Sexual violence perpetuates inequalities based on a range of factors such as gender, race/ethnicity, class, age, sexuality, and ability status. However, the study of sexual violence in these areas has been limited leading to a lack of knowledge about its role in perpetuating social inequality. Understanding bystander intervention and its effects on violence prevention is complex and unclear. Three studies were conducted to investigate the use of language in the Green Dot Violence Prevention programming and the design of a sex and gender-inclusive rape myth acceptance scale. Study 1 employs Critical Discourse Analysis to analyze the language used in the Green Dot curriculum, examining its influence on social structures and meanings. Study 2 involves survey research and cognitive interviews to explore how undergraduate college students comprehend and interpret the Gender-Inclusive Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (GIIRMAS). Study 3 utilizes the Rasch validity framework to assess the psychometric properties of the Sex and Gender-Inclusive Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (SGI-RMA). Key findings in Study 1 suggest that despite the Green Dot Curriculum text’s intention to promote inclusion, empowerment, unity, and change, its use of terms such as “we and “us” (representing cisgender women) and implying the distinction with “they” and “them” (representing cisgender men) does not support the desired objectives. Study 2 revealed that while respondent’s interpretation of the item in the GIIRMAS aligned with the underlying conceptual framework, further examination identified potential issues with 11 of the 19 items that require careful consideration. Study 3 demonstrated that 10 of the 19 SGI-RMA items effectively measure the underlying construct of rape myth acceptance. The findings have implication for enhancing violence prevention programs and ensuring the use of inclusive language to challenge and debunk misconceptions around sexual violence.