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'.

@ErrolTheDragon

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

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

Exactly. It’s pretty easy to go through and adjust the language. :) Lots of options that work grammatically.

It’s been a while since I read it, but wasn’t there a bit in Invisible Women that explained that using a “neutral” pronoun was almost as bad for widening visibility as using just old-fashioned “he”.

I may be remembering wrong, but something about eg saying “they” in relation to a firefighter or doctor or nurse makes no odds because the assumptions are so ingrained, the reader just thinks “he”, “he”, “she”. In order to really make a change to biased thinking it’s important to say “he or she” explicitly.

It's a good thing for women but so sad that it takes pressure from the (male) trans lobby to get it done. This has reminded me of my dim and distant past as a trainee solicitor in the City. We had a corporate client which had a board of directors including one woman, but in a male-dominated field. My supervisor insisted on addressing all communications to the board with the opener "Gentlemen" and when I pointed out there was also a woman on the board so we should not use this term, it was like he couldn't understand what I was saying. He just loved the sound of starting the communication with "gentlemen" because it made him feel like he was part of this blokey gang. I sometimes wonder how the woman on that board stomached it. Still makes me feel the rage nearly 20 years later!

For some reason I've got quite good at writing with fewer pronouns in the last few years.

I’m now embarrassed by my example exposing my shit drafting!

@AMillionMugsNoTeabags

It’s been a while since I read it, but wasn’t there a bit in Invisible Women that explained that using a “neutral” pronoun was almost as bad for widening visibility as using just old-fashioned “he”.

I may be remembering wrong, but something about eg saying “they” in relation to a firefighter or doctor or nurse makes no odds because the assumptions are so ingrained, the reader just thinks “he”, “he”, “she”. In order to really make a change to biased thinking it’s important to say “he or she” explicitly.

This is relevant in some contexts but I'm not sure it's really applicable to legal documents.

For many purposes nowadays, neutral language can be accompanied by mixed sex illustrations.

Ive spent roughly two decades also doing this with MS Word Ctrl/G "find and replace" function. 🙄
No law firm Ive worked at has been very diverse though. In fact, the uk offices of the massive multinational one were less so than the small regional one...

Actually, this is agood thing. It's mostly aimed at removing default male language. It's been perfectly standard for years in other fields to make language neutral rather than male - including the also perfectly standard and long established use of 'they' for individuals of unknown sex. I work in a male dominated industry and I'm jolly glad that documents don't refer to 'he' or 'sirs'.

This. I often update docs which refer only to he/him. I correct people on emails who refer to gentlemen and default to male. I may be the only woman in the department, but I will not be made more invisible than they already try, and they need to remember women can do this job, too.

Yes, it should have happened decades ago. But it didn't. If you think it does mean nothing, I suspect you're not working as a minority who is often forgotten. No, I shouldn't have to have that fight any more, either but so it is.

It’s not what they’ve done but why and why now?

I may be remembering wrong, but something about eg saying “they” in relation to a firefighter or doctor or nurse makes no odds because the assumptions are so ingrained, the reader just thinks “he”, “he”, “she”. In order to really make a change to biased thinking it’s important to say “he or she” explicitly.

I think that stems from childhood. If children see examples of firefighters, doctors and nurses in real life or with illustrations only showing one sex, they start to mentally associate those professions with that sex. How many people visualise primary school teacher as female? Probably most as there is a tiny minority of male primary school teachers. So it doesn’t matter what language is used whether neutral or specifically listing he/she, those mental associates will reflect the examples the children are exposed to.

There are times when using pronouns just won't be clear enough, however inclusive it is. If there's any chance of confusion, then pronouns shouldn't be used.

I recently asked a colleague to explain a mail, because it wasn't clear which "he" was being referred to, so it needed to say Tom or Pete to be clear.

I am gender critical. I have also instructed Clifford Chance a great deal.

Personally I am not concerned about this work per se and consider it a good thing that references to a default male position get removed. I would consider “they” far less clunky that “S/he”. I often use “they” to talk about the actions of what an individual should do eg “where an employee needs to record sick leave they should use the HR portal”.

On a corporate level Clifford Chance appear to have swallowed the Kool-Aid as have a number of the top firms. However lawyers by their nature find facts hard to overlook and my experience is it most individual lawyers would not actually believe that eg you can actually change sex or that trans women playing in women’s rugby was safe or fair. But nobody wants to say the emperor has no clothes on.

