La rédaction inclusive en droit
Pourquoi les objections ratent-elles la cible?
Keywords:inclusive writing, feminine form, grammar, feminization, myth, gender, sexism, discrimination, law, equality, language, gender-neutral
These are interesting times for the French language. Inclusive writing (or feminization) is more and more widespread, and the legal community is no exception: lawyers, notaries and judges of all stripes are carving out greater space for women and non-binary people in language. There are, however, pockets of resistance. Many people wonder whether inclusive language is truly appropriate in legal texts or if it should be confined to more informal contexts.
In this article, we address these questions and take apart eight common objections to non-sexist legal writing:
1) Grammatical gender has nothing to do with a person’s gender
2) Grammar rules have nothing to do with patriarchy
3) Inclusive writing is a superficial undertaking
4) The feminine form bogs down writing
5) Judges do not use inclusive or gender-neutral writing
6) Feminization introduces errors in French
7) Non-sexist writing is too imprecise when it comes to the law
8) Feminization reinforces the binarity and sexism of the French language
We will see that these objections are really myths founded on shaky ground.