Guidelines for use of Non-Sexist Language

ST.AUGUSTI NE CAMPUS

GUI DELI NESFORTHEUSE OFNONSEXI STLANGUAGE ATTHEUNI VERSI TYOFTHEWESTI NDI ES Val er i eYous s efandSueAnnBar r at t TheUni ver s i t yoft heWes tI ndi es St .

Augus t i neCampus I ns t i t ut ef orGenderandDevel opmentSt udi es

l a ngua gee qua l i t y ng i nequa l i t ychangi

IGDS

GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF NON-SEXIST LANGUAGE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES Valerie Youssef and Sue Ann Barratt

Institute for Gender and Development Studies The University of the West Indies St Augustine Campus Trinidad and Tobago 2014

CONTENTS Foreword ................................................................................................................... 3 Preface ....................................................................................................................... 5 Address Forms ...................................................................................................... 10 Titles ......................................................................................................................... 12 Contextual Factors .............................................................................................. 13 Compliments ......................................................................................................... 18 Invitations .............................................................................................................. 20 Professions ............................................................................................................. 21 Labelling and Sexuality ..................................................................................... 26 Final Word .............................................................................................................. 30 References .............................................................................................................. 31 Notes ................................................................................................................. 32-33

1

FOREWORD The Guidelines for the Use of Non-Sexist Language at The University of the West Indies is a timely update to the 1999 version written by Valerie Youssef and Beverly-Anne Carter. On that occasion, the foreword was written by then-Principal, Professor Compton Bourne.

Over the past few decades The UWI has taken the lead in teaching, research, analysis and public service aimed at transforming gender relations and attitudes in the region. Language serves as the major form of human communication and is a vital part of human culture. It is a reflection of power relations among people and in many ways reflects the dominant thinking of people or community and therefore becomes an expression of inequity, prejudice and stereotypes, and a medium of perpetuation and reinforcement of these negative attitudes within our society. The continued use of sexist language has been one of the many obstacles to the achievement of equality throughout the twenty-first century society.

Within a tertiary level educational institution where language is often utilised in influential ways, it is important that the language used by sta and students is articulated in a non-discriminatory manner. The university is committed to the promotion of equal opportunity and social inclusion and this should be reflected in all oďŹƒcial University communications, publications and environments. This document provides a framework for achieving this.

The Guidelines for the Use of Non-Sexist Language at The University of the West Indies provides real life scenarios where potential instances of sexist communication can occur within the university. While the publication may not review entirely novel situations, it examines instances where we have overlooked pressing issues. For many, the changes suggested may appear trivial, but language is not just an expression of meaning; it shapes the ways in which we understand ourselves and each other. This book therefore allows us to think

3

about and re-evaluate our actions and how they affect others in our environment. The elaborations and additions from the previous version were largely influenced by the results of a survey conducted

by Dr. Sue Ann Barratt. Some additions include examining contexts such as formal meetings and the classroom, guiding the use of local terms of address, and explaining the functions of linguistic strategies such as face-saving and silencing. Importantly, this updated version includes guidelines for addressing members of the LGBT community, an issue relevant to twenty-first century human rights.

I would like to thank Professor Valerie Youssef for her continued dedication to this project, as well as Dr. Sue Ann Barratt for the insights she has helped to add to this version due to her research. I would also like to congratulate the Institute for Gender and Development Studies on its continued innovations and commitment to diversity and inclusion at The UWI St. Augustine campus.

We look forward to further development of the research on which this booklet was based. At the same time, we look forward to the integration of these guidelines in the practices of all faculties, departments and offices within The University. I urge those within The University of the West Indies, students and staff alike to seriously consider the recommendations offered by this document. May they help you successfully communicate with peers and colleagues through establishing efficient and respectful connections.

Rhoda Reddock, 2014 Professor of Gender, Social Change and Development and Deputy Campus Principal The University of the West Indies St. Augustine Campus Trinidad and Tobago

4

PREFACE In preparing a revised version of the Guidelines for Use of NonSexist Language, some change must be acknowledged since the time of their first production at the turn of the Millenium.

That change has embraced not only language use but language attitudes, and beyond that, gender attitudes, and it is important to acknowledge that change, record it and point to areas where change is still to come. That we write from a base in an Institute of Gender and Development Studies, distinct from the original Centre, denotes greater recognition of the importance of gender equality within The University of the West Indies. Guidelines such as these are intended to bring equality of treatment to all and to achieve this through the language used in the professional sphere. The University of the West Indies remains a beacon of knowledge to the Caribbean community and for this very reason it is important that such matters be addressed appropriately.

