Top city law firm uses AI to remove, he, she, and chairman from documents

[Wrongsideofhistorymyarse]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9037321/Top-City-law-firm-purge-gendered-language-templates.html

Gendered pronouns will be replaced with 'they'.

@CarlottaValdez

I’m not a fan of s/he - they works well in most contexts. Is the objection that you think Clifford Chance is pandering to non binary people? I really don’t think that’s the case. They’re just dragging themselves into where they should have been about 30 years ago.

That and the fact that I'm in a really bad mood this morning.

Instead of ‘dear sirs’ what will they put?

@ErrolTheDragon
Using a simple 'find and replace' can lead to howlers, they may genuinely need something a bit more sophisticated. But I hope they have human proof readers checking all the changes.

Would have been a perfect job for a summer intern to do back in 1991. :)

Would have been a perfect job for a summer intern to do back in 1991

I did a vac scheme there not long after 1991, I could have done it for them!

Why didn't they do it in 1991?

As a lawyer I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. In legal docs the default should be neutral language. This is about updating standard templates for future use.
The sickening old adage that man embraces woman to justify default male language is long past it’s sell by date.
What annoys me is that they didn’t do it for women but now they do it for woke points.

@ThatIsNotMyUsername

Instead of ‘dear sirs’ what will they put?

One of the forms used routinely in other industries, presumably. The salutation may need to differ according to recipient. 'Dear clients', 'dear partners' etc etc.

I presume because they cared less than they do now about appearing sexist.

@CarlottaValdez

I presume because they cared less than they do now about appearing sexist.

I'm trying to work out if it's about sexism though. They could have done it 30 years ago, but didn't. They employ majority white male staff. They're doing it now, why? I take the point it's a good thing. However, what does it say about Clifford Chance?

@ThatIsNotMyUsername

Instead of ‘dear sirs’ what will they put?

They’d use titles like “Dear clients” “Dear suppliers” “Dear Members of Parliament” “Dear staff” “Dear Inspectors”

As for why they are doing it now, I agree it’s virtue signalling. It’s just a bit “so what” and humorous because it’s a change that most companies did 30yrs ago and not something worth bragging about.

I have no objection to replacing 'Dear Sirs'. But it's another example of companies not giving a damn about women asking for changes, but rolling over for Stonewall et al.

My concern is that the language will be made gender neutral where it shouldn't be, e.g. when talking about sexual discrimination.

Agree Plan. It's not about sexism though is it. If it was Clifford Chance would have done it ages ago and by now they'd be employing more women and fewer white blokes. I think I just need a cup of tea.

@Wrongsideofhistorymyarse

I have no objection to replacing 'Dear Sirs'. But it's another example of companies not giving a damn about women asking for changes, but rolling over for Stonewall et al.

My concern is that the language will be made gender neutral where it shouldn't be, e.g. when talking about sexual discrimination.

Yes this. Women have complained for decades about this & it’s been “sorry what can’t hear you”, so I’m somewhat cynical about their motivations

And yes do they record the sex or gender of employees for example?

(Abd yes I’m in a grumpy too which doesn’t help. Had a survey from local cllr asking whether I identify as male, female, transgender or non binary. Replied that I don’t identify as anything but my sex is female. Fucking idiot)

@CarlottaValdez

I would welcome this - it’s just removing the idea that the default is male. It’s not witness statements and so on, the article says it’s their templates.

So for example, instead of “if a shareholder cannot attend he may nominate a proxy” it’ll be “they may nominate a proxy”.

It should not be ‘they may nominate…’, because the subject of the sentence (a shareholder) is a singular person and ‘they’ means more than one person. My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines ‘they’ as ‘plural of he, she or it’. They could replace ‘he’ with ‘he or she’ and the sentence would be correct.

@HecatesCatsInXmasHats

Agree Plan. It's not about sexism though is it. If it was Clifford Chance would have done it ages ago and by now they'd be employing more women and fewer white blokes. I think I just need a cup of tea.

It could be about sexism and Clifford Chance is simply way way behind the times and very late at recognising their sexism. It might not be related to Stonewall but to the fact that last year was the first year they were required to report to the U.K. government their gender(sex) wage gap and statistics. I’m sure their reported pay gap was horrendous and they’ve decided to do a few easy things to put in the next report about how they are striving for gender (sex) equality.

So for example, instead of “if a shareholder cannot attend he may nominate a proxy” it’ll be “they may nominate a proxy”.

That’s easy
“If a shareholder cannot attend, the shareholder may nominate a proxy”

My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines ‘they’ as ‘plural of he, she or it’.

I've just checked a variety of online dictionaries, they all include definitions of its singular usage as well. If the concise Oxford doesn't, it's being too concise.

Here's a blog under the auspices of the OED on singular 'they'

public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/

It should not be ‘they may nominate…’, because the subject of the sentence (a shareholder) is a singular person and ‘they’ means more than one person. My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines ‘they’ as ‘plural of he, she or it’.

Singular they had been in use for a long time though - I’m quite comfortable with it. If someone said to you “ someone’s at door” would you reply “I’ll see what he or she wants?”.

Well it might be, and it might also be about Stonewall.

They could replace ‘he’ with ‘he or she’ and the sentence would be correct.

Ooooh I know this one, I know this one! [waves hand wildly]

It’s because the person may be non-binary, or another gender that’s not he or she. Not that I’m presuming anyone identifies as a person, which they may not ....

It’s wrong because ....

If a shareholder cannot attend, the shareholder may nominate a proxy”

Or even more simply, 'A shareholder who cannot attend may nominate a proxy'

@HecatesCatsInXmasHats

Well it might be, and it might also be about Stonewall.

It could be both the new U.K. gender(sex) pay gap reporting plus stonewall. It might be that the pressure of one by itself wasn’t enough and stonewall is the final straw that goaded them into doing, let’s face it, bare minimum tweaks to the window dressing.

Indeed