Down Arrow Button Icon

There’s been a growing movement among women in business to reject the term “female founder.” The argument is that their work should stand on its own merit, free from what feels like a DEI qualifier—a dirty word in this political climate. It’s a backlash similar to what we saw with “girl boss” (beyond its toxic hustle culture connotation), with women responding with a resounding: “I’m not a girl boss. I’m just a boss.” The thinking is clear: We don’t call men “male founders,” so why should women be labeled differently?

But what if we’re missing the point?

The resistance to the term is understandable. For years, female entrepreneurs have had to fight for recognition in a landscape that often treats them as anomalies rather than leaders in their own right. The assumption underlying the label “female founder” often carries the weight of tokenism rather than distinction. It suggests that being a woman in business is the defining characteristic of success, rather than the ability to innovate, build, and lead.

Yet, when we examine the numbers, an entirely different narrative emerges—one that flips this notion on its head. Women-led businesses don’t just hold their own; they excel. Consider First Round Capital’s findings that female-founded companies in its portfolio performed 63% better than all-male founding teams, or an analysis of Fortune 1000 companies that found that those with a woman CEO produced equity returns 226% better than the S&P 500. That’s not a rounding error—it’s a statistically significant edge. Similarly, a Kauffman Fellows report shows that women-led teams generate 35% higher returns on investment than their male-led counterparts. These numbers aren’t anomalies; they’re patterns.

Beyond financials, female leaders drive stronger engagement in the workplace. A 2015 Gallup report found that female managers outperformed their male counterparts when it came to engaging employees—both male and female. And when researchers Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman analyzed over 7,000 performance reviews for the Harvard Business Review, they discovered that women leaders outscored men in nearly every one of 16 leadership competencies, including initiative and results-driven execution—two traits traditionally viewed as male strengths.

The results are clear: Being a female founder is a statistical advantage.

If we value a Harvard MBA for the credibility and excellence it implies, shouldn’t the same be true for “female founder”? The term isn’t a limitation—it’s an indicator of higher performance, better leadership, and stronger outcomes. The issue isn’t the label; it’s the perception attached to it. Instead of seeing “female founder” as a category that sets women apart in a lesser way, we should be positioning it as a marker of exceptionalism.

The discomfort with the term stems from a deeply ingrained history of exclusion. Women have long been underrepresented in leadership roles, and the push for gender neutrality is, in many ways, a reaction to that history. But rejecting the label won’t change the systemic barriers that still exist. Women-led companies still receive just 2% of venture capital funding, despite consistently delivering outsized returns. Bias in investment meetings remains rampant, with studies showing that identical business pitches receive far lower funding when delivered by women instead of men, even for female-centric products and services. A recent report from Dealroom found that only 10% of venture capital in femtech has gone to women-founded companies.

And it goes beyond just the title. Women in business have learned to be careful about how they present themselves in every aspect of their work—toning down traditionally feminine qualities to be taken more seriously. We’re careful with our emails, making sure they aren’t “too soft,” cutting out excessive exclamation points to avoid seeming overly eager, or god forbid, use an emoji. We modulate our voices, our tones, and even our confidence levels, all to align with the unspoken rules of leadership—a space still coded as inherently male.

But some female founders are flipping the script. Take Sarah Blakely, founder of Spanx, who has fully embraced her identity as a female founder and turned it into a competitive advantage. “The biggest hurdles for me as a woman in business were also my greatest strengths—and that was being underestimated,” she has said. “Many times in the journey, being underestimated made it harder for me to get the men and the manufacturing plants to take my ideas seriously or to even give me a chance—but it was also a real competitive advantage for me growing the company.” Blakely didn’t just navigate the obstacles placed in front of her—she leaned into them, proving that success doesn’t require women to mimic male leadership styles. “I continued to really embrace the ‘being underestimated’ as a woman and I’ve been able to stay true to the feminine principles in leadership throughout growing Spanx.”

As a female founder myself, leading a PR agency, HCM, that predominantly works with female founders, I’ve seen both sides of this debate firsthand. Some of the women we work with lean into the female founder label, while others prefer to let their work speak without gendered qualifiers. Me? I choose to own this mark of excellence.

Instead of distancing ourselves from the term “female founder,” what if we redefined it? What if “female founder” became synonymous with outperforming expectations, driving higher returns, and leading with excellence? What if, rather than a footnote, it became a headline?

There’s power in owning the data. In owning our leadership. In owning the term. Because being a female founder? That’s not a limitation. It’s a superpower.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Read more: