I really hate the term "folx" because it is the embodiment of missing the point entirely as to what trans people actually need in terms of language adaption.
What I mean by this is that it's performative. Changing "folks" to "folx" doesn't make it more inclusive, because "folks" is already gender neutral. Using "folx" is an empty signifier.
Those who use "folx" to include trans people tell on themselves that they don't include trans people in "folks", meaning that they see us as an other, separate from the general population, not included in human variation unless specifically noted.
"Folx" is often used with the best of intentions, but shows that someone is more concerned with "saying the right thing" than thinking about *why* trans people need certain language adapted to include us. It's performative, and lacks thoughtfulness.
Consciously thinking about what phrases/language might exclude trans people is always going to produce a better result than trying to memorize a set of cases wherein gender neutral language is best practice. Think of us and remember that we exist even when we don't remind you.
I have been informed that "folx" was originally an AAVE term. In light of this, I want to apologize for the generality of my initial statement. I still believe my thread holds up that it shouldn't be used as an attempt at trans inclusivity.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
