Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

America can rebuild the East Wing, but what about democracy?

An excavator sits on the rubble after the East Wing of the White House was demolished on Oct. 28, 2025, in Washington, D.C. The demolition is part of U.S. President Donald Trump's plan to build a ballroom on the eastern side of the White House.

(Alex Wong/Getty Images/TNS)

America can rebuild the East Wing, but what about democracy?

Here’s the problem with fuming over the bricks and mortar that was once the East Wing of the White House: The time and energy should go to understanding and reacting to the damage the administration has already caused to our institutions and ideals.

Here are just a few of them: The chaos the administration is inflicting on higher education, its attacks on court precedents upholding voting rights, disregard for public policy that looks out for farmers and other working people trying to build or maintain a decent middle-class way of life, not to mention the chaos the administration is unleashing around the world.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump Isn’t a Dictator, but His Goal May Actually Be Worse

U.S. President Donald Trump displays an executive order he signed announcing tariffs on auto imports in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, March 26, 2025.

TNS

Donald Trump Isn’t a Dictator, but His Goal May Actually Be Worse

Julius Caesar still casts a long shadow. We have a 12-month calendar — and leap year — thanks to Julius. July is named after him (though the salad isn’t). The words czar and kaiser, now mostly out of use, simply meant “Caesar.”

We also can thank Caesar for the durability of the term “dictator.” He wasn’t the first Roman dictator, just the most infamous one. In the Roman Republic, the title and authority of “dictator” was occasionally granted by the Senate to an individual to deal with a big problem or emergency. Usually, the term would last no more than six months — shorter if the crisis was dealt with — because the Romans detested anything that smacked of monarchy.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s excesses enrich only him, not Americans

The facade of the East Wing of the White House is demolished by work crews on Oct. 21, 2025 in Washington, D.C. The demolition is part of U.S. President Donald Trump's plan to build a ballroom reportedly costing $250 million on the eastern side of the White House.

(Andrew Harnik/Getty Images/TCA)

Trump’s excesses enrich only him, not Americans

The White House is full of so much rich history and tradition — it helps tell the story of America itself. And it’s an incredibly impressive and intimidating venue for facilitating international diplomacy.

As Michael Douglas’ President Andrew Shepherd says in “The American President,” “The White House is the single greatest home court advantage in the modern world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald J. Trump

IN FLIGHT - OCTOBER 19: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to members of the press on October 19, 2025 aboard Air Force One. The President is returning to Washington, DC, after spending his weekend at Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida.

Getty Images, Alex Wong

Your Essential Guide to How Trump Will Handle Literally Any Foreign Crisis

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Every American president has a foreign policy doctrine. But no president has ever had one quite like Donald Trump’s.

With President George W. Bush, it was to invade resource-rich countries under the pretext that there are terrorists there, preferably preemptively. Bomb them to spread freedom and democracy, but leave the Middle Eastern monarchy in Saudi Arabia that’s backing them alone, because, well, they already run a country that sells oil to the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less