ľ¹Ï¸£ÀûÓ°ÊÓ

• ‘According to the study, the daily caloric intake for an adult is 2,500 kcal.’ This example sentence assumes men, without naming it. This makes it unclear that a different recommendation applies to women. Alternative: ‘According to the study, the daily caloric intake for an adult male is 2500 kcal, for women it is 2000 kcal.’
• ‘She's just straight.’ The word ‘just’ makes it seem as if heterosexuality is the norm, thereby excluding different sexual orientations. Alternative: ‘She is straight’.
• ‘The team is looking for non-white colleagues.’ Don't describe people based on what they are not. Alternative: ‘The team is looking for more diversity in ethnicity and culture/ of colour.’

• ‘We welcome refugee students and regular students.’ In this example sentence, a hierarchy is created by distinguishing between different types of students. Alternative: ‘We welcome students from all kinds of backgrounds.’

• ‘We want to reduce the gap between highly educated and less highly educated people.’ Highly and less highly suggest a ranking, with highly being better, so the sentence emphasises value or status, not type of education. A better alternative would be: ‘We want to reduce the gap between people with a theoretical education and those with a practical education.’

• ‘Young Muslims discuss the rise of terrorism.’ Making a link between terrorism and Muslims reinforces damaging stereotypes. A better alternative would be: ‘Young people discuss the rise of terrorism.’

• ‘I will approach this in my autistic manner’ or ‘It has to be this way, according to my autistic brain’. In these sentences, (negative) assumptions about autism are made. Say what you mean, without using the word autism. A better alternative would be: ‘I would like to approach this in a structured way’.
• ‘Which idiot decided to do this?’ Here, a term for a person with a learning disability is used as an expletive. That is ableism, and unnecessary. A better alternative would be: ‘Who took this bad decision?’ or ‘What were the considerations behind this decision?’.

• What am I taking as the norm? How can I explain this or oppose this?

• Am I making assumptions that maintain or reinforce inequality?

• Am I making (implicit) distinctions between people and their value (e.g. stronger, weaker, smarter or more competent)?

• Use job titles that are suitable for every gender identity: actor or comedian and not actress or comedienne. Note: here we are using the masculine form as the ‘neutral form’, which can also have drawbacks.

• Replace words such as ‘manpower’ with ‘workforce’, and ‘fireman’ with ‘firefighter’.

• You are writing a text about women in painting. The position of women is an important feature of your article, and upon the request of the interviewees you use various terms like ‘female artist’ instead of simply ‘artist’.

• ‘The student can sign up here’ rather than ‘He can sign up here’

• ‘Students can register here’ instead of ‘He can register here’.

• ‘Women and men’ rather than ‘men and women’

• 'We are looking for a principal (D/F/M)’ rather than ‘We are looking for a principal (M/F/D)’. Here, D means a non-binary person, F means female and M male.

• ‘The professor giving the speech, Marian van Hout (she/her), explains.’

• ‘Dear all’ or ‘Dear colleagues’ rather than ‘Ladies and gentlemen’, as this means you are also addressing people who are non-binary.

Find out more about this

‘You are results-oriented’ is a competence. This competence is often associated with men, which means that it appeals less to women. A better alternative would be: ‘You enjoy working with targets’.

• Am I using terms that only name/appeal to one gender identity?

• What can I change in my text to promote gender equality?

• Do I know which pronouns this person uses, or am I making an assumption?

• ‘The Syrian researcher’ and ‘the homosexual student’. Is it relevant for the context that the researcher is Syrian or that the student is homosexual? If not, just write ‘the researcher’ and ‘the student’.

• ‘people living in poverty’ rather than ‘poor people’

• ‘people with dementia’ rather than 'dementia sufferers'

• ‘people with diabetes’ rather than ‘diabetics’

• ‘transgender people' rather than ‘transgenders’

• Identity-first language, such as ‘autistic’ or ‘bisexual', underlines that a characteristic, here autism or bisexuality, is an essential part of someone's identity. This is in contrast to person-first language, such as ‘a person with autism’ or ‘a woman who is bisexual’, in which the characteristic is separated from the person, meaning the characteristic is often seen as separate from someone’s identity.

• With neurodivergence or mental health issues, many people prefer identity-first language to person-first language, e.g. ‘autistic’ rather than ‘a person with autism’.

• The choice between person-first language and identity-first language depends on the preferences of the individuals or communities being discussed. Respect everyone’s preferences, and check with them if it is not clear.

• Would I use this characteristic to describe other people too?

• Am I avoiding negative nouns when describing a person or group?

• ‘In this text, the researcher uses the term (…). By this, they mean (…).’