When they feel threatened, trans women slip back into using male coded sexual insults and threats
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
There is documented evidence that some trans women use coded sexual terms and euphemisms in specific contexts—notably in sex work in Kolkata—as a deliberate strategy to manage stigma and access spaces, rather than simply "slipping back" into male-coded insults when threatened [1]. Scholarly, advocacy, and language-guidance sources together show that language choices among trans people are strategic, policed, and contested; however, the claim that trans women broadly revert to male-coded sexual insults under threat is an overgeneralization not directly supported by the available reporting [1] [2] [3].
1. Evidence of coded sexual language among trans women is context-specific and strategic
Ethnographic research with cis and trans women involved in sex work in Kolkata documents that trans women employ euphemisms and metaphoric English terms—examples include “ladyboy,” “shemale,” and role words like “tops” and “bottoms”—to refract stigma, describe sexual roles, and to avoid exclusion from mainstream spaces, which is presented as an active, strategic language practice rather than a spontaneous reversion to male-coded aggression [1]. The study frames these choices as pragmatic survival tools in an environment of layered stigma and limited legal protections, where silence and secrecy become necessary responses to structural violence [1].
2. “Male-coded” language and insults are policed and labelled offensive by institutions and guides
Institutional and community language guides caution against many of the same terms reported in the Kolkata study—identifying words like “shemale” and “tranny” as offensive—and recommend avoiding them, which shows a clear normative divide between pragmatic usage in marginalized settings and broader community standards for respectful language [4] [3]. Advocacy materials and glossaries argue that many slurs and coded phrases target trans women specifically and carry harms that community guides seek to eliminate [3].
3. Threat perception and gender codes shape behavior but do not prove a uniform “slip back” dynamic
Psychological literature shows that transgender individuals are often perceived as violating gender boundaries, and that people view gender-nonconforming individuals as more threatening to social definitions of gender—this helps explain why language becomes a site of contention and why some trans people might adopt certain verbal strategies under pressure [5]. More broadly, studies of gender coding explain that what is considered acceptable speech or violence differs by gender norms, meaning any apparent reversion to “masculine” coded speech could reflect learned codes, situational tactics, or performative responses to policing, not an essential or universal tendency among trans women [2].
4. Claims that trans women “slip back” into male-coded insults when threatened lack direct empirical support
None of the provided sources directly document a widespread pattern where trans women, under threat, revert specifically to male-coded sexual insults as a uniform behavioral response; the Kolkata ethnography shows use of sexualized terms in transactional and stigmatized contexts but frames them as strategic euphemisms rather than reactive insults [1]. Advocacy organizations and inclusive-language guides emphasize that most trans-inclusive work discourages those terms, and legal/rights advocacy stresses that trans people are not a general threat—which complicates narratives that depict linguistic aggression as a predictable defensive reflex among trans women [6] [3].
5. Competing narratives, hidden agendas, and what readers should watch for
Media and political commentary sometimes weaponize discussions of language to advance anti-trans agendas—examples include glossaries framed as “recognising transphobic coded language” being spun as censorship or threat narratives—so readers should be alert to pieces that conflate isolated linguistic practices with criminality or inherent aggression [7]. Conversely, community language resources and civil-rights groups foreground harm reduction and context; this signals an implicit agenda toward protecting dignity and reducing violence against trans people [4] [6].
Conclusion: a nuanced assessment
The evidence supports that trans women sometimes use coded sexual terminology strategically in high-stigma settings, particularly sex work, and that gendered language is tightly policed and contested; it does not substantiate a broad psychological claim that trans women uniformly "slip back" into male-coded sexual insults and threats when threatened. The phenomenon, when it occurs, appears situational, shaped by survival tactics, local linguistic economies, and broader gender policing, and must not be generalized without focused empirical study [1] [5] [3].