Sufficient has been the change in the position of women in the work place that it is less strange now to have women in high office in all spheres of endeavour, from government to education, and some of the earlier allusions to female members of parliament as ‘babes’ of their Prime Minister are now reduced. Even today, however, with our own Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister a female there has been commentary casting her as a puppet of male ministers, exerting power which is not her own, bowing to the opinion of the men around her. Her silence on some issues is taken for ignorance or incompetence when it may belie other positive qualities.

5

Academically, though, the capacity of women to negotiate, to compromise, to better consider all sides of an argument, has been acknowledged, to the extent that styles of talk associated with them have formed the substance of workshops on communication skills for professionals, most specifically in the field of medicine. Yet at a more fundamental level, sexist attitudes persist.

It is still the case that male norms dominate language and that terms designed to establish equality have not done so. The term Ms, for example, which was intended as a term equivalent to Mr, not dierentiating among women according to their marital status, has failed in its intent. The term is widely understood by students and sta alike to have replaced Miss as a nomenclature for an unmarried woman. It has emerged through our research that the intent behind the introduction of the term was not widely understood from the outset, so that rather than contributing to changes in mind set, it was made to accommodate existing mind sets and that has given pause for thought. In the context of the re-issue of the Guidelines we would want to encourage Department- level discussion of them which we would be happy to facilitate. There is no sense in changing language and not changing attitudes, of paying lip-service to equality but retaining inequality in our minds.

The document should become part of University Policy, specifically Gender Policy, and it would be vacuous to attempt to achieve that by substituting one word for another without the appreciation of the dierence in intent entailed.

As part of this project to confront attitudes we must acknowledge the need to accommodate in our vocabulary

6

appropriate terms to refer to or to address persons who identify as a gender or sexual minority, which includes queer, questioning, undecided, intersexed, asexual, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, pansexual, transgender, gay. Terms used for sexual minorities or for variations in sexual practices do need further consideration, particularly in homophobic societies such as our own. The debate over sexualities may not be solved just by language change but due respect should be paid to all persons regardless of debate. As a result, Section Seven of this document is devoted to these concerns.

It is now widely accepted that language does, to some extent, determine the way we think, a claim first made by anthropologist Benjamin Lee Whorf back in the 1920’s. A number of studies have shown that the male is indeed thought of when the term man is used even though a generic meaning is intended. As a result, terms which avoid the use of man as an intended generic have been widely accepted. Humankind, for example, has been found to have substantially replaced mankind and generic he has been largely replaced by they, one or even she. This last must be used judiciously to avoid a nondefendable retaliatory usage. It can be used, however, to make the point that the use of a single sex pronoun does colour one’s thinking and, in this case, make the man invisible, as the woman has been for so long.

While such acceptance seems to be an international standard it was important to prepare a revised version which paid greater attention to the Caribbean milieu. While much is held in common with the rest of the global English-speaking community, it would be remiss not to take specific Caribbean

7

perspectives on board and this has been achieved with the use of interviews throughout the community, not only with senior academics and sta but other persons in the wider community. It seemed important to establish how, as a microcosm of the Caribbean community, The University of the West Indies and the wider community perceived sexism and the sexist use of language, and to have this inform the revised guidelines. From these interviews, it appears that sexism is interpreted largely in the context of sexual harassment and derogation of women which may be both verbal and nonverbal. Except for academic professionals at the highest level, recognition of language that may be deemed sexist appears minimal. Sexist language use is not continuously salient to the speaker.

As well as drawing reference to some culture specific terms, there is added commentary in this edition and a number of more developed areas. Specific areas to which more detailed discussion has been added, include the importance of context and relationship in defining word choice, shifting norms for politeness, protocols and sexuality; face-saving strategies and silencing. Not only does the revised version of the guidelines include more focus on these topic areas but it includes added consideration of a range of informal address forms used locally which are spoken by males to females they do not know personally or are used in reference to particular women as men talk among themselves. They may also be used as direct address forms to persons known, in very specific contexts.

These are applicable to our academic context to the extent that they represent an objectification of the female or a discriminatory positioning which permeates society and which

8

some male staff and many students admit to using on occasions as context might allow. They reveal attitudes which persist and which must be constantly addressed in order to achieve transformation.

