In 2026, more now than ever, people ask me about gender-expansive clients and how to address them. Healers raise concerns about ‘getting it wrong’. We aim to be as inclusive, kind, loving and as open as possible to ensure all clients feel welcomed. One of the things I have appreciated about working with the Omnes crew is the willingness for people to learn and grow and understand gender-diversity and adopt inclusive practices with our clients, students and well, everyone! 

My own experience as a nonbinary human and as a queer & polyamorous person, is that it’s easy to make assumptions about the folks we meet. These assumptions are made about me and my clients every day.  We have all been socially conditioned to ‘work out’ which binary box we think a person might fit into and we tend to use gender markers when talking about people.  This is unnecessary, unhelpful, exclusionary and outdated. 

If you take away ONE thing from this article, it’s this request: please STOP using the word ‘lady’ when talking about a client, even if they are a woman.

Why is the term ‘lady’ problematic?

In the past calling someone a ‘lady’ was considered a polite address. Today, we know it’s not. We understand the issues with using this outdated and problematic term but for anyone who is unaware of the issues I’m going to give a brief summary here about why removing the term ‘lady’ from your vocabulary is a welcome shift in the direction of being fully inclusive of all genders. 

Gender Assumptions.

‘Lady’ assumes the person identifies as a woman. They may well identify as a woman but the term lady denotes a certain kind of woman (see more info below). In modern contexts—especially where gender identity is not known—we can inadvertently, misgender someone, exclude nonbinary or gender-diverse people, impose our worldview and project an identity onto someone rather than allowing space for self-identification. I know many women who don’t like being called a lady, even though they identify as a woman.

Narrow, Traditional Definition of Womanhood

Historically, a “lady” wasn’t just any woman—it implied: elegance, politeness, modesty, restraint. ‘Proper’ behaviour (often tied to patriarchal expectations). Respectability according to social norms and expectations around how to talk, move and dress. This is considered problematic today because; it reinforces outdated gender roles, and it subtly judges women who don’t conform to the stereotype (‘not very ladylike’) and is linked to worth associated with expected behaviour of a lady, rather than values of humanity. 

Early gender-conditioning in childhood contributes towards these later-in-life challenges, as adults and parents expect different behaviours from girls than from boys. Expected standards of behaviour have nothing to do with a person’s genitals and yet there is a binary-gendered assumption which perpetuates the issues of the patriarchy. 

Classist Origins

The word has deep roots in class hierarchy; the term ‘Lady’ originally referred to women of upper social class, and the aristocracy with wealth and status, such as women married to Lords, Earls, Dukes and Barons. In the 1920s, it was adopted for use in the middle classes as a socially constructed attempt at being overtly polite and suggesting someone is “respectable” in a class-coded way, in contrast with historically loaded terms used for working-class women. Using the term ‘lady’ can unintentionally echo class distinctions.

Respectability Politics

Calling someone a ‘lady’ can imply; they deserve respect because they meet certain standards and this ties into aspects of respectability politics when people are valued based on how closely they fit dominant cultural norms, behaviours and appearances, and this becomes normalised. As we begin to decolonise the culture and curriculum content, the awareness of respectability politics is also identified and released from an outdated cultural paradigm.  

Diminishing or Patronizing Tone (Context-Dependent)

In some situations, using the gender-marker ‘lady’ can sound patronizing, for example, ‘calm down, lady’, or a group of colleagues discussing a project in the office are approached by their boss with this comment; ‘come on ladies, stop chatting and get back to work’. Tone and context matter a lot here—but it’s a common concern. It can be dismissive or infantilizing and less professional in formal contexts. 

Not Inclusive in Professional or Public Language

In workplaces or within public communication: “Ladies and gentlemen” excludes nonbinary people.                     “Lady doctor”, “Lady boss” or “Lady cop” are outdated and diminishing.  I once heard someone say ‘lady fireman’– I know – they couldn’t hear it as they said it! *facepalm* 

The unnecessary use of gender-markers which undermine women and project a story of difference which creates a sense of ‘othering’, needs to stop. Gender neutral terms can be easily adopted. Such as; Police Officer, Fire-fighter or Doctor.

It’s worth noting…

Cultural and regional norms vary. Translations in other languages can influence vocabulary. Assuming gender may or may not be accurate. Reduce the risk of reinforcing narrow norms of femininity, gender stereotyping and classism which carries the ‘respectability baggage’.  Using the term lady excludes and diminishes.

What is best practice?

Use neutral terms which are more inclusive – some helpful ones are: Everyone, folks, team, crew. Refer to a person’s role rather than a gender marker. For example; client, guest, visitor, participant, student. The more you notice, the more self-aware you become and the more likely you are to catch yourself and change your vocabulary. It doesn’t take long to shift perspective. 

Personal reflections

When I was a child and teenager, smoking was the norm. I can remember people in restaurants and cafes, smoking while eating and ash trays on the table was considered usual. I remember getting onto a flight and there being smoking and non-smoking areas of the plane. I remember people smoking on TV talk shows and guests lighting up a cigarette. This was normal in the 60s, 70s and even in the 80s. In 2026 the idea that someone might smoke in a taxi, lift, hotel, or public building seems unimaginable. 

I am pleased that we now have a culture where smoking is the minority behaviour. We are informed, we have moved on and we know that life is different today. This is how I feel about many of today’s issues. Gender inclusive language is catching on and we know that equality matters. In the future, our children and grandchildren will cringe at the word ‘lady’ in the way we cringe at the idea of smoking on a flight. 

Pip Lee Meer

(PhD gender and inclusive practices)