Review of Decisions and Correspondence of the Social Security Tribunal (SST) for Accessible and Inclusive Language

This document constitutes the findings of the review of standard correspondence templates and written decisions by the Social Security Tribunal (SST, or “the Tribunal”). This review follows a recommendation made in the context of a study on the SST’s Navigator Service, which called on the SST to “obtain a consultant to review SST decisions and the language of all communications, and to provide advice on disability inclusive language” (Jacobs & Tomkinson, 2022, p. 30).

3.1 Disability

Seventeen of the 34 decisions included at least one instance of language that was not inclusive from a disability perspective. However, when one considers the dates these decisions were rendered, one notices an improvement in the use of inclusive language after August 2021. Indeed, 14 of 26 (53.8%) sample decisions rendered before August 2021 had at least 1 instance of non-inclusive language, compared to 3 out of 8 (37.5%) for decisions rendered after August 2021.

In general, the documents reviewed used person-first constructions, which is in keeping with the SST’s style guide recommendations. The most common instance of non-inclusive language found by the review was the use of language implying that people with disabilities have a reduced quality of life or are necessarily suffering.

The table below presents some terms to avoid that were found in the review, some suggested alternatives, and a rationale as to why the change is important. In the examples below, the focus has been placed on disability-inclusive language and not on gender, which explains why gendered pronouns have not been changed. Gender-inclusive language will be discussed in the following section.

It is important to remember that these guidelines have been developed for SST members to help support their written documents. As such, the guidelines in no way seek to interfere with a claimant’s ability to advocate for their own disability or lived experience in their own words. Rather, they seek to present best practices for members rendering written decisions. Thus, if a claimant has used some of the terms to avoid listed below, these guidelines suggest that these terms be directly quoted to indicate that they are in the claimant’s own voice. Similarly, in several of the examples below, the terms to avoid that are used do not appear to be necessary to support a member’s findings about the duration and severity of people’s disabilities, and thus can be substituted for an alternative.

Terms to avoid

• suffers from
• afflicted by
• stricken with
• struggling with
• victim of
• atteinte de

Rationale

Use neutral language that states the facts about the nature of the disability. Avoid language that suggests that a person with a disability has a reduced quality of life or is suffering. Such descriptors can cause pity, discomfort, guilt, or insult.

Terms to avoid

• Describing people by their disability¹²

Rationale

People have disabilities; indeed nearly everyone will experience some form of disability in their lives. Conversely, people are not their disabilities. Such a distinction is in keeping with person-first language.

Terms to avoid

• homeless

Rationale

Use person-first language. Labels such as “homeless” dehumanize people and are often associated with negative and harmful stereotypes. Avoid language that suggests a personal or moral failing.

Terms to avoid

• malade (pour décrire une personne qui a une déficience intellectuelle)

Rationale

Comme l’explique un pamphlet produit par la Société québécoise de la déficience intellectuelle, « la déficience intellectuelle est un état et non une maladie. Les personnes ne souffrent donc pas de la déficience intellectuelle; elles n’en sont pas « atteintes ». Elles présentent, ou elles ont, une déficience intellectuelle. Elles vivent avec cet état. » (Société québécoise de la déficience intellectuelle, n.d.)

Terms to avoid

• mental health problem
• mental health issue

Rationale

Avoid terms that can be perceived as condescending or that have a negative slant to them.

3.2 Gender-inclusive writing

Avoid courtesy titles

In approximately 15% of reviewed decisions, gendered courtesy titles were used (see examples below). This can be avoided by either using an individual’s full name, or referring to them by their role in the case (e.g., the appellant).

• [2] Depuis 2016, l’appelant, monsieur P. L., travaille à titre de directeur du marketing pour X (employeur).
• [20] Mr. Kirby argues that the Claimant’s lack of treatment is a symptom of his depression and anxiety. 
• [20] Ms. Hurley submitted that there is no evidence to establish that the Claimant’s refusal is a symptom of his mental health conditions.
• And so forth.

Use gender-inclusive nouns

Only 2 instances were found of gender-specific titles or roles. In 1 of these cases (see below), the term can be replaced by a gender-neutral equivalent.

