Image: Daily Mail 27 June 2025

Introduction

Within the last decade, organisations have introduced jargon, derived from gender identity theory, that is hard to understand, inaccessible, or simply meaningless. From references to “people who menstruate”, surveys that ask if respondents are “intersex”,¹ Equality Monitoring forms that ask if people are “androgyne”, to government policies that describe people as “genderqueer” or “cisgender”, the proliferation of neologisms, modish buzzwords and baseless or circular definitions is particularly marked within the public sector.

Proponents of this linguistic turn argue it is inclusive and allows people to be recognised and accepted for who they are. Critics argue that the loss of sex as a meaningful political and linguistic category undermines the ability to tackle sex discrimination, to the disadvantage of women and girls. These differing positions, which hinge on a conflict of rights, seem unlikely to be settled anytime soon.

Clarity matters

A simpler argument against gender identity jargon is that it is inaccessible. In practice, public health campaigns aimed at “anyone with a cervix” are likely to create systematic barriers for some service users. Groups likely to be disproportionately impacted include those with certain types of special educational needs, those who have difficulty with reading, some people with English as an additional language, and older age groups. In the England and Wales 2021 census, a poorly worded question on gender identity was systematically misunderstood by people with English as an additional language, and most likely, by older age-groups (although further testing is required in this area).²

Inclusive communication

‘In reality, unclear communication is far from inclusive. When barriers to comprehension are raised, it is those with lower literacy skills and those whose first language is not English who are most affected.’ 

Sullivan (2024) Independent review of data, statistics and research on sex and gender³

The accessibility argument is reinforced, at least in principle, by successive government commitments to accessible and inclusive communication. This can be seen in extensive guidance urging clarity in public sector communications, as well as legislative provisions covering ‘inclusive communication’. UK Government accessibility resources warn ‘you may be breaking the law if you do not make your service accessible’. The Welsh Government caution:

‘We lose trust from people if we write government buzzwords and jargon. These words are often too general and vague and can lead to misinterpretation or meaningless text.’

Scottish Government ‘Principles of Inclusive Communication‘ guidance for local authorities published in 2011 emphasises the importance of clear communication to service provision. It states ‘Inclusive communication addresses the needs of people of all ages, people from different cultural and language backgrounds, and disabled people.’

Principles of Inclusive Communication:
An information and self-assessment tool for public authorities, Scottish Government 2011

Scottish Government guidance on Digital Public Services advises, ‘writing in plain English, using short, simple sentences, makes content accessible to the widest possible audience.’ A Scottish Government toolkit for Health Boards states that information should be ‘usable by everyone, including those with disabilities, whose first language is not English, who have reading difficulties, or limited online access.’

The Scottish Government has also legislated in this area. Both the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 and Consumer Scotland Act 2020 include inclusive communication provisions, defined as ‘communicating in a way that ensures that individuals who have difficulty communicating (in relation to speech, language or otherwise) can receive information and express themselves in ways that best meet each individual’s needs’. The Scottish Government has also proposed changes to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in Scotland to include a specific duty on inclusive communication.

Police Scotland case study

In this blog we explore the tension between inclusive communication and gender identity jargon in more detail. The analysis is based on recent proposals made by Police Scotland on how it intends to collect data on ‘sex and gender’, which we treat as a case study. Note that these are not final recommendations and that Police Scotland are still undertaking working in this area at the time of writing.

We argue that Police Scotland’s use of gender identity jargon does not meet basic plain language standards. Drawing on a range of research evidence, we argue further that its proposed approach to data collection fails to account for the realities of frontline policing, and specifically, the multiple disadvantages and vulnerabilities of many of the individuals that police officers routinely encounter.

Police Scotland review of sex and gender in data

In September 2024 Chief Constable Jo Farrell announced that Police Scotland would undertake a review of sex and gender in data and other relevant policies. The announcement came about in response to a growing backlash over its recording policy on rape, which provided for gender self-identification, and the claim by Police Scotland that this fostered “a sense of belonging”.  

In May 2025 Police Scotland shared details of its proposed approach to data collection with stakeholders, including ourselves, and asked for views on aspects of the policy. Appearing to draw a line under its recording controversy, Police Scotland intend to collect data on sex and gender separately. At the same time, as detailed in the examples below, in other places the proposed approach remains muddled and unclear.   

Sex is defined as ‘the biological sex of a person assigned at birth based on physiological characteristics including chromosome composition and reproductive organs.’ This is an unwieldy and confusing definition that does not meet plain language standards. Sex is a straightforward characteristic that is understood by everyone.

Assigned at birth is a factually inaccurate activist term. Question testing by Natcen in 2011 found the phrase was not easily understood by participants, whether or not they identified as transgender. Among those who identified as transgender, ‘it was widely agreed and accepted that non-trans people would not understand the question, especially if [their] first language was not English.’ The Sullivan Review states that the term ‘is inaccurate and misleading, as sex is determined at conception and typically observed in utero or at birth’.

The sex question options are: What is your sex as assigned at birth? What is your birth sex? and What is your sex registered at birth? These are overly complicated and/or inaccurate.  

