Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Call them ‘representatives,’ because that’s what they are − not ‘congressmen’ or ‘congresswomen’

House members taking the oath of office in the chamber

Members of the House of Representatives are sworn in by Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Jan. 6, 2023.

Elizabeth Frantz/For The Washington Post via Getty Images

Wirls is a professor of politics at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

For most of the nation’s history, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have been addressed as “Congressman” or “Congresswoman.” By contrast, a senator is referred to as, well, “Senator.”

These gendered terms for House members dominate in journalism, everyday conversation and among members of Congress.

The name Congress refers to the entire national legislature, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Gender identity aside, congressman and congresswoman are fundamentally inaccurate terms.


In the Constitution, Congress refers to the legislative branch as a whole. When discussing the membership of Congress, the Constitution uses “Representatives” and “Senators,” but also “Members” in reference to both. “Congressman” is nowhere in that founding document.

One of the foremost scholars of Congress, the late Richard Fenno, wrote, “a House member’s designation, as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution, is not Congressman, it is Representative.”

As a scholar of Congress and particularly the Senate, I am interested in the differences between the two chambers and how that affects American politics. In my investigation of the origins and evolution of congressman and congresswoman, I combed the records of colonial and state legislatures, as well as records related to the country’s founding and newspapers from the end of the 1700s to the mid-1900s.

Even if the current era were not one of justified sensitivity to gender neutrality and diversity, these two terms for House members are not just dated, they are wrong. Representative is the correct but rarely used term.

Historical use

How did this terminological oddity come to be?

Congressman was used as early as 1780 in a poem by a British loyalist to refer to members, formally known as delegates, of the single-chamber and Senate-like national legislatures that preceded the Constitution’s establishment of a two-chamber legislature.

From 1788 onward, the gendered term was sometimes applied to members of Congress in general but increasingly to representatives in particular.

The central linguistic logic at work in early 19th century use of the term congressman stemmed from the reporting of election results. Newspapers reported the choices for governor, lieutenant governor, assemblymen, congressmen and senators. The only elections to Congress, however, were for members of the House, in contrast to senators, who were selected by state legislatures.

So, senators referred not to the occupants of the U.S. Senate but to the state senate. U.S. senators would not be directly elected by citizens for more than a century. In this and similar reporting, it was unambiguous to refer to the election of “congressmen.”

The common usage, which was firmly in place by the end of the 19th century, was bolstered by the arrival of congresswomen, starting with Jeannette Rankin in 1917. That political breakthrough ironically reinforced the gendered terminology associated with this office. The few early congresswomen were eventually joined by the first elected female senator, who was referred to as Senator.

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

Few parallels elsewhere

The use of titles that are both unnecessarily gendered and inaccurate is almost restricted to the United States Congress. There are surprisingly few parallels and no true equals at the state or international levels.

The gender-neutral term designated in the Constitution already exists. The title Representative is used in certain formal but limited circumstances by journalists and others. For example, the widely used Associated Press style guide for journalists instructs that “Rep. and U.S. Rep. are the preferred first-reference forms when a formal title is used before the name of a U.S. House member.” But the style guide also advises that “congressman and congresswoman are acceptable,” and those terms dominate in most circumstances in print and television journalism.

And the use of congressman and congresswoman dominates even among representatives and senators themselves. Some members even seem to go out of their way to avoid the constitutional term, including Sen. Mitt Romney. Romney recently referred to former President Donald Trump’s communications with “Republican senators and congresspeople.”

And the use of congressman and congresswoman is at odds with other contemporary adjustments to circumvent or replace sexist or binary language, including personal pronouns. The application of gender neutrality through the constitutional title evades neologisms like congressperson, which is as clumsy as it is unnecessary.

Reminder of civic virtue

Even as the Senate has lost some of its prestige and luster, the House is seen as a lower rung on the ladder of U.S. politics. Perhaps the inferiority complex that attaches to membership in the House versus the Senate also encourages the use of congressman. Being a member of Congress – and therefore a congressman or congresswoman – may seem more prestigious in its focus on the institution as a whole.

But it doesn’t have to be that way; the House could instead embrace its official title.

Richard Fenno, quoted earlier, can finish his point: “Whereas ‘congressman’ or ‘congresswoman’ tends to call our attention to a House member’s Capitol Hill activities and to his or her relationship with colleagues,” Fenno wrote, “‘representative’ points us toward a House member’s activities in his or her home district and to relationships with constituents.”

