"Inclusive Language Guide"

[AlieninWokeLand]

NC for this.

I work in a large Govt Department which is predominantly male. The Diversity team has just published a 30 page inclusive language guide, after a series of focus groups, of which no fewer than 5 pages are dedicated to "gender", with a whole page devoted to Trans. (Religion and Belief gets one short page, with no mention of people using, for eg "Jesus Christ" as a swear word).

No space to reproduce it all here, but highlights;

‘Woman’ or ‘female’?
• Female and woman mean different things but are often used interchangeably.
• The term ‘woman’ refers specifically to human beings, while ‘female’ could refer to the sex of any species that is capable of producing children.
• Referring to women as females is perceived by many as reducing a woman to her reproductive parts and abilities.
• Not all women are biologically female, and the conflation of ‘female’ to ‘woman’ erases gender-nonconforming people and members of the trans community. (my emphasis)
• The word female in its primary usage is an adjective. When clearly talking about human beings, use of female as an adjective is correct. However it should always be relevant to the context: E.g. female representation, female participation, female personnel.

More inclusive Less inclusive

The women in the ...
The females in the ...
Doctor, nurse
Female doctor, male nurse

Pronouns
Pronouns are how a person wants to be referred to in the third person. Examples include:
• He/him/his
• She/her/hers
• They/them/their and other gender-neutral pronouns
Using an individual’s pronouns correctly is a way to continue to practice inclusion and foster belonging. By respecting others’ pronouns, you recognise their sense of self and show you respect their gender identity.

If you are unsure, the best thing to do is ask.
Try asking: “May I ask how you prefer me to address you, for example what pronoun do you use?” or “Please remind me how you would like to be addressed”.
Most people, if asked in a sensitive manner, will appreciate the question and will simply tell you.

Sharing your pronouns
For a cisgender person (a person whose gender aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth), the risk of sharing your pronouns is minimal.
For a transgender or non-binary person, sharing pronouns can be riskier, sparking lengthy conversations or outing a person to their colleagues before they are ready.
Cisgender people sharing their pronouns normalises this process and can have a big impact.
You can do this by:
• Adding your pronouns to your email signature
• Adding your pronouns on your public profiles on social media
• Sharing your pronouns when introducing yourself in a meeting or at the start of a presentation.

(Definitions all supplied by Stonewall.)

I really want to tackle this, but in a way that won't see me hauled up for poor behaviour. I'm starting to think I'm the only person in the orgnisation who hasn't drunk the kool-aid, and even people I respect are putting she/her on their email signature blocks.

"For a transgender or non-binary person, sharing pronouns can be riskier, sparking lengthy conversations or outing a person to their colleagues before they are ready."

This is so obvious. So why on earth are they insisting everyone share? Why not just not mention it, and if a transperson is comfortable telling everyone , and cares enough, he or she (or they) is free to mention it.

Sorry, I'm not much help. I don't suppose screaming "FFS" at the top of your voice is an option?

There is a glaring failure of logic in their own nonsensical statement.
For the transgender person, having to state pronouns “before they are ready” is apparently “risky”.
But forcing everyone to put their pronouns against their wishes is fine. Even though it will inevitably force closet transgenders to out themselves immediately?!

Why are the authors of these things so poor at grammar? Along with everything else that is offensive in that, is the fact the author doesn't know the difference between address / refer to. I very much doubt anyone wants to be addressed as he/she/they. I would expect to be addressed as you or by my name. I really don't care how you refer to me but I expect most people refer to me by name or using she/her.

I think I would ignore the gender/trans stuff and start by addressing all the things that are missing for the protected characteristics, including sex.

OP, I would strongly object to being labelled “cisgender”, against your will, when you don’t subscribe to gender ideology.
Why do you have to memorise a couple of hundred colleagues’ pronoun preferences, while nobody gives a shit about your preference not to be called by a sexist stereotypical term?

Is it the same one discussed in this thread?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4363807-UK-parliament-LBGT-booklet

Gibberish.

Pronouns are how a person wants to be referred to in the third person, but may I ask how you prefer me to address you? (Presumably not in the third person.)

Who was consulted?

Not all women are biologically female? Since when? Elaborate with sources.

And as always, the double standard: You must call me what I say, even when I'm not present. But I can call you 'cis.'

I wish I could find a clip of the wonderful Jess Barden in The End Of The F*ing World, where she says, definitively.

Fuck This Shit

May I ask how you prefer me to address you, for example what pronoun do you use?

"My actual name is fine, because, you know, you are actually talking to me."

I hope it wasn’t the Education department!
A team put that together? A team? Was it a team like on The Apprentice when they couldn’t spell “gilet” when they were selling them, or one of the other basic errors?

“May I ask how you prefer me to address you, for example what pronoun do you use?”

“You” is the pronoun you use when addressing someone, or their name or has that changed now and we use third person pronouns when talking to someone?

Other species that produce children? I would say only humans produce children, I wouldn’t refer to anything else as children.

If “cisgender” people share their pronouns but trans people don’t, won’t that “out” them anyway?

What a load of

I think that guidance is clearly for cis/transgender people so you can safely ignore it as not applicable to you at all.

The issue isn't the conflation on women and female because most people know that they refer to our sex.

