From pronouns to professions, gender codes are all around us. Though often unnoticed, they shape society as it exists today. I’ve only ever lived in Britain (which shouldn’t be mistaken for a lack of awareness of other cultures), so I can’t speak on behalf of other societies. However, in the Western world, and especially in Britain, gendered language has come a long way. Within my lifetime, language has evolved significantly, experiencing both growth and setbacks.

I remember the first time I heard “woman up” instead of “man up”—it was in the 2014 Disney movie Big Hero 6, spoken by the character GoGo, voiced by Jamie Chung. Eight-year-old me was amazed, realising I could aspire to be as strong as GoGo without measuring strength by masculinity. That small but powerful alteration to a familiar phrase challenged an assumption I had never even thought to question.

The History of Gendered Language

When it comes to grammatical gender, linguists trace its origins back thousands of years to Proto-Indo-European. Many modern languages still have gendered forms, such as the articles der, die, das in German, which denote masculine, feminine, and neuter forms. However, the concept of gender as we now understand it—describing human characteristics—was significantly shaped in 1955 by John Money, a controversial but pioneering sexologist who studied human sexuality and gender roles.

The prevailing view is that language is often biased toward a certain sex or gender. But how does this actually manifest in our everyday speech?

The Evolution of Gendered Terms

Language evolves with society. As cultural norms and values shift, the words we use often change with them too, though these shifts don’t always happen in the way we anticipate. When the term “SheEO” emerged, it aimed to challenge the assumption that CEOs were inherently men. Great, a win for gender representation! But over time, some criticised the term, arguing it reinforced the idea that a woman in power was an anomaly rather than the norm. “Girlboss” suffered a similar fate, once empowering but now often used mockingly and sarcastically on TikTok. This raises the question: do we even need gender-marked terms at all?

Historically, female-marked terms tend to take on negative connotations. Linguist Sara Mills observed that such terms often become sexualised, limiting women’s roles. Meanwhile, male-marked equivalents either remain neutral or even gain prestige. Take mistress, for example. In Samuel Johnson’s time, it meant “a woman who governs.” Today, the Oxford Dictionary defines it as “a woman (other than a man’s wife) having a sexual relationship with a married man.” A word that once signified authority and leadership has been reduced to one associated with scandal. Language has a habit of sidelining women, always dealing them the losing hand, reducing their roles and reinforcing stereotypes.

Even so-called gender-neutral terms often default to male. Consider doctor. When referring to a woman, people frequently specify “female doctor.” This redundancy implies that doctor is inherently male and that a woman in the role is an exception. Society still assumes certain professions belong to men, making it necessary to mark a woman’s presence explicitly. This bias extends beyond professions. Think about how we refer to mixed-gender groups. Terms like guys or mankind are often used inclusively, yet their origins are explicitly male. Even in “neutral” language, the male perspective is often the standard.

But is it all doom and gloom? Not necessarily.

Progress and the Path Forward

The 2010s feel like a lifetime ago, and society has changed drastically since then. If we accept the hypothesis that language shapes how we see the world, then progress in language reflects progress in society. We’re far from perfect, but we’re moving in the right direction. The wider acceptance of pronouns, for example, lays a foundation for more inclusive language. Changes in job titles, from fireman to firefighter and policeman to police officer, signal an effort to remove gender bias in professional spaces.

Of course, language isn’t perfect. It will take decades to refine it further. But a great step forward would be to abandon gender-marked terms altogether. Why should we still be separating people based on outdated distinctions? Why should a leader be a SheEO when they can simply be a CEO? Let’s be honest—these distinctions don’t serve men, women, or non-gender-conforming people. Once we move beyond gendered labels, we can begin to think more equitably and recognize that a CEO is simply a Chief Executive Officer—not inherently a man in power. When we strip away these unnecessary labels, we create a language that better reflects a world where gender doesn’t dictate ability or authority.

So I guess its all about taking the dangerous markings out of language and broadening our minds. The sooner we move beyond gendered labels, the sooner we can focus on what really matters: the work people do, not the gender they identify with.