Members relish their connections to their districts, their constituents and the democratic virtues that role conveys. And part of this is the implicit contrast with the Senate, with its undemocratic origins and enduring elitist pretensions.

As well as being gender-neutral and institutionally accurate, the original title is a powerful reminder of the civic virtue and founding purpose of the House of Representatives. It’s not just politically correct, it’s constitutional.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Read More

People protesting in the Cannon House Office Building on Capitol Hill, holding tulips and signs that read, "We can't afford another war" and "end the war on iran.'

Veterans, military family members, and supporters occupy the Cannon House Office Building on Capitol Hill calling upon the Trump administration to end the war on Iran on April 20, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Leigh Vogel

Trump’s Iran “Victory” Echoes Iraq’s "Mission Accomplished"

It didn’t exactly end well the last time a president declared victory this quickly. On May 1, 2003, President George W. Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln in a flight suit, strutted across the deck for the cameras, then changed into a suit and tie, stood in front of a banner that read “Mission Accomplished,” and declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq. It was 43 days after the invasion began. Over the next eight years, as the conflict devolved into a protracted insurgency and sectarian war, more than 4,300 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died.

On April 7, Trump—presumably not wearing a flight suit—declared in a telephone interview with AFP that the United States had achieved victory in Iran. “Total and complete victory. 100 percent. No question about it.” This was the day after the President threatened to destroy a “whole civilization,” hours after a two-week ceasefire was announced. It took six days for the whole thing to fall apart. By April 15, he was back on Fox Business: “We've beaten them militarily, totally. I think it’s close to over.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A Lesson on “Matters of Morality” for the Vice President

American Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost presides over his first Holy Mass as Pope Leo XIV with cardinals in the Sistine Chapel at the conclusion of the Conclave on May 09, 2025 in Vatican City, Vatican.

(Photo by Simone Risoluti - Vatican Media via Vatican Pool/Getty Images)

A Lesson on “Matters of Morality” for the Vice President

The Vice President has stepped into the fray between the President and Pope Leo. For those of you who have not been following this, Pope Leo has been critical of various things that Trump has said regarding his war with Iran, including his statement that he was ready to wipe out the civilization. In response, Trump called Pope Leo too liberal and easy on crime. He also said that the Pope was only elected because he was an American, in response to Trump having been elected President. In response, the Pope said that he had no fear of the Trump administration and that his job was to preach the gospel. He said in response to Secretary of War Hegseth's invoking the name of Jesus for support in battle, that Jesus “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.”

Into this exchange steps the Vice President, who says he thinks the Pope should stick to "matters of morality" and let the President of the United States dictate American public policy. The Vice President obviously doesn't understand the meaning of morality and its scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump's Delusion of Grandeur Knows No Bounds

U.S. President Donald Trump walks off Air Force One at Miami International Airport on April 11, 2026 in Miami, Florida. President Trump came to town to attend a UFC Fight.

Getty Images, Tasos Katopodis

Trump's Delusion of Grandeur Knows No Bounds

There has been no shortage of evidence of Trump's grandiosity. See my article, "Trump, The Poster Child of a Megalogamiac." But now comes new evidence of his delusion of grandeur that is even worse.

Recently, on his Truth Social media account, he posted an AI generated image of himself as Jesus healing the sick, apparently in part response to Pope Leo's rebuking of the U.S. (Hegseth) for invoking the name of Jesus for support in battle, saying Jesus “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them,” together with a diatribe against Pope Leo in another post saying he was very liberal, liked crime, and was only elected because Trump had been elected..

Keep ReadingShow less
What the end of Viktor Orban means for the New Right

Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban salutes supporters at the Balna center in Budapest during a general election in Hungary, on April 12, 2026.

(Attila Kisbenedek/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

What the end of Viktor Orban means for the New Right

Viktor Orban, the proudly “illiberal” prime minister of Hungary, beloved by various New Right nationalists and MAGA American intellectuals, was crushed at the polls this weekend.

Over the last decade or so, Hungary became for the New Right what Sweden or Cuba were to the Old Left. For generations, various American leftists loved to cite the Cuban model as better than ours when it came to healthcare, or education. Some would even make wild claims about freedom under Fidel Castro’s dictatorship. Susan Sontag famously proclaimed in 1969 that no Cuban writer “has been or is in jail or is failing to get his works published.” This was simply not true. The still young regime had already imprisoned, tortured or executed scores of intellectuals. (Sontag later recanted.)

Keep ReadingShow less