The other instance is slightly less straightforward. The decision reads as follows: “[43] The Appellant is self-employed as a handyman.” While some non-gendered alternatives exist (e.g., “maintenance person,” “handy person”), it is noted that the nature of the work performed may have relevance to the appeal and the distinction between “handyman” and “maintenance person” may be too great to be treated as synonymous terms. In such instances, and as is consistent with other sections of this report, if the party referred to themselves as a "handyman," the member can use such wording in quotations in the decision. Further, members can develop the practice of rephrasing so that it is clear that the person described themselves using this term, and to ask, perhaps, what they mean by this term so as to include a description as well, or instead of the gender non-inclusive noun. Thus, the example above could be rephrased as:

“The Appellant stated that they are self-employed as ‘a handyman.’ By this the Appellant means a person that does odd jobs for people such as home repairs and general maintenance in and around their properties.”

Regarding the use of gendered terms that connote relation (e.g., “wife,” “son,” “niece,” etc.), the present review holds that such terms should be avoided in general correspondence or templates, or when such terms are not relevant to convey meaning. For example, in a letter informing claimants about their hearing date, wording such as “Applicants may bring spouses or partners [not “wives or girlfriends”] to the hearing” should be used. Conversely, as familial relations can be integral elements of a case, the review finds it permissible to use them in decisions if the claimant has chosen to use those terms (for example, “[25] She was alone at the time as her husband was in China.”).

On the basis of these positions, the present review found only one instance of improperly used gendered terms that connote relation. In the example below, “un ami” could be replaced by “des personnes de soutien” which is gender neutral. As a gender-neutral replacement for “un membre” is less evident, one could use “une or un membre” to make the statement more inclusive. See the section entitled “The use of gender-inclusive language in French” in the following pages for more details.

Form 2 - Nous avons reçu les documents en lien avec cet appel d’Emploi et Développement social Canada : Vous ne pouvez pas amener un membre de votre famille ou un ami pour vous servir d’interprète.

Use gender-inclusive pronouns

In nearly all of the reviewed documents, gendered pronouns (e.g., “he,” “his,” “she,” “her”) were used throughout. This is not necessarily an indication of non-inclusive language. However, the decisions do not make note at any point whether these are indeed the identified pronouns of the individual in question. Further, it is impossible for the present review to establish whether the pronouns of the individual were, at any point, established by the individual during the course of the case. As such, the present review cannot conclusively say whether such instances are inclusive or not.

The SST may wish to consider ways to ensure that individuals have the opportunity to both identify their pronouns and have them respected in all interactions with the SST. For example, should a claimant’s identified pronouns be indicated on a contact form, the decision could simply make note of the fact that “The claimant’s identified pronouns are “she” and “her”” and then continue to use those pronouns in the remainder of the decision³. This can be particularly helpful for cases where gender discrimination is at the root of the argument being advanced.

In one case, gendered pronouns were used in paraphrasing legislation. In these instances, the use of “they” or “their” as a gender-neutral replacement is advised.

The use of gender-inclusive language in French

Writing in a gender-neutral way in French (known as “la rédaction épicène”) is challenging due to the inherent grammatical and linguistic features of the language. The French language is gendered and binary, with nouns, adjectives, articles, and pronouns being categorized as either masculine or feminine; there is often no gender-neutral form. This gender distinction is embedded in the grammar and structure of the language, making it difficult to achieve gender neutrality without significant changes to the way sentences are constructed. This challenge is further reinforced by the precise and technical language — both medical and legal — that SST members must use in adjudicating cases. As such, certain terms cannot be replaced or substituted, as they have very specific meanings.

While efforts are underway to introduce more gender-neutral terminology in French, achieving widespread adoption of such gender-neutral language remains a complex and ongoing challenge.

In this context, the review suggests that it would be beneficial for the SST to adopt key principles that can inform the process of writing any document in French. For instance, whenever possible, a gender-neutral form should be used (e.g., “la population canadienne” as opposed to “les Canadiens et Canadiennes”). For example, the SST is already using terms such as “partie requérante,” “partie appelante,” and “partie prestataire” in their templates. When gender-neutral forms do not exist, and a document is of a general application, it is then appropriate to use a gendered formulation such as “les avocates et avocats comparaîssant devant le tribunal (…).”