It is the conflation of sex and gender that is the problem.

I would object to the part where they say using the word female reduces women to their reproductive status. Apart from the fact that my irony-meter is exploding, where have they got the idea that loads of people object to the word “female”?

This all assumes full partaking of a particular political belief and ideology.

This is no more appropriate to require of others than requiring you to genuflect at certain words, recite prayers and bless yourself on entering certain rooms.

Many of these language 'inclusive' suggestions are not in fact inclusive or even basically respectful to women, and involve compelled belief. They are not neutral.

FFS I hate the cis thing, I do not identify as cis and never will. All women are biologically female, that is the definition of a woman:adult human female. It makes me so fucking cross that we're all expected to tie ourselves up in linguistic knots and erase the reality of human biology.
As for how you tackle it at work, I'm not sure, other than a sensitively worded email with reference to protected beliefs.

Whilst I understand that inclusive language can be useful I think it can create a lot of anxiety. Having to constantly think about what you are saying in case of offending someone can create tension and animosity - hardly very inclusive. Similarly I would imagine many of those who they are trying to protect are just trying to fit in, and could feel equally uncomfortable about the policing of language on their behalf. It would be interesting to know if you get it wrong what the consequences are?

While I know this is US based and we have the 1st Amendment of freedom of speech, the amount of people who commented in agreement on this article and were adamantly on the side of GC were highly educated, left-wing readers of the NYTimes. It discusses the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a supreme court justice who's words were recently altered by the ACLU, supposedly pro-freedom of expression org.

For any of your friends who care about real life impacts, this article was a bit more subtle in approach, focusing on how changing the word 'woman' to 'person' has negative impacts on women and free speech.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210930234400/www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/opinion/rbg-aclu-abortion.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20210930234400/www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/opinion/rbg-aclu-abortion.html

And for those w/ a subscription, here's a link that will show you the comments sections, including this one with the highest likes:

At present, the only People who CAN actually become pregnant are those who are actually born female. That IS a biological fact. Perhaps in two hundred years, Science can change that equation. But for now, when I hear or read “ pregnant person “, I just laugh. It’s a ridiculous new tool of the gender police and the overly woke. Find better uses for your time and outrage, there are plenty of options.
www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/opinion/rbg-aclu-abortion.html

I loathe the mealy-mouthed weaseliness of “tell us your preferred pronouns”.

What it really means:

• We believe in genderism.
• You’d better believe in it too, or things won’t go so well for you.
• (They probably didn’t think this one through.) Out yourself if you consider yourself trans.

Did you miss out the bit where they redefine 'male' and 'men'?

I don't understand the 'outing trans people when they aren't ready' thing.
If someone looks like a man and everyone uses male pronouns for him, at work, but he likes to be a 'she' in a dress at the weekends - won't he still say that he's a 'he' at work?
Or if he wears dresses to work won't people know that he wants to be called 'she'?
(Whether they do it is another matter.)

It is awful, isn't it. Not the Parliament one either, so there are other departments pedalling this codswallop.

I don't understand the 'outing trans people when they aren't ready' thing. If someone looks like a man and everyone uses male pronouns for him, at work, but he likes to be a 'she' in a dress at the weekends - won't he still say that he's a 'he' at work?

But if “she” is his “true self”, he will be obliged to lie, won’t he?

@Babdoc

There is a glaring failure of logic in their own nonsensical statement. For the transgender person, having to state pronouns “before they are ready” is apparently “risky”. But forcing everyone to put their pronouns against their wishes is fine. Even though it will inevitably force closet transgenders to out themselves immediately?!

This. If a trans person who is not ready to come out has to use their biological sex pronouns - they will presumably cause themselves a great deal of distress every time they send an email. In my experience trans people who are ready to come out have absolutely no issue telling you their pronouns. Little pin badges are rather popular.

@HipTightOnions

I loathe the mealy-mouthed weaseliness of “tell us your preferred pronouns”.

What it really means:

• We believe in genderism.
• You’d better believe in it too, or things won’t go so well for you.
• (They probably didn’t think this one through.) Out yourself if you consider yourself trans.

Some people have moved beyond "preferred pronouns" - this initiative is in a US context.

Introduce yourself with your pronouns and ask for your patient's

It is important to avoid using the word "preferred" when referring to pronouns or name. An individual's pronouns are what they are. "Preferred" suggests there is an acceptable (although less desirable) alternative. This is not the case. The only acceptable pronouns are the ones the person states that they use.

www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/generalprofessionalissues/93586

Compelling speech and belief in gender identity - in contravention of Yogyarkarta Principle 6 - is not good practice. (NB: Yogyakarta needs to be rescinded as per Prof Wintermute's belated realisation.)

I’m ok with not all women being female, and the separation of gender and sex. Because it means that we can have female only safe spaces.

@Bimblybomeyelash

I’m ok with not all women being female, and the separation of gender and sex. Because it means that we can have female only safe spaces.

If only it did!

If we give them 'women' the TRAs will start saying they're female (some already have, because they really don't like the way GC women are using the 'adult human female' definition.)

If we all did as they wanted and called ourselves 'cis', how long do you think it would be before they said they were cis too and needed to be in ciswomen's spaces?

Et cetera, et cetera. "Meet me in the middle," said the unjust man...