Lexism (the Othering of dyslexics) currently lacks a clear definition. In this conceptual article, I argue that Lexism does not require any such definition; indeed definitions generally can be unhelpful. To understand Lexism I provide examples of how we might use the concept in a series of hypothetical cases. Exemplars avoid the need for definitions, which, for a soft category such as Lexism, would be too constraining. I conclude by drawing on the work of Paulo Freire as a theoretical lens to enhance further how we might understand Lexism, and dyslexia.