Gender reassignment is defined with reference to ‘the process of changing one’s sex to align with a person’s gender identity.’ This muddled description has no basis in law and adds further confusion to an already unwieldy statutory definition.

Gender identity is defined as ‘a person’s internal sense of how they perceive themselves in terms of gender. Gender identity can be the same or different from the sex of a person assigned at birth. The term is not reflected in law. It is contested and easily misunderstood. The definition here rests on the equally ambiguous term ‘gender’,⁴ which leaves its meaning unclear and/or circular. The definition wrongly implies that everyone has a gender identity.

The gender identity question includes a gender diverse response option. This is a neologism that has only gained any significant traction within the last decade, through intense lobbying efforts. It has no basis in law, no meaningful definition, and is based on sexist stereotypes. Police Scotland provide no explanation as to any operational use.

Gender identity vs clarity

The lack of clarity in the above examples arises from the incorporation of gender identity terminology, at the expense of accessibility. Any confusion is likely to be felt more acutely in a policing context because of the populations that officers are more likely to interact with. Whilst officers engage with a wide cross-section of the population, routine policing is typically skewed to areas of higher deprivation and multiple disadvantage, where communication needs are likely to be higher. Other relevant vulnerabilities here include mental health problems, lower education standards and alcohol/drugs dependencies. These dynamics, and the implications for inclusive communication, are discussed below.

Policing and deprivation  

The pattern of frontline policing reflects the long-standing association between offending and deprivation, sometimes described as a ‘wicked problem’ due to its complex, intractable nature.⁵ This distribution can be seen in adversarial police contact (search, arrest etc.), and correspondingly, in non-adversarial contact (victimisation, responding to calls etc.). For offenders, living in persistent poverty remains a key predictor of childhood offending in Scotland.⁶ Among adults, the 10% most deprived areas of Scotland accounted for 31% of all arrivals to prison in 2021/22. For victims, the 2021 Scottish Crime and Justice Survey reported that adults living in the 15% most deprived areas in Scotland had a higher likelihood of being victims of crime compared to those living elsewhere.⁷

Further intersecting with deprivation,⁸ officers routinely engage with people with mental health problems. HMICS describe police engagement in this area as a “daily occurrence” that has increased significantly in recent years.⁹

Deprivation is linked to lower educational attainment and communication needs.¹⁰ A Scottish Government literature review published in 2007 estimated that 1 to 2% of Scotland’s population was likely to experience severe communication needs, and that up to 20% of the population would experience difficulties with communication at some point in their lives. Compared to the general population, those with communication needs were more likely to live in socially deprived areas, experience negative social interactions/communication within education, health care, and criminal justice system, be victims of crime, and be convicted of crime.

The Scottish Survey of Adult Literacy and Numeracy Survey (last undertaken in 2009) found that over a quarter of adults in Scotland experienced challenges due to a lack of literacy skills and that ‘the key issue in Scotland is distribution of literacies skills across the population, which mirrors poverty in our communities’.¹¹ Similarly, the National Literacy Trust states, ‘there is a clear association between socioeconomic status and literacy levels, and between geographic areas with high levels of economic deprivation and literacy vulnerability’.¹² Young people from less advantaged backgrounds achieve poorer educational outcomes than those from more advantaged backgrounds (the poverty-attainment gap).¹³¹⁴ Relatedly, young people living in the Scotland’s most deprived areas have lower school attendance rates than those living in the least deprived areas, which also acts as a predictor of police contact.¹⁵

Young people in contact with the police

Poor communication skills are more prevalent among young people in contact with the police.¹⁶ Those aged 18 to 24 are also more likely to come into contact with the police, compared to other age-groups.¹⁷ A systematic evidence review by Anderson et al. found that around 60% of young people in conflict with the law experienced speech, language, and communication needs,¹⁸ estimated as six times that of the general population.¹⁹ A Scottish Government literature review similarly reported a higher prevalence of communication needs among those in contact with the criminal justice system (witnesses/victims and offenders) compared to the general population.²⁰

In a small-scale survey of Police Scotland officers, MacRae et al. found that most respondents had dealt with a young person with communication difficulties, including ‘understanding and making sense of what people say.’²¹ A summary of the survey results is shown in Table 1 below. Of the different survey items, the researchers found that ‘considerably more respondents (75%) reported previous concern about a young person’s understanding than expressive difficulties (55%).

Table 1. Police Scotland officers experience of specific conditions in young offenders (%)

Whilst on duty have you worked with a young person having difficulty:	Yes (%)	No (%)	Not sure (%)	No. officers
Using non-verbal communication (good listening, looking at people, appropriate body language)	89%	7%	5%	152
Finding words or using the right vocabulary	86%	11%	3%	154
Being able to piece together a clear narrative of events	82%	14%	4%	154
Understanding and making sense of what people say	81%	11%	8%	155
Speaking fluently, without hesitating or prolonging/repeating words	77%	16%	7%	154
Using words to describe emotions	75%	18%	7%	154
Understanding time concepts	74%	17%	9%	153
Using language to ask questions, to clarify or ask for help	73%	21%	6%	153
Speaking with a clear voice, using pitch volume and intonation to support meaning	72%	17%	11%	154
Using words to build up sentences and longer stretches of language	65%	22%	13%	154
Saying sounds or words accurately	64%	25%	11%	154

Not all percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding.
Source: MacRae et al. (2020)²²

Conclusion

Routine policing engages with structural disadvantage and vulnerability on a daily basis. It engages with deprivation, poor mental health, trauma, and lower educational outcomes.²³ Each of these intersecting factors reinforce the need for clear, effective, and properly inclusive communication in service delivery.