Specific areas of concern raised by interviewees, and to which more detailed discussion has been added, include: ✦

Address Forms and Titles

✦

Face Saving Strategies and Silencing

✦

Context Factors and Relationships

✦

Protocols, Politeness and Compliments

✦

Invitations and Professions

✦

Labelling and Sexuality

9

ADDRESS FORMS In the thirteen years since the first issue of these Guidelines, much has changed and much remains the same. Historically, there has been inequity in this arena for, in the case of a man, there is only one ascribed name throughout life and no conflict arises, but for a woman there is the tradition of her taking her husband’s name on marriage. This has increasingly been changing and it is now accepted that, should a woman prefer to use her birth name in her professional life or revert to it after divorce, care should be taken that she be addressed by the name which she prefers. Similarly, when a woman retains her birth name after marriage, either singly or together with her husband’s surname, her preference should be respected. The woman should not be compelled to give up her given name for that of her husband. It may be argued that a woman’s birth name is her father’s anyway and hence male derived but her reality is that she has grown and established her identity within it and should have the right to retain it if she sees fit. In our interviews it was noted that a woman’s decision to retain her own surname after marriage is nonetheless still greeted with surprise at a professional level within the academic community. Hopefully this will change soon.

10

If we chart the course of change we find the following: 1970 Mrs. Rashida Khan (wife of Faizal Khan) Mrs. Hyacinth Brown (wife of Roland Brown) 1995 Mrs. Rashida Ragoobir-Khan (birth name Rashida Ragoobir, now wife of Faizal Khan).

Mrs. Hyacinth McDonald-Brown (birth name Hyacinth Mc Donald, wife of Roland Brown).

2010 Mrs. Rashida Ragoobir (birth name Rashida Ragoobir, now wife of Faizal Khan).

Mrs. Hyacinth McDonald (birth name Hyacinth Mc Donald, wife of Roland Brown).

Today all three of these options are available dependent on the preferences of the married couple, but, significantly, the woman’s choice is more readily taken and adhered to, although an issue yet to be resolved is that of the genderequal naming of children.

One suggestion from both married and unmarried parents has been to name children using both the mother’s and father’s last names. e.g.

Danielle Ragoobir-Khan (daughter of Rashida Ragoobir and Faizal Khan) Jason McDonald-Brown (son of Hyacinth McDonald and Roland Brown)

11

TITLES Whilst it has been acknowledged that, as a general guide, all women should be called Ms when professional titles are not relevant contextually, such is the prejudice within society against single marital status for woman that many married women have eschewed Ms in favour of Mrs. Qualitative and quantitative investigation of female sta members at UWI in late 2013 revealed that, generally, married women prefer the Mrs title because they felt it denoted respect and reinforced their emotional attachment to their marital status. For some, they remained uncertain about the meaning of the Ms title and on this basis were unwilling to adopt it. At the same time most understand Ms to be an appellation for single women and prefer the use of the first name, except during interaction with students (though a few would apply this use universally).

This has been to some extent a case of failed language change, stymied by prejudice among women as much as men.

Nonetheless, when the usage is explicated as one designed to bring equality of reference it is accepted and the misuse of the term calls us to educate rather than assume understanding.

Intended rule: Ms. Jane Buckridge (whether Ms. Buckridge is married or single, young or old) This, on par with Mr. David Buckridge whether Mr. Buckridge is married or single, young or old.)

The tendency to call the male academic Dr and the female Ms persists but is less widespread than previously.

12

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS In formal meetings it is important to call staff by their title and last names and to make this equal treatment for both men and women. It is sometimes the case that the male is addressed by title and last name e.g. Dr. Richardson and the woman by her first name e.g. Jennifer, but such inequity is clearly undesirable.

It may be argued that greater familiarity with the individual has motivated the first name usage but it has often been the case that equal levels of familiarity have met with differential usage.

Again in meetings one may need to refer to another staff member rather than address them directly, and, unless the group is a fairly intimate one, reference to the individual should be made by title and last name; this applies equally to both sexes. For example, I will inform Dr. Jones instead of I will inform John/Margaret.

The above is even more desirable if one is talking to a student or group of students about a colleague since there is a difference of rank entailed between staff member and student.

Even though that colleague may be a friend of the speaker, in referring to them it is appropriate to give them their full title.

