeed like that in Latinx. A colleagues recently asked me about the word “folx,” and whether “folks” is now incorrect.

Lgbtq folx