We do not think the Police Scotland should be putting its frontline officers in the bizarre position of asking agitated, stressed or vulnerable people, including young and/or vulnerable people and/or those under the influence of alcohol or drugs, what their sex “acquired at birth” is.  

Similarly, Police Scotland should not require its officers to ask people about the ill-defined concept of ‘gender identity’, or if they are ‘gender diverse’. Nor should the organisation describe the everyday concept of sex with reference to ‘chromosome composition and reproductive organs.’ This is convoluted activist jargon that has gained a foothold via lobbying efforts. It is inaccessible and has no place in a public service.  

In addition to data collection, Police Scotland needs to review all relevant policies and communications to ensure the language is clear. This includes its recent interim guidance on searching, which refers to the nebulous idea of ‘lived gender’, and the Transitioning at Work policy which includes references to Androgynous, Third-gender People, Bi-gender People and Polygender People. It also includes the Police Scotland LGBT Allies Toolkit, which is awash with jargon, the Your Police survey, which inexplicably asks respondents, “Which of the following best describes you?” with “non-binary (gender neutral)” and “Other” response options, and its ‘gender alphabet’ campaign material, which includes references to gender fluidity and ze/zim pronouns.  

The gender identity jargon problem is not, of course, limited to policing. Throughout the public sector organisations have lost sight of their duty to communicate clearly. As part of a drive to be inclusive, managers have uncritically adopted neologisms and ill-defined terms, at the expense of clarity and accessibility.

Plain language is the bedrock of effective public communication. Irrespective of differing views on sex and gender, if the Scottish, Welsh and UK governments are serious about inclusive communication in service provision, they need to stop using gender identity jargon.  

---

References

1. ‘Intersex’ is shorthand for a rare set of congenital conditions, estimated to make up 0.018% of births, or fewer than 2 in 10,000. ↩︎
2. Unpublished analysis by Dr Michael Biggs, University of Oxford. ↩︎
3. Sullivan, A. (2024) Independent review of data, statistics and research on sex and gender ↩︎
4. See Sullivan Review (Recommendation 18). Also Office for Statistics Regulation (2024) Collecting and reporting data about sex and gender identity in official statistics. ↩︎
5. Messner, S. and Rosenfeld, R. (1997) Political Restraint of the Market and levels of Criminal Homicide: A Cross–National Application of Institutional–Anomie Theory, Social Forces 75: 1393-1416. ↩︎
6. Jahanshahi, B., Murray, K. and McVie, S. (2022), ACEs, places and inequality: Understanding the effects of adverse childhood experiences and poverty on offending in childhood. British Journal of Criminology. ↩︎
7. Scottish Government (2023) Scottish Crime and Justice Survey 2021/22: Main Findings. ↩︎
8. Scottish Government (2024) Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy Fairer Scotland Duty Impact Assessment. ↩︎
9. HMICS (2023) HMICS Thematic review of policing mental health in Scotland.
   See also: Scottish Police Authority (undated) Spotlight on Mental Health. ↩︎
10. National Literacy Trust (2022) Seldom-heard voices: Adult literacy in the UK. ↩︎
11. National Literacy Trust (online) Adult Literacy. ↩︎
12. National Literacy Trust (2022) Seldom-heard voices: Adult literacy in the UK. ↩︎
13. Scottish Government (2019) Growing Up in Scotland: changes in language ability over the primary school years. ↩︎
14. BBC News (2025) Attainment gap widens in Scottish schools. ↩︎
15. Mcara, L., & Mcvie, S. (2005). The usual suspects? Street-life, young people and the police. Criminal Justice, 5(1) ↩︎
16. Gregory, J. and Bryan, K. (2011) Speech and language therapy intervention with a group of persistent and prolific young offenders in a non-custodial setting with previously undiagnosed speech, language and communication difficulties. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders. ↩︎
17. England and Wales data. See: Revolving doors agency (2015) PCC spotlight: Young Adults (18-24) in contact with police and criminal justice services. ↩︎
18. Anderson et al. (2016) Language impairments among youth offenders: a systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review 65: 195–203. ↩︎
19. Cited in Wishart and Hodson (2023) Are we getting through? Criminal justice communication. Law Society of Scotland Journal. ↩︎
20. Law et al. (2007) Communication Support Needs: a Review of the Literature. Scottish Executive. ↩︎
21. MacRae et al. (2020) Police officers’ awareness of the speech, language and communication needs of young offenders. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles. ↩︎
22. See above. ↩︎
23. Borysik and Elsa Corry-Roake (2023), Lived experience perspectives on policing trauma, poverty and inequalities. ↩︎