Silencing In the context of discussion of formal meetings, it is important to mention that women are still often less accustomed to speaking in public fora than men, at least in those at higher levels which continue to be male-dominated spaces. Moving through the various Board levels of an institution one

13

recognizes that the higher the level of the meeting the fewer the women on that particular Board. Since it must be acknowledged that the discourse styles of men and women differ in these kinds of context, it is to be expected that women will speak less than men within them. On the one hand, they are likely less familiar with the male norms entailed, and, on the other, they are a minority group. One area for further research still to be fully explored is the extent of language difference according to gender. For now it is sufficient to recognize that there is a continued silencing of women (both by self and other) which demands redress. It is not necessarily that this silencing of the woman is intentional but even if it is an accident of setting and context it must be overcome by efforts on both sides of the formal gender divide.

The Classroom In the Caribbean context it is the norm for students at the tertiary level to call staff by title and last name. Whilst it is now common in the US and Europe for some staff to ask students to call them by their first name it is not normative in the Caribbean and if a staff member encourages the first name it may be perceived as seeking undue familiarity or even as a form of sexual harassment. Students should be discouraged from calling lecturers Miss or Sir as they have been accustomed to doing in school and should be encouraged to use lecturers’ professional titles. They should not assume that maleness means the possession of a doctorate and femaleness not; this is a perceptual interference which needs urgent revision.

Informal Contexts When staff address one another outside of meetings the name they use for that other will depend on the extent of their acquaintance. Generally, today it is normative to use first

14

names to one another, whether male or female, but this may sometimes be mediated by an age differential where younger staff find it difficult to address a considerably older person by first name, as a measure of respect for their older status and also because the assumed familiarity which first name entails may seem inappropriate given the age difference. The twentyfirst century egalitarian bent is an important one in the context of which it is common for staff to refer to one another or address one another as Doc or Prof, such forms retaining titles informally and casually, thereby reducing their weight in a non-offensive manner.

If an academic staff member is addressing another whose position is manual, as, for example, a messenger or cleaner, it is important to show appropriate respect by using title and last name. Today it is generally more common to use first names but, in a case where particular respect is required, consideration should be given to use of title and last name. In the same spirit of democratic relationship staff at all levels may address senior staff as Prof or Doc; the acknowledgment of title is there but made light of and issues of disrespect or discrimination do not pertain.

Specific local terms for women used in informal contexts.

Below are listed some of the terms that informants volunteered as demeaning to women.

The list could be much fuller but is included briefly, not to digress from the focus on academic contexts, but to indicate the continued attitudes toward and associated with derogation of women in these kinds of labelling. The terms might be used among the student population and by some male staff in social settings. They are notable in that they all

15

have negative connotations and hence they contrast with terms which may be applied to men such as sweetman which are less so.

Smart Girl-Might be applied to a woman who knows how to manipulate men to get what she wants to secure her future.

She uses her body to purchase her future without being a prostitute. Winer (2009:830) notes that a smartman is worshipped despite his crookedness. Not so the woman.

In contrast we have Stupid Girl which applies to a woman who is virtuous and supportive of her male partner; she is an ideal but less of a survivor in the sense of the smart girl. It seems that woman is indeed damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t.

Some men refer to their wife as my madam; her identity is erased and she is defined by the fact that she is his wife.

Originally the term was positive (Winer: 549) but in sync with the pattern of progressive derogation of labels for women in the course of time. When the pronoun is changed to the madam it functions as a word of dismissal or scorn, a way of downgrading or cutting down to size of the woman who seeks to control.

Then of course we have terms like chile mudder which derogates the woman who has borne a man’s child or children but has no status and is defined only by her being a ‘breeder’ for the man’s use. This woman is not usually considered with affection by the father but is recognised for her position as caretaker of his offspring.

16

Ting – Most commonly identified as an example of sexist language, this term speaks clearly to the continuing objectification of women in a very literal way. Examples include: You eh see that real hot ting over there.

Ah was tacklin a ting.

Many terms in common usage patronize women by according them a lower status or defining them inaccurately. Expressions such as ‘girls’ when addressed to mature women and even dear, ‘love’ and ‘darling’, addressed to either men or women in public situations are inappropriate and offensive. The term baby, like the rest, may be a term of endearment used for women by men but is said to diminish them, making them feel patronized.

