Weaponized language, as I see it, can be used both intentionally and unintentionally. Importantly, the intent behind the language can be collective or individual. Words do not exist in a vacuum — they carry with them context, history, baggage. Weaponized language can be used unintentionally when an individual may be unaware or ignorant of the fact that the collective or general intent behind a particular word or phrase has been to invalidate, demean, or undermine an individual and often, by extension, the group or population that individual belongs to. So, the collective intent can be weaponized while an individual may use that weaponized language unconsciously.

An example of this might be the term “sexual preference,” which has historically been used in a weaponized fashion to undermine the sexual identities of non-straight people, as it implies that being queer is merely a choice and, therefore, one can simply choose to be heretosexual instead. This is why “sexual orientation” came to be seen as a more appropriate term during the 1990s. Someone could, in ignorance, use “sexual preference” without realizing the collective intent behind this word is one that is generally weaponized. Another example would be a person using a word that is regarded as a slur against a particular group without knowing the word is inappropriate or injurious due to the historical trauma it carries (i.e., that the word is generally seen as weaponized). Additionally, someone may recirculate weaponized language due to unconscious bias, or, “social stereotypes about certain groups of people that individuals form outside their own conscious awareness.”

Sure, as you suggest, an individual could theoretically argue that any word(s) used against them are harmful, but as I see it, weaponized language goes beyond individual insult to invalidate, demean, or undermine an entire group or population. Furthermore, the language is commonly understood by that group, or a substantial portion of the group, as weaponized.

To be clear, in this instance I think gender-neutral language is intentionally being used in a weaponized fashion against Roem, and by extension, transgender Americans. My intention was to first provide a definition of weaponized language before analyzing this particular example. As I point out, the use of gender-inclusive language is generally regarded as progressive and affirmative of trans people’s identities, but in this case, it is being employed in a weaponized manner. Context is key. Gender-inclusive language is not universally “good” just as gender-specific language is not universally “bad.”

While we should not automatically assume that language is consciously being used with weaponized intent, in this case there is ample evidence to substantiate this interpretation. As such, the actions of Virginia Republicans are not an attempt to find common ground with trans people. I outline this evidence in my essay, but I will reiterate it here:

1. The move to strike gendered titles from the Virginia State House appears to be in direct response to Roem’s campaign ad in which she describes the significance of being referred to as “the Gentlewoman from Manassas.”
2. We have to place this example in the broader context of Republicans using transphobia as a political tool to mobilize voters/constituents. A prime example of this is the anti-transgender “bathroom bills” that have been introduced in numerous state legislatures. If Republicans, in this instance, recognize a transgender woman as a woman, Republicans elsewhere may be expected to do the same and held to the same standard. Thus, recognizing Roem as a woman may be a dangerous political move for a party who often uses bigotry to appeal to voters.
3. Marshall’s Virginia Republican colleagues did not denounce or condemn the transphobia he displayed towards Roem during and after the campaign. This implies that, at worst, they agree with him and, at best, they are perpetuating trans-antagonism via their silence.
4. I suggest that the way Republicans are employing transphobia is similar to the way they have employed racism and link to an article by Carol Anderson — a well-respected historian from Emory University — in which she argues that the GOP have become addicted to racism and white supremacy as a way to mobilize their core supporters.

Thank you for your comments, Leah Ann! I hope you have a great day.