"Inclusive language" for the Lords

[ResisterRex]

It just never ends. You'd think Parliament would be the one place where no one gets to police others. But no:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10724953/Staff-told-say-folks-colleagues-inclusive-Lords-language-guide.html

They're welcome to bend their language through all the hoops they like so long as it's not that inclusionary exclusion used to vanish female humans behind the more important kind.

I do think those pushing it need to be aware that they are building up an increasing likelihood of those being lectured and directed coming to associate them with being tediously hard work.

One thing I found in the Telegraph version was this:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/17/house-lords-staff-told-avoid-offensive-terms-manpower/

"Chiefs of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ have also told staff to avoid using words such as “manpower” because these can “reinforce dominant cultural patterns”.
The document’s author, Sir Stephen Lovegrove, the national security adviser, writes: “This toolkit is called Mission Critical because a diverse and inclusive culture is critical to succeeding in our national security missions.”
In a section on inclusive language, it says: “In national security, look out for words and phrases, such as ‘strong’ or ‘grip’, that reinforce the dominant cultural patterns. Avoid jargon, hierarchy or gender biases.”
Another says: “Use gender-neutral language to reflect people’s diversity and reduce stereotypes and assumptions, for example about job roles and functions which need not be gender-defined.”
A Whitehall spokesman said the guidance would be included in core training. “They are fundamental to the national security of the UK,” they added."

I have never heard of "grip" or "strong" being offensive or to be avoided. I'd be interested to know where that's from.

The rest is the same old garbage. I somehow doubt using "gender-neutral" terms will be the big thing that helps us in Ukraine for example.

I'd rather they stopped wasting time worrying about whether their language would fit through some purity spiral of a social justice warrior and just kept their mind and focus on doing their bloody jobs.

Surely the opposite is true. Using and understanding the real language of everyday is crucial to taking correct action.

Using terms associated in society with masculinity will leave an impression that masculinity is important trait in that context

Big strong boy
Pretty kind girl

So by using the word like strong you may well be off putting to women even if that isn't your intent and even if the women don't recognise their response

There is a whole load of research on how language affects people and it's subtle and subconscious

I think that’s so patronising if it’s true mudgetastic*! Surely it only perpetuates silly stereotypes if language like strong is considered to be masculine.
What I can’t believe is that the government spend money producing fucking inclusion toolkits when services are slashed to the bone, terrorism is a massive threat and there is war going in. Stupid fuckers.

I find “folks” absolutely nauseating.

How can you insist on 'gender neutral' language on the one hand then insist on declarations of gender (preferred pronouns) on the other?

It's bloody important to get right if you work in recruiting - makes a huge difference

Stereotypes run deep and are self perpetuating

Actually I don't think it's likely that MI5 is going to be saying "big strong boy". I think those words are more likely to be used in the sense of having or making a "strong response" to a situation or having a "grip" on an incident.

Here's another one: getting a grip. Something these policy writers need to do.

Stand up in a meeting

Ask for a recommendation for a strong leader who will get a grip on the situation

Watch who doesn't step up/ get nominated

Then try Asking for someone who can pull the team together

And it's important because it's only by getting good women in and up the ranks that the myths will gradually die out and that the problems affecting females will be taken seriously

This insidious hidden societal training and mysogeny is why so many initiatives fail

It's why it's easy for people to believe men and women are fundamentally ( beyond reproduction) different

Sweden is an example -Give more respect and pay to traditional female jobs leads to more females in those roles - because they can get on without having to challenge the hidden norms

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you mudge. Your examples are not particularly convincing here. In an unfolding terror incident, the country needs a strong response. If our secret services are so afraid of everyday language then they're potentially not doing much of a job protecting us.

"We particularly welcome female applicants. If you have any queries about the role please contact senior manager J Bloggs (He/Him) or engineer F Smith (He/Him), application forms are available from HR assistant Sarah Jones (She/Her)"

In times of a terror attack the country needs a coordinated response , an effective response , a clear workable response

And maybes if we had fewer people trying to give strong responses we might actually get effective solutions

@Lovelyricepudding

"We particularly welcome female applicants. If you have any queries about the role please contact senior manager J Bloggs (He/Him) or engineer F Smith (He/Him), application forms are available from HR assistant Sarah Jones (She/Her)"

Doesn't work quite the same way as wording the job role sex neutral

Neutral = erasing women.

And we need our services to do their jobs. In this case it's protecting us or having open debates. Not scoring Stonewall points.

Neutral isn't about erasing women

It's about getting them in

You can also use language not neutral to attract women if you want - talk about team players and focus not on the personal attributes of the candidates but the worth of the job role ( make a real difference to peoples lives )

What you're seeing as neutral isn't / it's the default and it is masculine - hence women not being equally represented in many areas of life including politics and business

Use of superlatives is implied masculine
Use of fighting and hero language is implied masculine

People are struggling to pay for food, they can't afford to heat their homes, petrol is becoming a luxury item, ambulances take hours if they turn up at all...

frankly standing around worrying about the implied masculinity of superlatives is not something to worry about right now and is a sign of services so busy with all this wankery they have lost all grip on reality or fitness to do the core bloody job. What does it cost, all this faffing about and worrying about language? In paid man hours, what does it cost, what else could those workers have been doing instead, and why is money being wasted employing them at all in this completely pointless exercise?

I disagree. When language moves to neutral, what we've seen is "people who [insert subject]". And it's always in areas where women are more likely to be the relevant and disproportionately affected. We don't see it happening for things that affect men.

When everything becomes "neutral" you can't count categories and at the moment that means you can't see women. Which group is next up for being hidden?

I'm not convinced that the words "strong" or "grip" have a root in something offensive. It's a way of describing a response that the public would understand. I'm not buying it.

And the original story to which the Telegraph tacked on the secret services policy, was that of the Lords being policed. Our politicians have to be free to say what they like. Where does this end? Removal of Parliamentary privilege? That would be disastrous for society and democracy. Across all topics and not only this one.

We haven't got neutral language now

You could say it needs to be feminised rather than just neutral

There are times when it needs to be sexed

And a lot of times when it doesnt

At the moment we have people going neutral when it should be sexed - yes that's stupid and always harmful

But we still need people to go neutral where it should not be sexed - to remove the hidden barriers for women

It's over simplifying to say no to all genes et neutrality in language

I’m sorry but a) I have worked in recruiting and b) words like strong are NOT masculine and people who want to work as a team and make a difference are not all female. It’s perpetuating stereotypes to assume that women are all about soft skills and don’t see themselves as strong leaders. What ACTUALLY make the difference, and gets women into leadership roles is ( in my experience) mentoring with high- up women, which models that it’s possible and gives women confidence to realise they are capable of leading too.
Not being talked down to and it being assumed that female = soft skills.

Gender spelling mistake

It's not all ever. That's stupid

But at a population level it is very influential