They should call members of the House of Representatives “representatives,” because that’s what they’re—not “congressmen” or “congresswomen.”

For a lot of the country's history, members of the U.S. House of Representatives were addressed as “Congressman” or “Congresswoman.” In contrast, a senator is known as a “senator.”

These gendered labels for members of the House of Representatives dominate journalism, on a regular basis conversations and amongst members of Congress.

The name Congress refers to all the national legislature, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Gender identity aside, congressmen and girls in Congress are inherently imprecise terms.

In the Constitution, Congress refers back to the legislative branch as an entire. When it involves the composition of Congress, the Constitution uses “representatives” and “senators,” but additionally “members” to confer with each. “Congressman” is nowhere on this founding document.

One of the eminent scholars of the Congress, the late Richard Fenno wrote“A member of the House of Representatives, as required by the U.S. Constitution, is not a member of Congress, but a representative.”

As a congress scholar and specifically the SenateI'm inquisitive about the differences between the 2 chambers and the way that affects American politics. In my investigation I examined the origins and evolution of congressmen and congressmen and combed through the records of colonial and state legislatures, in addition to founding records and newspapers from the late 18th to the mid-Twentieth centuries.

While the present era has not been certainly one of justified sensitivity to gender neutrality and variety, for members of the House of Representatives, these two terms should not only outdated, also they are mistaken. Representative is the right but rarely used term.

Historical use

How did this terminological oddity come about?

The congressman was utilized in one as early as 1780 Poem by a British Loyalist to confer with members formally often called delegates the unicameral and senate-like national legislatures This preceded the structure's introduction of a bicameral legislature.

Beginning in 1788, the gendered term was sometimes applied to members of Congress usually, but increasingly to representatives specifically.

The central linguistic logic behind using the term “congressman” within the early nineteenth century arose from the reporting of election results. Newspapers reported on the elections for governor, lieutenant governor, representatives, congressmen and senators. However, the one congressional elections were for members of the House of Representatives, versus senators, who were chosen by state legislatures.

So senators weren’t referring to the makeup of the U.S. Senate, but slightly the state Senate. That wouldn't be US senators directly elected by residents for greater than a century. This and similar reports clearly spoke of the election of “congressmen.”

Common usage, firmly established by the top of the nineteenth century, was initially strengthened by the arrival of members of Congress Jeannette Rankin in 1917. This political breakthrough satirically reinforced the gendered terminology related to the office. The few early congressmen were eventually joined by the first elected female senatorwho was called a senator.

In fact, senators are invariably referred to by their gender-neutral and constitutional title.

Few parallels elsewhere

The use of unnecessarily gendered and inaccurate titles is sort of limited to the United States Congress. There are surprisingly few parallels and no real equals on the state or international level.

The gender-neutral term provided for within the structure already exists. The title “representative” is utilized in certain formal but limited circumstances by journalists and others. For example, the widespread one Associated Press style guide for journalists directs that “Rep. and U.S. Rep. are the popular first-reference forms when a proper title is used before the name of a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.” But the style guide also notes that “Congressmen and Congressmen are acceptable,” and these terms dominate in most Cases in print and tv journalism.

And using congressmen and congressmen dominates even amongst representatives and senators themselves. Some members even appear to exit of their technique to circumvent the constitutional term, including Senator Mitt Romney. Romney recently referenced former President Donald Trump's communications with “Republican senators and congressmen.”

And using the terms “congressman” and “congresswoman” is at odds with other contemporary terms Adaptations to avoid or replace sexist or binary language, including personal pronouns. The application of gender neutrality through the title of the Constitution avoids neologisms akin to “congressperson,” which is as clumsy because it is unnecessary.

Remembrance of civic virtue

The Senate did too lost a few of its prestige and lusterthe home is seen as a lower rung on the ladder of US politics. Perhaps the inferiority complex related to membership within the House of Representatives over the Senate favors the appointment of a congressman. Being a member of Congress—and subsequently a congressman or congresswoman—could seem more prestigious when it comes to the institution as an entire.

But it doesn't must be that way; The House of Representatives could adopt its official title as an alternative.

Richard Fenno, quoted earlier, can conclude his point: “While 'congressman' or 'congresswoman' tends to draw our attention to a representative's activities on Capitol Hill and his or her relationships with colleagues.” Fenno wrote“'Representative' refers to a House member's activities in his home district and his relationships with his constituents.”

Members enjoy their connections to their districts, their constituents, and the democratic virtues this role instills. And a part of that’s the implicit contrast with the Senate undemocratic origin and chronic elitist demands.

Not only is the unique title gender-neutral and institutionally correct, additionally it is a strong reminder of civic virtue and the founding purpose of the House of Representatives. Not only is it politically correct, it’s constitutional.