Inclusive language in writing

• ‘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.’

• There is a lot of inequality between white and African American people.’ In this case, African American people refers to people with a specific heritage, while white refers to a skin color. Alternative: ‘There is much inequality between white and black people.'
• ‘We want to reduce the gap between the educated and the uneducated.’ High and low suggest an order of precedence: high is ‘better’, low is ‘less’. It emphasises value or status, not the type of education. Alternatively, ‘We want to narrow the gap between theoretically and practically educated people.’

• ‘The rise of terrorism: Muslim youths have their say’. The link between terrorism and Muslims reinforces harmful stereotypes. Alternative: ‘The rise of terrorism: young people having their say.’

• ‘I'll handle this in my autistic way’ or ‘This has to be done according to my autistic brain’ In these example sentences, someone makes (negative) assumptions about autism Say what you mean, without naming autism. . Alternative: ‘I like to tackle this in a structured way’.

• ‘What idiot took this decision?’ here an old-fashioned term is used as a force term to refer to people with intellectual disabilities. This is validist and unnecessary. Alternative: ‘Who made this bad decision?’ or ‘What were the considerations behind this decision?’

• What standard do I start from? In what way can I explain or counteract it?  
• Am I making assumptions that reinforce or perpetuate inequality?
• Do I (implicitly) distinguish between people and their value (e.g. stronger, weaker, smarter or more competent)?

• Use occupational names that are appropriate for each gender identity: professor, student but not headmistress.

• You are writing a historical article in which it is relevant to emphasize 'female' historian’ instead of 'historian’.
• You write a text about women in painting. The position of women is characteristic of your article, so you choose different terms such as ‘female artist’ instead of just ‘artist’.

• ‘The student can register here’ instead of ‘He can register here’

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

• ‘Women and men’ instead of ‘men and women’
• 'We are looking for a director (x/v/m)’ instead of ‘We are looking for a director (m/f/x)’. Here, the X refers to non-binary persons, the V to women and the M to men

• ‘The professor speaking, Marian van Hout (she/her) narrates’.

• ‘Dear colleagues’ instead of ‘dear ladies and gentlemen’. In this way you also automatically address non-binary colleagues for example.
• ‘Parents/carers’ instead of ‘fathers and mothers’. This way, you also address people who are, for example, foster parents or do not recognise themselves in the term father or mother.   

‘You are results-oriented’ has been described as a competency. This competence is often associated with men, making you less appealing to women. Alternative: ‘You like working with goals’. More information on this can be found here (login required).

• Am I using terms that address/name only one gender identity?
• What can I adjust in my text to promote gender equality?
• Do I know what pronouns this person is using, or am I making an assumption?

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

• ‘people in poverty’ instead of ‘poor people’

• ‘people on the run’ instead of ‘refugees’

• ‘people with dementia’ instead of ‘people with dementia

• ‘people with diabetes’ instead of ‘diabetics’

• ‘people with transition histories’ instead of ‘transgender people’ o ‘lhbtiq+ students/people’ instead of ‘lhbtiq+’ers'

• ‘people with ADHD’ instead of ‘ADHD-people

• Identity-first language emphasises that a trait, such as autism or bisexuality, is an essential part of a person's identity. For example, ‘autistic’ or ‘bisexual. This contrasts with person-first language, which dissociates the trait from the person. Here, the trait is often seen separately from the person's identity. Examples include ‘person with autism’ or ‘woman who is bisexual.
• With neurodivergence or psychological vulnerability, many people prefer identity-first language rather than person-first language, such as ‘autistic’ rather than ‘person with autism’ or ‘autistic person’.
• Choosing between person-first language and identity-first language depends on the preferences of the individuals or communities you are referring to. Respect each person's preference and question it if it is not clear

• Would I use this characteristic with other people too?
• Am I not using negative nouns to describe the person or group?

• 'In this text, the researcher uses the term (...). By this we mean (...).'