The male tendency to call a woman whom he does not like by labels like slut, hoe, and skettel is common indeed, and bitch is applied to any woman who antagonizes the man. Interestingly, an unfaithful man may be a dog, but this is almost a statusgiver by comparison with the female-oriented terms. It should be noted that many young male students are often literally tongue-tied when required not to use swear words as well as these kinds of terms.

17

COMPLIMENTS Compliments that convey a clear tone of sexism are demeaning and inappropriate in professional contexts. The following list is by no means exhaustive, but illustrative of the kind of statement to avoid:

You think just like a man.

You’re pretty smart for a woman.

You’re really feminine for a professional woman.

You’re beautiful when you’re angry.

It has been suggested that when one is unsure about the degree of sexism conveyed by the compliment, one should try substituting the opposite sex in the sentence. When we try this the contrasting label seems ludicrous: You’re pretty smart for a man.

You’re really masculine for a career man.

A good rule of thumb is that any statement that starts out, “This may sound male chauvinist…” is likely to be exactly that.

The speaker is indulging in “Clayton’s sexism”. This term is what one practices when one is contrivedly not being sexist. It is displayed by people who know what sexist usage is, but do not think it a serious problem.

18

Our own further research within The University has indicated to us that this is a prevailing attitude: language may superficially appear to have a sexist intent but it is incidental and unworthy of mention. Although reluctant to be seen as sexists, persons reveal their sexism nevertheless by mocking a caricature of non-sexist usage. Examples might include: With Sharon here, I’d better not use the word I was going to use.

I’ll explain that again, for the benefit of the girls-sorry ladies, sorry, persons.

I’m waiting for someone to sexually harass me.

Given the last example above it is worth mentioning the issue of sexual harassment. It is now the case that a Sexual Harassment Policy has been worked out over a number of years for this institution. For many male staff, however, the concerns over sexual harassment are perceived as exaggerated female reaction to complimentary, even supportive behaviour.

It is considered normative for the Trinidad male to display overtly sexual behaviour towards a woman on the job: for the woman it may be harassment, or irrelevant annoyance at least, but for the man expected familiarity. These differential codes of behaviour continue to challenge us and must be clearly defined in order to avoid the capacity for mutual offence.

19

INVITATIONS As regards social occasions when invitations are to be issued, preference should be given to a range of deliberately nonsexist formats like the following: Example

Alternative

Devindra Maharaj and his wife Nicole

Devindra and Nicole Maharaj

Dress: Black tie

Dress: Evening

When a faculty member is female, care should be taken to address the title holder appropriately. While the name of the male has traditionally come first, and the first name of the female has been omitted e.g. Mr and Mrs. Devindra Maharaj, this format is now recognized as making the female invisible and would normally be eschewed for inclusion of both names.

It was also traditional to omit the female’s professional title but now it is recognized that it should be included as, for example, in Mr. Devindra and Professor Nicole Maharaj. Thirteen years ago this sounded awkward but now it is perfectly acceptable.

Generally there has been an acknowledged easing of protocols which has made for more fluidity in the use of address forms than was formerly the case.

20

PROFESSIONS Job Titles Job titles or occupational terms that relate only to one sex are discriminatory. Terms such as professor, nurse, and doctor can effectively be used as gender neutral; marked terms such as lady professor, male nurse and lady doctor cannot. The following list provides some examples of neutral, generic, occupational terms: Example

Possible Alternative

Businessman

business person/people; executive; professional

Chairman

*chairperson/ head (of department); convener (of a meeting/committee); presiding officer;

Layman

layperson;layman/ laywoman;non professional; non-specialist

Middleman

intermediary

Spokesman

official; representative; speaker; spokesperson

Weatherman

meteorologist; weather reporter

*Research has shown that in contexts where chairperson has been offered as an alternative to chairman, chairperson is used

21

mainly when the holder of the office is a woman. Care must be taken to prevent a reintroduction of gender-stereotyping inherent in the use of a masculine (high value form) and a feminine form that in comparison to the masculine is less highly valued. It is recommended that the form chairperson — or even the more informal chair — be used for both sexes.

A continuing unresolved area of difficulty in the search for alternatives to occupational or professional titles which appear to exclude one or other sex, is the problem of terms such as Visiting Fellow, Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree. Consider the effect of Mistress’s degree! Visiting Scholar is a useful alternative to Visiting Fellow.

