Does this count as inclusive language?

[MidsomerMurmurs]

At my work there has been a series of women-only events recently (to discuss institutional sexism etc). I was mildly surprised that some of them have been labeled as 'women only' (surprised because typically most things at work for the last few years have used the phrase 'people who identify as women').

The most recent email phrases things slightly differently by saying the event is for people 'who are perceived as women' and also 'female-presenting' people. Perhaps this is just me, but doesn't this manage to be insulting both to trans people (it doesn't matter how you are perceived, you are a woman if you say you are) and to women (it doesn't matter how you 'present' or 'are perceived', you are a woman if you're an adult human female).

I won't actually say anything at work because I'm a massive coward, but I just found this a really odd turn of phrase. Has it been used in other places too?

I am the biggest coward in Coward County and I would still say something about that because it is offensive and flat-out ignorant.

Just more twisting of words. Conflating sex and gender.
How do you present as a female?

Maybe that’s the way to counter it? Politely ask if they could clarify what they mean by “female presenting”

It is exclusive of gender non-conforming women. Also, as you say, it's exclusive of transwomen who have a female soul identity but are content to have a masculine presentation.

I think:

• "People who present as female" is intended to capture transwomen as well as women; and
• "People who are perceived as women" is intended to capture female people who feel they whatever super-special non-binary/whatever gender identity but who are still plainly women.

It's a bit stupid that we have to jump through these hoops tbh and I think for "female-presenting" transwomen who are not actually perceived as women there will be different reasons for any pay inequality, if indeed there is any pay inequality.

if indeed there is any pay inequality.

Sorry just to clarify I mean any difference between what the transwomen are earning and the men.

It sounds like they are trying to include trans men and non-binary females with ‘perceived as women’.

But who knows? That’s the problem with fucking around with definitions.

They could just say 'non-men'...

I just found it odd that the 'identify as...' phrase wasn't used. By emphasising outer appearance (either with respect to other people's perceptions or an individual's way of presenting themselves) there definitely seems to be an implication about superficial appearance. It's just that that cuts both ways doesn't it? Because if you think this is about 'gender' then that goes against the 'inner essence' idea of what gender is, and if you think this is about sex (and these sessions have been good and have indeed been about sex-based oppression) then it's a bit weird to imply that this oppression could be avoided merely by not being perceived as a woman.

Perhaps they should just give the topic for discussion, say anyone can attend, and then chair it firmly to stick to the topic.

perceived is unclear in context.

I doesn't cover female presenting non-binary. All is does is open the descriptor up to anyone who presents as female but is one of the 100+ gender identities.

Why not invite everybody with the potential to have a relevant interest? No - it won't help women much but neither will this event from the sound of it.

Can't they just say female people?

Ask them what on earth they mean. Say something like "I am sometimes perceived as a man when I wear a cap and trousers and do not present feminine all the time can I come?"

It's ridiculous. Just say female or even shock "women only" they are not dirty words you need to fluff up with cotton wool.

What is the theme of the event? If it is sex inequality in the workplace, then why did they not simply say it is open to all female employees, as they will be the only people affected by it.

Dear Organiser
I'm interested in this event but not sure if I meet the criteria for attending.
I'm not sure if I'm 'perceived' as a woman. Is it ok if my manager perceives me as one or should I survey the whole department and take the majority decision?

@MidsomerMurmurs

At my work there has been a series of women-only events recently (to discuss institutional sexism etc). I was mildly surprised that some of them have been labeled as 'women only' (surprised because typically most things at work for the last few years have used the phrase 'people who identify as women').

The most recent email phrases things slightly differently by saying the event is for people 'who are perceived as women' and also 'female-presenting' people. Perhaps this is just me, but doesn't this manage to be insulting both to trans people (it doesn't matter how you are perceived, you are a woman if you say you are) and to women (it doesn't matter how you 'present' or 'are perceived', you are a woman if you're an adult human female).

I won't actually say anything at work because I'm a massive coward, but I just found this a really odd turn of phrase. Has it been used in other places too?

"... (surprised because typically most things at work for the last few years have used the phrase 'people who identify as women')."

"The most recent email phrases things slightly differently by saying the event is for people 'who are perceived as women' and also 'female-presenting' people."

It's intriguing that they're changing how they phrase things. I wonder if they've been told not to use 'identify as'? It might just be whoever drafts these things has changed and they personally prefer to use perceived/presenting. But I do wonder at the thinking behind it.

If they are discussing sex discrimination as a way of monitoring for the Equality Act 2010 then unless they mean woman or legal woman (?) the whole meeting is pointless. Their definitions are stupid.

'female-presenting' people

Sounds like it's an event for drag queens, not actual women.

It's intriguing that they're changing how they phrase things. I wonder if they've been told not to use 'identify as'? It might just be whoever drafts these things has changed and they personally prefer to use perceived/presenting. But I do wonder at the thinking behind it.

I was thinking this the other day, AMAB & AFAB were all the rage, you hardly ever see this now.

Now I’ve know women who a lot of people have thought in passing were men. And vice versa.

And where does this leave trans men?

Personally, I would send a brief, polite email just asking "Not sure if this applies to me. Could you please explain what you mean by female-presenting? What counts as being perceived as a woman?" and hopefully this would make them realise how absurd they are.

Events like this sound as is they're being set up as validation events rather than helpful education or rights sessions.

Presents as female?

What does that mean?

Female is still sex (although currently lots of efforts to change that)

So how do you present as a sex? Do they mean boobs? No Adam's apple? Hips? Short?

I think they actually mean clothes etc.

Again, what does that mean?

If it's makeup, hair, feminine clothes. Where does that leave women with short hair, no makeup and eg jeans t-shirt trainers?

It's ridiculous.

Given the context (a women-only group "to discuss institutional sexism"), I'd think it would be people who are genuinely, universally perceived to be women and thus treated as women within the work enviroment - that is, by the employer, colleagues, clients, vendors, etc.? So, women and any transwomen who are genuinely thought to be women in that environment (that is, not out as trans) and transmen who are out as/known to be trans. (Add in anyone else female who doesn't "identify" as a woman but is still subject to anti-woman attitudes, prejudices, discrimination at work.)

"Who are perceived as women", while clumsy, sort of works in the very specific context. "Female-presenting" doesn't. Either way, though, if they're being this wishy-washy with the language, I doubt they're going to eject anyone who "self-includes".

@DoorhandlesUnited

Dear Organiser I'm interested in this event but not sure if I meet the criteria for attending. I'm not sure if I'm 'perceived' as a woman. Is it ok if my manager perceives me as one or should I survey the whole department and take the majority decision?

Doorhandles nails it.

Shame it's your work place but all this bloody nonsense needs calling out.