What worries me more is the likes of this diversity person quoted pushing a Stonewall agenda that you end up with nobody wanting to stand up to even with senior partners. I got my first email yesterday from an external lawyer at a large firm (not Clifford Chance) with their pronouns right after their name. This is not a trend I want to see.

I got my first email yesterday from an external lawyer at a large firm (not Clifford Chance) with their pronouns right after their name. This is not a trend I want to see.

there wouldn't be much point them neutralising their documents but then having 76% of their partners declaring standard male pronouns.

Virtue-signalling for the benefit of the trans lobby.
I was a City lawyer for thirty years. Any woman who questioned the default to masculine was seen as petty.

I saw something put out recently by my old firm encouraging people to "bring their whole selves" to work. Women have always had to be careful not to bring too much of their culturally feminine selves to work (let alone their biologically female bits). Clients and colleagues tend to react negatively, equating femininity with weakness, stupidity etc. If a man suffering a mental delusion that he is a woman, however, wishes to witter on about his nails and nights out with "the girls", that is to be "celebrated".

I worked with someone who definitely brought his ‘whole self’ to work.

He was a rather unpleasant creepy character who used to leer over one of my team and discuss his use of prostitutes. Also, even more creepily, he used to talk about his ‘lovely daughters’ - I’m sure there was nothing dodgy there but it sounded creepy when he was just talking about having sex with a semi conscious (increasingly drunk) prostitute then discussed how gorgeous his daughters were...

Many complaints to HR - sod all done about him. Nowadays we’d be criticised for kink shaming him.

I worked with a partner who was actually banned from social events because he “couldn’t be trusted around the trainees and the secretaries”. This was well known and talked about as though it was a funny quirk.

This is maybe 15 years ago, not the 1950s. I thought it was utterly gross at the time but now I can’t believe I didn’t make a fuss about it.

No one brings their whole selves to work, nor to their parents nor their children nor anyone else. I agree you shouldn't have to hide that you're gay or whatever, but equally, you shouldn't have to talk about it if you don't want to. And work doesn't want me to bring the part of myself which would prefer to be lazing on the sofa, reading a non-work-related book and eating chocolate. I wouldn't get much work done. But that part is definitely part of myself. Likewise, no one other than a sexual partner needs to know if I'm into some weird kink - how would that help my work?

@AMillionMugsNoTeabags

It’s been a while since I read it, but wasn’t there a bit in Invisible Women that explained that using a “neutral” pronoun was almost as bad for widening visibility as using just old-fashioned “he”.

I may be remembering wrong, but something about eg saying “they” in relation to a firefighter or doctor or nurse makes no odds because the assumptions are so ingrained, the reader just thinks “he”, “he”, “she”. In order to really make a change to biased thinking it’s important to say “he or she” explicitly.

I agree - it's hard to reverse ingrained expectations.

I'm studying for a professional finance exam which has lots of case studies, and regularly I will read,
"The fund manager wants to pursue an active return approach, but she also wants to" and I notice every time. When it's 'he' my brain skips over it, but 'she' I notice. Like I have to go back and undo the mental image I'd already formed of a stuffy old man.

They have clearly made sure that there is a balance (probably 50/50 given how frequently I notice it) and I am pleased everytime I see it. And then disheartened that something so small makes me pleased (low bar and all that). Despite my feminism male often occupies the default space in my head.

I've been studying since 2016 but I imagine the inclusion of female examples has been there a long time. Referring to everyone as "they" is not inclusion or diversity, it's erasure.

My employer has encouraged staff to bring our 'whole selves' to work. This seems to mean people declaring themselves non-binary and small number of staff adding pronouns to their emails.

It's been made clear that my opinions around gender are not something they'd like people to bring to work - we're completely signed up to Stonewall.

Having a diversity of examples in case studies and the like is generally a good thing. It's different to the issue of neutral language in documents.

I’d support removing gendered language that automatically assumes a man - ie Chairman rather than Chair or Chairperson, and for legal contracts references to grandfathering provisions.

But this is as long as when referring to a named individual they still use the relevant sex based pronouns.

I don’t want to have to read generic documentation that assumes I am a man, neither do I want to have my female sex erased when communicating with or about me.

I don't mind at all not being referred to by my sex. Don't see it's relevant in most cases. Don't feel I am erased by neutral language. Would actually prefer it.

Do see need to measure hidden bias though, so record of sex is needed for that

And not sure how much if at all my preference would change if sex discrimination was not a thing.

Wrongside Spot on. They're all signed up too Stonewall. Gender critical opinions not welcome.

"to Stonewall"