Sex-Role Stereotyping Linked to the question of job titles is that of sex-role stereotyping which assumes that all of the office holders in a particular occupation are either male or female. The following examples clearly assume that all academics are male; appropriate alternatives are suggested: Example

Alternative

Academics have wives to support.

Academics have families to support.

A faculty member and his wife may attend.

Faculty members and their spouses may attend.

Other examples of stereotyping are found in texts which assume that women are always wives and mothers and men breadwinners. One consequence of this is that descriptions of women often focus on their roles as wife and mother,

22

irrespective of their working roles or qualifications. A further consequence is that attention is drawn to woman’s physical attributes, irrelevant in a description of her professional expertise – the implication here being that these attributes are somehow an important feature in the context. Usually, such references to a woman’s physical attributes in a professional context have the effect of trivializing her worth and casting doubt on her professional expertise, simply because there is no mention of job competence factors, these having given place to physical description. As noted earlier, sex-role stereotyping works against men as well as women. Certain negatively-perceived classes of persons are generally assumed to be male e.g. convicts, prisoners, thieves and gamblers! Here too we must clearly guard against a priori judgements in our thought process.

It has been observed that there is a tendency for men to ignore women in a dual sex casual conversation. They ask the man but not the woman about his professional life, and assume that the woman is ‘at home’ and not in a profession that warrants any discussion.

Biased foregrounding Similar gender-bias is promoted when women are, by their portrayal, perceived to be passive victims whereas men are portrayed as proactive actors occupying centre stage.

Alternatively, the male in an incident may be foregrounded at the expense of the female: ‘A man who suffered head injuries when attacked by two men …early yesterday… was pinned down… by intruders who took it to rape his wife.

Equally to be abhorred are newspaper headlines which foreground a woman’s family position when she is accused of a

23

crime: Wife and Mother Kills Husband being the kind of headline common to our Press. We never see the reverse kind of ascription which makes the one discriminatory designed to somehow make the crime more heinous because of the woman’s ascribed gender role.

Stereotyped gender portrayal of inanimate objects.

Although inanimate objects in English are generally described as gender neutral there has always been a curious tendency to label possessions as female, which should be avoided e.g. She flies like a bird (with reference to a privately-owned aircraft).

Similarly because of their implicit associations, all gender ascriptions to inanimate objects and abstract concepts is undesirable and should be replaced by the gender neutral it. In support of this we may consider the following from an eighteenth century grammarian L. Murray who very seriously justified such ascription by the following: ‘the sun is always masculine and the moon, being the receptacle of the sun’s light, is feminine. In general, the earth is feminine, as are ships, countries and cities in their capacities as receptacles and containers. Time is always masculine because of its powerful effectiveness…’

Generic Terms Early in these Guidelines it was noted that great progress has been made in shifting from generic male terms to more neutral ones. Given this, the original list of alternatives for these terms, for example, humanity for mankind, is omitted, but retained is a list of clichés which are still in use:

24

Example

Possible alternative

the best man for the job

best candidate /applicant for the job; the best person for the job; the best woman/man for the job

man in the street

the average citizen, the average person, ordinary people

average working man

average taxpayer/ average citizen/ average person

man-hours

work-hours/person-hours

average housewife

average homemaker; average household

a man who

a person who, someone/ somebody who

man of letters

author, intellectual, scholar, writer

man of science

scientist, specify discipline (e.g. zoologist)

manpower

human resources, labour, labour force, personnel

manpower planning

labour market planning

25

LABELLING AND SEXUALITY Homophobic language which reinforces traditional norms of sexual behaviour is used to perpetuate negative stereotypes about gay men and women and may be directed at anyone who is seen to conform to these stereotypes, whatever their actual sexual orientation. The cultural assumption of straight lifestyles tends to marginalise lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people and to create few positive cultural images of them.

Historically, the term 'homosexual' was coined in the medical field in the nineteenth century and has been used officially ever since to describe people who are attracted to members of the same sex. It is perceived as hostile within the gay community, however, although those outside the community do not know they offend since they regard the label as neutral.

The term 'gay' emerged in the twentieth century as a positive term to replace ‘queer’, its forerunner, which was considered derogatory.

In the last twenty years, 'queer' has been reclaimed by the community itself who use it to describe people whose sexual lives are treated as deviant by the larger proportion of society.

It can include bisexual, transgendered, transsexual or intersexed people. In academia ‘queer theory’ and ‘queer studies’ are more common now than say ‘lesbian and gay studies’. But again there is a difference between the use of the term ‘queer’ within and outside its community, since outside it, it can still be used judgementally or perceived to be used in

26

this way by members of the community. The term bisexual is generally acceptable.

