The UK defense ministry has reportedly pulled an “inclusive language” guide that instructed troops on how to communicate without causing offense. Critics had slammed the rules, which featured gender discourse, as “woke nonsense.”
The rules outlined in the Inclusive Language Guide 2021 were produced by the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) Diversity and Inclusion Directorate. Defence Secretary Ben Wallace was reportedly “unhappy” with the 30-page document and ordered it to be revised, senior ministry sources told the Daily Mail.
According to the paper, the guidance contained a section titled ‘Woman or female’ that advised service personnel about how “not all women are biologically female” and examined how the two words “mean different things but are often used interchangeably.” It noted that referring to women as females was “perceived by many as reducing a woman to her reproductive parts and abilities.”
Not all women are biologically female, and the conflation of ‘female’ to ‘woman’ erases gender nonconforming people and members of the trans community.
Other recommendations to British Armed Forces members focused on avoiding common phrases such as “deaf to our pleas,” “crippled by debt,” and “blind drunk” in case it offended disabled people. But the guide denied it was an “attempt to police language” or “restrict... personal style of communication.”
The MoD had previously defended the document as a “practical toolkit” to teach troops why “certain words or use of language is hurtful or non-inclusive,” and how to “speak more powerfully, precisely and respectfully.”
However, the MoD source told the Daily Mail that Wallace had decided to amend the guidance “over the past few weeks” after being “unhappy with the current approach and with the lack of consultation and piloting before publication.”
While welcoming the defence secretary’s intervention, Tory MP Peter Bone questioned why the ministry had produced the booklet – which he described as “political correctness gone mad” and “woke nonsense” – in the first place. He urged Wallace to put the “absurd” document “through the shredder.”
But the ministry source maintained that a new version of the document would be published, telling the paper that “criticism over the conduct and attitudes across the Armed Forces” had shown it was needed.