A NUMBER of news stories in the past week have illustrated the importance of getting right policies designed to foster inclusion.

During her Covid briefing on Tuesday, the First Minister encouraged pregnant women to get the vaccine. Later that day, the Scottish Government’s official Twitter account put out the same advice but used the phrase “pregnant people”. A lively debate ensued between those who argued that only women get pregnant and that the language used risked missing its target audience and those applauding the use of language which is inclusive of trans men and non-binary people with a womb.

It was significant that during her briefing the FM used the phrase “pregnant women”. No-one would suggest that she is not inclusive of trans and non-binary people. However, in this instance, she clearly recognised the importance of reaching her target audience.

The same approach is taken by the NHS Inform website which was linked to the Scottish Government tweet. It sets out all the information and advice about vaccination during pregnancy and repeatedly uses the phrase “pregnant women”. NHS Inform, as its name might suggest, clearly recognises the importance of reaching its target audience with crucial health messaging.

So does the charity Macmillan Cancer Support which, after criticism that its cervical cancer information pages referred to “people with cervical cancer” and did not mention women, re-inserted reference to women. Feminist campaigners had been particularly annoyed when they found out that the same charity’s prostate cancer awareness campaign was clearly targeted at “men” as well “people with a prostate”. It seemed that the exclusive use of gender-neutral language was expendable when it came to illnesses affecting men.

However, Macmillan should be applauded for listening to and acting on women’s concerns and recognising that health messaging needs to be clear and unambiguous so that it reaches everyone who needs it. A recent study suggested more than 40% of British women don’t know what a cervix is, and it should never be forgotten that some of the target audience for health messaging may have limited English, or other difficulties reading.

Equally, the moving interview which Ian Duncan, the deputy speaker of the House of Lords, gave yesterday about his trans brother’s death from ovarian cancer underlines the importance of good trans and non-binary health care services, campaigns to increase awareness of cancer in trans people and effective cancer screening for all.

Taking steps to be inclusive of one group need not end up harming or excluding another group. There is always a risk that if an organisation focuses on the rights of one disadvantaged group it may end up discriminating against another, albeit unintentionally. However if, in devising policies and procedures, we look to the Equality Act and its nine protected characteristics of age, disability, gender re-assignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation, then there is a better chance of identifying needs which may compete and achieving a balance between those competing needs.

The public sector equality duty set out in the act obliges public bodies to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between the different protected characteristics. The best way to do this is by carrying out an equality impact assessment before implementing any new policy or procedure.

Which brings me to the results of a poll of Scottish Government civil servants which revealed that the majority of them would prefer not to use personal pronouns in their email signature despite their bosses plans to introduce a “pronoun pledge initiative” to “promote diversity and encourage inclusivity” by educating and raising awareness of “gender identities and pronoun use ... to create and foster an open culture that is supportive of the LGBTI+ community”. It is not alone in this practice, which has been promoted in UK Government departments and organisations such as the BBC.

READ MORE: Row over Scottish Government's use of the phrase 'pregnant people'

HOWEVER, as the poll showed, not everyone is comfortable with sharing their pronouns. A number of reasons why this might be so have been identified by (WPUK), which campaigns for women’s sex-based rights, as well as the discrimination solicitor Audrey Ludwig and the policy expert Lucy Hunter Blackburn.

Those who are uneasy could well include some trans and non-binary people still working through the process of gender identification who might feel exposed or vulnerable if they came under pressure to declare preferred pronouns.

Others might object to having to out themselves in this way and others might just want to get on with their lives, to be respected for who they are and have their rights upheld without making demands of other people.

Turning to the other protected characteristics, some women don’t want to draw unnecessary attention to their sex in the workplace for fear that they might face sexual stereotyping, sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Even today, male and female pronouns do not carry equal weight.

But perhaps the most important concern is that the use of pronouns is a political statement because it suggests a belief that gender identity over-rides sex, and it is simply not appropriate for an employer to compel any member of staff to indicate a political position in the course of their duties.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment in the case of Forstater v CGD Europe protects the beliefs of those who do not subscribe to particular ideas about gender identity and it would be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against anyone who does not share that belief.

These are the sort of issues that would be highlighted by an equality impact assessment, but it is not clear whether one has been carried out for the pronoun pledge initiative. While it might be argued that an initiative is not the same as a policy and therefore no such assessment is necessary, Hunter Blackburn is right when she says the reality is that when something is being encouraged by senior staff and employee compliance or otherwise is immediately apparent from their email signature, it operates as policy.

Performative inclusivity comes at a price. If an organisation wants to adopt policies and procedures which are truly inclusive, then it needs to consider the impact of them upon all protected groups. Gender-critical feminists are treated as pariahs by some for pointing out that steps taken to be inclusive of trans and non-binary people might impact on the rights of women and lesbians, but now those views are becoming more mainstream.

Two books by gender-critical feminists, Trans by Helen Joyce and Material Girls by Kathleen Stock have become best sellers.

Extensive efforts by some to smear and “cancel” the authors have not worked. And the reality now is that many of us who have been cancelled refuse to go away and are simply re-inforced in our resolve to speak truth to power on behalf of women and girls and same-sex attracted lesbians.

Differences of opinion about how to achieve true equality and inclusivity for all are best faced head on and dealt with by rational argument. The insidious practice of othering those with whom we disagree in order to avoid tackling the arguments they make does not work in the long run.

There might be a lesson in all of this for the independence movement.