3.3 Considerations for making written materials more accessible

Given that the SST underwent a fairly comprehensive plain language review in 2022, which included a survey of appellants, interviews with members, as well as a review by plain language experts, the present review primarily focused on any elements of plain language that touched on accessibility.

The use of non-inclusive language in direct quotes

In a small number of decisions, racist or otherwise problematic language was directly quoted (see examples below). In some instances, such as the first bullet, the language is central to the argument being advanced (in this case, the claimant alleged racial discrimination by their employer). In these cases, such language can be used, provided it is directly quoted. In other instances, if the quote is not actually advancing evidence and is merely a reflection of an individual’s biases, it can likely be paraphrased as opposed to directly quoted.

[24] L’appelant prétend qu’il a été le sujet de commentaires à connotation raciste parce que son superviseur le qualifiait de « Negrito » de manière répétitive. …

[17] A urologist’s report dated December 7, 2011, noted that the Appellant had reported that she was dealing with the issue of “transgender tendencies.”

Consistency with findings from the 2023 Evaluation of plain language decision writing.

The 2023 Evaluation of plain language decision writing conducted by the SST called for members to “consider alternatives to the terms ‘claimant,’ ‘appellant,’ and ‘respondent’ by using, for example, the claimant’s initials to make it easier for people to find themselves in the decision and know if they fall under the winning party or not” (Social Security Tribunal of Canada, 2023). In the Management Response Action Plan, this recommendation was accepted by the SST. The Vice-Chairpersons committed to “Reiterate these points to members during presentation on Plain Language Study [and] Provide individual feedback in mid- and end-of-mandate member reviews,” and to do so by March 2023.

The present review found that all sample decisions continue to use the terms listed above. However, the sample decisions provided cover the period from January 2018 to June 2022 and, as such, were issued before both the evaluation and the Management Response Action Plan. As such, a future review will have to consider if such a change has been implemented or not to decisions rendered after March 2023.

Other elements of inclusion and accessibility

In one instance, the term “language problems” is used, presumably to refer to the appellant’s difficulty with English. However, as the language in question is not specified, the current formulation makes it unclear what the problems are (e.g., reading comprehension) or which language she experiences difficulties with.

[46] The Appellant did not read the application for benefits, only signing it, due to her language problems.

In numerous templates, the term “Banana Republic” is used to refer to the appellant. While recognizing that this is merely a template and that this term would be replaced by the appellant’s name in any official communication, Banana Republic can be considered a pejorative term for a country that has an economy dependent solely on revenue from exporting a single product or commodity. In particular, the term has been used historically to refer to Central American countries. While it was noted by the SST that “Banana Republic” was used to refer to the clothing chain (e.g., other templates referred to “Abercrombie” or “American Eagle”), the possibility of confusion remains. As such, it is recommended to replace this term with another, throughout all SST templates.

Introduction

This document constitutes a set of draft guidelines to inform the review of standard correspondence templates and written decisions by the Social Security Tribunal (SST, or “the Tribunal”). In addition to ensuring that a standard approach is used in the review of written materials, these guidelines also serve as an evergreen reference document for the SST moving forward. This review follows a recommendation made in the context of a study on the SST’s Navigator Service, which called on the SST to “obtain a consultant to review SST decisions and the language of all communications, and to provide advice on disability inclusive language” (Jacobs & Tomkinson, 2022, p. 30).

The present document begins by defining accessibility and inclusion and considering resource documents the Tribunal is already making use of (Section 2.0). In Section 3.0, specific guidelines for written materials are presented, with a particular focus on writing about disability, as well as gender and intersectionality. Section 4.0 lists the resources consulted for this review. The appendices, meanwhile, list both the templates and the sample of decisions that will form the basis of the review, as well as the review project timelines.

Accessibility and inclusion defined

Accessibility and inclusion are two related concepts that are important for creating welcoming and supportive environments for all individuals, regardless of their identity or background. These principles are closely intertwined with Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus), which is an analytical method employed to evaluate how various policies, programs, and initiatives may impact different individuals, including women, men, and gender diverse people. GBA Plus recognizes the need to go beyond examining gender and sex alone and encompasses a comprehensive assessment that considers various intersecting identity factors such as age, disability, economic status, education, gender, sex and sexual orientation, geography, language, racialization and ethnicity, and religion and spirituality. By considering all intersecting identity factors as part of the analysis, GBA Plus takes a gender- and diversity-sensitive approach to the review of policies, programs, and initiatives.

