No place for sexist language in our government’s bureaucracy

Those controlling the language of governance and bureaucracy must be careful not to exclude people who choose not to have their identities defined in strict patriarchal terms.

I was filling in a form for tips to the finance minister before he delivered his now-postponed budget speech recently. Currently doing some work in the space of amplifying women’s voices, I was struck immediately by how the language on that form excluded or unfairly conceptualised many of us.

It asks for a gender on the form, and offers the dropdown choice of the binary male and female. Ouch, for anyone who doesn’t fit these criteria. What if I am transgender? What if I choose not to identify as either? What if I am genderfluid?

For the title option, the drop down arrow on the form offered these options for women: Mrs and Miss. So, women once again are defined by their marital status. I never, ever use Miss or Mrs. I am firmly Ms. Surely, it’s as irrelevant what my marital status is as it is for all the misters who are filling in the form?  It’s unfair to define women in that way and not men.

Finance minister, Enoch Godongwana, please speak to your communications team and ask them to sort this out for future instances of asking the public to submit their views? Please can women+ feel as important as men?

Then I was presented with the gendered language in my Community Policing Forum’s constitution recently. The constitution starts with the words: “Community Policing recognises the mutual dependence and sharing of responsibility between the South African Police Service and the Community in making a safe and secure society.”

Further on there’s a reference to “our whole community”. So, that’s all of us. Equally, one would hope.

Then, later in the document comes this legalese slap in the face. “In this document, a reference to the masculine gender shall include the feminine.”

In this day and age? Still?

How biblically archaic. How patronising and patriarchal it is to choose to use the language of the male. How Trumpist and conservative.

Imagine reading this: “In this document, a reference to the feminine gender shall include the masculine.” Erm, back up a moment. Would men on the whole be content with that? I doubt it. So why should we as women accept this form of repeated subjugation?

Now some people will accept the phrase as a nod to gender inclusivity. It’s not. It’s divisive and old fashioned. And incidentally, so is the use of he/she, him/her.

Gender neutral pronouns are easy swaps for these purposes. It’s really not rocket science and there should be no objection to making all people, even small minorities, feel included. So, the phrase “The Station Commissioner or the members of the Service representing him/her…”, can easily be reworded to “The Station Commissioner or the members of the Service representing them…”.

Chairman can easily be replaced with chairperson, or chair.

And no one should be using the word ‘ladies’. It’s very offensive to many women.

Words matter and in a place like the CPF for instance where this public body is meant to be the conduit between the police and the community, it’s really important to get words right. There’s no justification for making people feel excluded. When women+ are repeatedly marginalised in these ways, and told their voice is not important, they become less keen to speak up. If they’re scolded, or their opinion is negated or they’re punished for exercising their right to free speech, it’s demeaning to them; just the same as it is for men.

Having watched the quarterly crime stats being presented, where femicide and rape are still a massive blot on our social record, there’s the overarching feeling that women’s lesser status in the eyes of men is reinforced by acts violence. In the context of policing, where women need to feel at ease in that setting, it is hugely important to be included and welcomed.  

Can the Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities, please foreground the issue of correcting the language in government spaces to be more inclusive? Programme two, as listed on their website, speaks of advocacy and mainstreaming for the rights of women, “to promote good governance regarding the rights and transformation of the social and economic empowerment of women.”

I’m always so thankful for our country’s progressive Constitution. It’s something I’m so proud of. It’s something we got so right. Please can we uphold it? Women in 2025 should not be confined to a status which is less important than men, perhaps even more so especially in the space of government and officialdom.

Come on, government. You simply have to do better.

Steph Saville is a freelance writer. She’s the former editor of The Witness.