At least in the UK, its laws and people would be better served if bias-free communication is rigorously used when lawmaking. The Land Registration Act 2002 an example of statute law which unnecessarily and frequently uses gendered words. [1] Sure, this is written in 2002, times have changed, but this is considered a key statute governing UK land law. Even as recently as 2015, unnecessarily gendered language is used in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, albeit not as consistently, but I'm sure more recent statutes also share this trait. [2] This sloppiness in writing could cause needless issues.
Here's one. The UK's Foreign Office noted that the phrase 'pregant women' in general comment No. 36 on article 6 of the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the right to life 'may be inadvertently restricting the application of this paragraph to exclude transgender people who have given birth; this has happened in two recent cases in the UK.' [3]
This issue is greater than everyday language in business, but the same type of language used in our laws can potentially cost businesses by poorly-worded contracts or by other means. Legislatures should use gender-neutral language to make their laws clear and reduce potential needless unjustice.
> Don't use slang, especially if it could be considered cultural appropriation, such as spirit animal
Yes, please do omit slang terms and inappropriate phrasing from official documentation. Still, I'd like to request someone explain how cultural appropriation fits in here? Cultural appropriation seems like a poisonous concept.
How does this coincide with (when I was an academic in STEM) a tendency to try and fight against assumptions by using specific gendered pronouns in papers? For example “A data scientist may use <my hot new algorithm> in <hot research space> in order to save her 30% more time.”
"mankind" and "man-made" are not gendered terms any more than "history" or "hermit" are. Words can contain other words without being related to those other words.
Here's one. The UK's Foreign Office noted that the phrase 'pregant women' in general comment No. 36 on article 6 of the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the right to life 'may be inadvertently restricting the application of this paragraph to exclude transgender people who have given birth; this has happened in two recent cases in the UK.' [3]
This issue is greater than everyday language in business, but the same type of language used in our laws can potentially cost businesses by poorly-worded contracts or by other means. Legislatures should use gender-neutral language to make their laws clear and reduce potential needless unjustice.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/9/section/24
[2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/pdfs/ukpga_2015...
[3] https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/GCArticle6/Uni...