Is It Time for Unions to Rethink Gendered Language?

There’s something undeniably warm, to many of us, about the way many union members greet each other with sister or brother. It’s a tradition rooted in solidarity - a quick way to say, “we’re on the same side.” But like a lot of traditions, this one carries assumptions that don’t hold up for everyone.

For union members who are trans or non-binary, being addressed in this way can be jarring and alienating. What might feel like a warm welcome for some can just as easily signal exclusion for others and, while intended to unify, these terms are built on a binary foundation that doesn’t really reflect the full diversity of gender identities present in union spaces today. Non-binary members are not exclusively women or men and so don’t align with the terms “sisters and brothers,” while trans women and trans men may connect with those terms but not fit the narrow definitions or notions of being a man or woman, often based on appearance or gendered stereotypes. 

The use of brother in union spaces didn’t emerge in a vacuum, it was borrowed from male-only fraternal societies that were common in the early days of organized labour. Those groups excluded women by design, so when women entered union spaces, the term sister was added to affirm that they, too, belonged. It was a meaningful step forward, but one that still relied on a gender binary that left others out of the picture entirely.

This becomes more than symbolic when someone doesn’t see themselves in either term. Having to choose between being misrepresented or left out entirely is a major barrier, and a term that’s meant to signal unity shouldn’t make anyone feel unseen before they’ve even had a chance to speak.

Some unions are already shifting, with motions encouraging members to broaden their vocabulary to reflect the full range of gender identities in their communities. Alternatives or additions like fellow worker, comrade, unionist, sibling, or simply using a name are simple swaps that are gaining traction. While these words may not carry the same historical weight, they do carry the potential to reflect who’s actually in the room, which is a whole lot more powerful.

The goal here isn’t to throw out familiar words like sister or brother, but to broaden the language so it reflects everyone in the room. When you’re speaking to a group, all-encompassing terms such as “siblings,” or “fellow workers” can help everyone feel part of the collective. When you’re speaking one-on-one, it’s more about using the words that feel right to the individual. For a non-binary member, being called “sibling” might feel affirming, while for a trans man, “brother” might be the term that resonates. Checking in about what people prefer - whether they’re trans or not - is a simple way to respect those choices and make sure our words reflect the diversity that’s truly present in union spaces.

This kind of reflection isn’t a rejection of solidarity... If anything, it’s a renewal of it. Solidarity that relies on nostalgia alone can quietly entrench the very barriers it once set out to dismantle. But when solidarity evolves and adapts to who we are now, it becomes stronger, more relevant, and importantly, more capable of carrying us forward.

So perhaps the more useful question isn’t whether to keep using sister and brother, but what kind of union culture we want to support. One that’s rooted in tradition? Or one that truly responds to everyone who has always been part of our communities - people society is only now starting to fully recognize.

When we release what no longer fits, we open the door to something stronger, and in that shift, solidarity becomes deeper, and ultimately, more genuinely inclusive.