I'm minuting a meeting, someone said gender-based violence...

[douglasadamswasright]

Do I submit it as sex-based instead?

I don't need this job, but would it be wrong?

It wasn't what was said, I'd be bloody tempted. Also, as much to see if they noted as anything else. Minute takers actually have quite a bit of power.

I think the most commonly used term is SGBV - Sex and gender based violence but often its shortened to Gender based violence. I would submit it as SGBV (sex and gender based violence) if anyone asks, that's the term bodies like the UN usually use.

What about calling it what it largely is: violence against women and girls

Often gender-based violence is used because it prevents the term getting mixed up with sex attacks like sexual assault and rape.

@Charliebrow has it, I think.

They can read into it they like, you know what you mean and aren't writing a lie.

You will come across like someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Gender based violence is a real term, with real value, though that has possibly been diluted since we've re-defined gender. But essentially, I used to give trainings about this a decade ago and what we told people was that gender related to behaviour linked to being a man/woman, but it was not behaviour that had a biological basis like sex. So, to keep it really simple, damage caused by childbirth would be a sex-based health condition, a woman experiencing violence during pregnancy is gender based violence because there is nothing innate in being a man that causes you to be violent to your pregnant partner.

Violence Against Woman and Girls is another term, but it doesn't capture harm caused to men from GBV - so for example FGM is an example of GBV (done to women and girls because of harmful stereotypes about what it is to be a woman among certain cohorts, not at all something that would automatically happen because of their sex) but some people would consider circumcision to fall under that banner too.

Sex-based violence suggests that there is something innate about being a woman or a man that leads to this violence, when the majority of work done on GBV is about targeting supports to reduce instances of what is almost always the result of a toxic patriarchal society, and which ofter presents very differently in different cultures.

You are minuting - you can be changing what has been said to suit your own agenda.

There is a reason for minutes, and one if them is to be able to re read them/review what has been said. It’s essential that the words used stay linked to that person.

Sex-based violence suggests that there is something innate about being a woman or a man that leads to this violence

Sex-based describes the reason women are victims of the violence, not what societal reasons leads to the behaviour of the perpetrators. All of the things you describe FGM, a pregnant woman experiencing violence etc - only happen to those women because of their sex, not because of the gender of their perpetrator. In fact with FGM, it can sometimes be elder women in certain communities that perpetrate it. It’s a sex-based violation that can only happen in the way it does to women and girls.

OP, you could minute it as “gender[sic]- based violence” to register your view that it’s an error, or but “[sex]-based violence”.

I mean if the ACLU can change Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s famous quote with gender woo pronouns I don’t see how altering the minutes of a meeting that doesn’t really matter is a big deal.

I know it's often used interchangeably with "gender identity", but "gender" does mean the expectations and assumptions placed on you based on your perceived sex, so I think it's relevant, and as said above, helps distinguish from the other meaning of sex as an action.

(And is why most of us are critical of gender - because it's largely based on incorrect preconceptions).

Is just add (sic) after the incorrect word.

Actually thats a good idea re 'sic', flags up the words used, so correct minutes, but implies that they are not useful here.

So, to keep it really simple, damage caused by childbirth would be a sex-based health condition, a woman experiencing violence during pregnancy is gender based violence because there is nothing innate in being a man that causes you to be violent to your pregnant partner.

This doesn't make sense to me. A sex-based health condition during pregnancy isn't violence. But a pregnant woman who is beaten by her male partner IS sex-based violence. Even if she's not pregnant, it's sex-based violence. Women are vulnerable to male violence BECAUSE our sex gives us unique physical differences like thinner skulls and less strong neck muscles that make our head injuries more severe from the same blow. Pregnancy which can hamper fighting back or fleeing, etc.

The discussion point seems to be does 'gender/sex' based violence refer to the gender/sex of the offender or the victim?

If women are victims because of their sex, are men the main perpetrators because of their sex (eg testosterone, size) or because of gender stereotypes in how they are brought up (eg boys will be boys, boys are tough, stand up for yourself messages).

I've always understood that the purpose of minutes is to record what was said at a meeting, not someone else's interpretation of what was said, or what someone else believes should have been said.
If the meeting (or an individual in that meeting) is conflating 'gender' and 'sex' then that, I think, is what should go on record.

No. She who writes the minutes yields the power.

Actually I don't think minutes are for recording what people say, they are for recording decisions and reasons behind them, and on occasion minuting that an individual disagrees.
e.g. 'there was some discussion regarding whether it should be sex based violence or gender based. Points for sex based were .... Points for gender based were ..... In the end no firm conclusion was reached.'

Exactly. It's important that the minutes reflect what was actually said, regardless of whether the minute-taker believes they probably meant something else.

Also, you don't know when that thing you're tempted to change might actually end up being really important in future.

For example, say a minute-taker takes issue with someone conflating sex and gender and corrects every instance, and then later, a woman who was at the meeting wants to rely on those minutes as part of her employment tribunal case around a wider sex discrimination issue. She recalls that the manager always says gender where it should be sex (which goes to her more serious sex discrimination case), but then her lawyer receives the minutes and someone has corrected it all to say sex when that didn't actually happen. That woman is effectively gaslit and she can't show that the manager doesn't know the difference between sex and gender, because it looks like he always says sex when he means sex and is very clear on when its sex and when its gender. She can't prove what really happened in the meeting because someone recorded it inaccurately.

Just report what's actually said, as that's the job.

Also what Longines said. This is something that could have all kinds of unintended consequences. I'd be deeply unimpressed if it were done to me.

if you're there purely as a minute taker you have to reflect the words

if you are part of the meeting too you need to interject and ask for clarification.

You have to write what was said, not what you think should have been said. Put it in quotes if the expression bothers you.

exactly
minutes should be as accurate as possible- if I'd spoken in the meeting about sex based rights and the minute taker changed that to gender based rights I would be annoyed, and I would not accept it as a correct record at the next meeting

as pp have said gender-based violence has a history of being used to describe principally but not exclusively VAWAG and I don't think we should cede this useful analytical tool. Such violence may at times be easier to enact because of biological differences but it is motivated, enabled and excused for reasons of gender (the patriarchy). If you believe it's sex based then you are saying men are inevitably violent because of their sex, which is not true. They choose to be violent because they can. They could also choose not to be violent. Let's not let them off the hook.

It depends on the context. Minutes can be a decision log or a near-verbatim record of a discussion, with far-reaching legal consequences.

It's a dick move to start altering minutes to suit the minute-taker's politics. It's knowingly recording something that is untrue and it creates a precedent that can come back to bite. What if the next minute-taker in the OP's organisation is a TRA? Are you happy for him/her to alter "women" to "cervix-havers".

The discussion point seems to be does 'gender/sex' based violence refer to the gender/sex of the offender or the victim?

It means the gender/sex of the victim. Male-sex-based-violence to describe the offender would describe nearly all violence anyway!

It's a shame the word 'gender' has been corrupted, as PP have said it's a useful (mostly negative!) concept.

And also agree that minutes should record what was said.

Maybe the OP could put it in quotes E.g " ... there has been an increase in 'gender-based' violence "?

The minutes should be accurate. During the meeting, you should have interjected with your point of view, and then it could have been recorded.