Lawyers are forever arguing over the meaning of words. With its long history of challenging discriminatory slurs and epithets, nowhere is language more important than in the realm of discrimination law, and no aspect of discrimination law is more linguistically fraught than when looking at trans issues. Let’s start with the basics: lots of you probably work in organisations with LGBT groups. But if we untangle that initialism (it’s not an acronym, strictly), we see that it combines three aspects of sexuality (the L, G and B) which are concerned with what you do and with whom, and one aspect of gender (the T) which is simply about who you are. It’s far from clear that trans people will find this an acceptable shorthand designation.
It also encompasses only one aspect of gender. But if we conceive of gender as a dial, rather than a switch, it becomes clear that there is a very large range of possible gender identities, not simply a binary female/male alternative. Is the “T” an appropriate shorthand for that range? Should other initials be added, such as “I” for intersex or “N” for non-binary? Facebook has famously moved from having 58 different gender options to having 71, and now simply has a free text box, reflecting the range of genders and very personal nature of the label a person chooses to attach to themself. In the light of that infinite range, “T” might well be an appropriate designation for all those who experience gender variance, but perhaps LGB & T is a better title to mark the difference between gender and sexuality.
The sharp-eyed amongst you will have noticed that I used “themself” two sentences ago, rather than choosing between “himself”, “herself” or “him/herself”. That was deliberate: the choice of pronoun in English necessarily connotes gender as we don’t have a neutral or neuter form. Pronoun choice is important. Imagine Shawna, who was assigned “male” at birth but has recognised and affirmed (not “acquired”) her female gender. If you describe Shawna as “he” you will inevitably cause offence or, at the least, embarrassment. This is an issue not only for a trans employee’s colleagues, but affects the entire way an organisation deals with its customers and clients. If Shawna rings your call centre, or walks into your reception, and is met with a cheery “Good morning Sir”, because of her traditionally male voice register, she may well feel less inclined to look favourably on your business. Estimates suggest that gender variance is an issue for around 20 per 100,000 in the UK, so roughly 13,000 people. That is quite a large cohort of potential customers to risk alienating.
Many firms are moving away from the traditional “Dear Sirs” or “Dear Sir/Madam” in their letters, but mainly because those openings are seen as patronising to the many women who receive them. Coming to that debate from a trans angle gives another reason to revisit our conventional modes of greeting. Why do so many employment contracts and handbooks use “he/she” or, even worse, just “he” to refer to everyone? Why can’t we use “they” and “them” to refer to the singular? I hope it’s relatively clear from this piece that I’m quite a typically precise and pedantic lawyer – but if Chaucer, Lewis Carroll, Walt Whitman, George Eliot, Shakespeare, William Thackeray, Jane Austen, and Oscar Wilde all thought it was an acceptable usage, that seems good enough for me.
Ultimately, it’s about engaging with employees and stakeholders and working out solutions that fit your organisation. So it’s a question of raising awareness, training staff in all areas of the business, not causing needless offence, encouraging all employees to be who they are, and to respect others for who they are. If that sounds like a woolly sound bite, then so be it. I’ll leave the question of how best to organise your firm’s toilet facilities for another time!