Below are some problematic terms with alternatives: Example

Alternative

Husband/wife, Boyfriend/ Girlfriend - not only do these labels limit their reference to traditional gender/sex binaries, they have also been avoided by individuals in normative heterosexual relationships as a way to exclude themselves from the stereotypes attached to each label.

Partner (inclusive term that can account for any close, romantic relationship between individuals without immediately invoking stereotypes)

Sexual Preference - suggest that the individual’s identity is a matter of choice and not innate which can be oensive .

Sexual Orientation, Sexual Identity, Sexuality

Alternative lifestyle (used by some as a reference to sexual identities that fall outside the heterosexual norm where citing behaviour is favoured over citing identity)

Sexual Minority, Gay, Bisexual, Queer, Questioning - all generally acceptable terms to describe non-heterosexual identities.

Both - appears gender neutral but maintains exclusivity of gender/sex binary, accounting for men/women, male/female, e.g. Both men and women should be treated equally.)

All, Many, Some (more inclusive language which accommodates identities which do not fit within traditional gender/sex binary; e.g. All genders should be treated equally.)

27

28

Example

Alternative

Hermaphrodite - outdated term used to refer to individuals born with ambiguous genitalia.

Intersexed e.g. persons with Klinefelter’s Syndrome.

Homosexual/Lesbian – terms considered generally valid and acceptable labels however these have been considered by some as attacking and unacceptable.

Gay – considered standard acceptable term

Homo/Fag/Hen/Buller (or buller man) - derogatory slang terms used to refer to a non-heterosexual (and sometimes effeminate) male.

Lesbo/Lez/Zami/Lesaimes derogatory slang terms used to refer to non-heterosexual women

Gay (standard acceptable term)

Gay Community(ies)

GLT’s (Gay, lesbian, transgender), LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) generally acceptable terms to describe non-heterosexual identities and communities.

Sex Change

Sexual Reassignment Surgery, Gender Reaffirming Surgery

Where language is used to refer to individuals whose gender identity appears ambiguous or non-normative that individual should be referred to using the adjective or personal pronoun they choose:

Example

Alternative Term

Awkward constructions like HeShe

He/Man/Male She/Woman/Female

“Two-sided”, “”It”

Androgynous or Transgendered For pronouns, traditional grammar rules can be flouted in favour of “they”, “their”, “them” to refer to an individual.

29

FINAL WORD This discussion is not exhaustive, but updates and extends the original guidelines for the use of non-discriminatory language in the work place thirteen years on from the original listing. We trust that it has eectively covered change in progress at the present time and has underlined where more change is needed.

30

REFERENCES Baker, Paul. (2010). “Will Ms Ever be as frequent as Mr? A corpus-based comparison of gendered terms across four diachronic corpora of British English.” Gender and Language.4:1 125-149 Cameron, Deborah (1992) Feminism & Linguistic Theory (2nd Edition) UK: Macmillan Commonwealth Secretariat (1995) Gender Bias in School Text Books. UK. Earp, Brian D. (2012). “The Extinction of Masculine Generics” Journal for Communication and Culture. Vol 2 1 4-19.

Equal Employment Opportunities Office (1991) Guide to Nonsexist Language. Australia: Victoria University of Wellington.

Ehrlich, Susan, & King, Ruth (1994). Feminist meanings and the (de)politicization of the lexicon. Language in Society 23:59-76.

Graddol, David and Swann, Joan (1990) Gender Voices UK: Basil Blackwell Maharaj, Hari & Ali Akleema (2004) Recognition of Cultural Behaviours in Trinidad and Tobago. Internet Journal of Anaesthesiology 14:2 1092-406x Swim, Janet K., Eyssell, Kristen M., Murdoch, Erin Q., Ferguson, Melissa J. (2010). Self-Silencing to Sexism.Social Issues. 66:3 493-507.

Winer, Lise (2009) Dictionary of the English/Creole of Trinidad and Tobago.

Montreal and Kingston, McGill-Queen’s University Press.

31

NOTES

32

NOTES

33

Ther ei sno s ens ei n changi ng l anguageand notchangi ng at t i t udes , ofpayi ng l i ps er vi cet o equal i t y butr et ai ni ng i nequal i t y i nourmi nds .