Accessible and inclusive writing is important for several reasons:

• Representation: Inclusive writing ensures that people from diverse backgrounds and identities feel seen, heard, and represented. It recognizes the richness and diversity of human experiences and acknowledges the existence of different perspectives and identities.
• Avoiding exclusion: Traditional language and writing practices often prioritize certain groups or individuals while inadvertently excluding others. Inclusive writing aims to minimize the potential for exclusion by using language that is inclusive and accommodating to all readers.
• Respect and dignity: Inclusive writing promotes respect and dignity for all individuals. It avoids using language that perpetuates stereotypes, marginalizes certain groups, or reinforces discriminatory attitudes. Instead, it prioritizes treating everyone with fairness and equality.
• Accessibility: Inclusive writing enhances accessibility for people with different abilities or disabilities. By using clear and concise language, avoiding jargon or overly technical terms, and providing alternative text for visual content, inclusive writing ensures that information is accessible to a broader range of readers.
• Effective communication: Inclusive writing facilitates effective communication by eliminating barriers caused by language bias or assumptions. It allows messages to be conveyed more accurately, ensuring that they are understood by a wider audience.

The SST is dedicated to increasing accessibility and inclusion in its appeal processes. The Tribunal is committed to its obligations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act (specifically, section 3(1)), and the Accessible Canada Act. It also adheres to its Alternate Arrangements Policy, its own 2021 Style guide, as well as the government of Canada’s Guidelines for Inclusive Writing and Employment and Social Development Canada’s suggestions for the portrayal of people with disabilities. These documents have been supplemented below by additional, publicly available sources.

Since 2017, SST members have received training in decision writing from established experts from both legal and non-legal communities. They also have access to tools such as decision templates, and are also encouraged to write decisions in plain language (Social Security Tribunal of Canada, 2023).

These guidelines were developed to provide a variety of possible, concrete solutions to situations SST personnel may encounter in drafting a communication or decisions. However, it is important to emphasize that language and our conceptual models of such things as gender, sexuality, and disability are constantly evolving. As a result, any guideline document must remain evergreen and be regularly updated.

Finally, these guidelines are informed by the principle of intersectionality, which recognizes that people “are shaped by and identify with a vast array of cultural, structural, sociobiological, economic, and social contexts.” Intersectionality considers not only how people have intersecting identities but also how these can interact with social systems and inequality (American Psychological Association, 2022).

Guidelines for written materials

Disability

Language, perceptions and social mores around disability are constantly changing, and there is not always consensus on the terms to use. Thus, when discussing disability, one’s guiding principle should always be to uphold the inherent worth and dignity of every individual. SST personnel who discuss disability are encouraged to employ terms and descriptions that respect the expressed preference of individuals with disabilities regarding how they identify themselves.

When communicating with, for, and about people with disabilities, diseases, and health conditions, it is critical to understand the differences between person-first language and identity-first language.

• In person-first language, the person is emphasized, not the disability or the chronic condition. It seeks to avoid language that dehumanizes or stigmatizes individuals by reaffirming the fundamental humanity of the person. For example, instead of “AIDS patient,” use “person with AIDS.” Person-first language is increasingly being used when referring to addiction or substance use disorders as this is believed to address societal stigma and to present such disorders as treatable medical conditions (Wooldridge, 2023).
• In identity-first language, the disability becomes the focus. This allows the individual to claim the disability or the chronic condition and choose their identity rather than permitting others to name it or to select terms with negative implications. It is often used as an expression of cultural pride and a reclamation of a disability or chronic condition that once conferred a negative identity. For example, many in the Deaf community feel that the trait is a core component of their identity and unique community, and to use person-first language suggests that deafness is negative. It also is used by many autistic adults (Wooldridge, 2023).

The SST’s style guide recommends using person-first constructions as the default when addressing people. As such, the present guidelines uphold the recommendation to use person-first constructions until such a time as the individual in question has made their preference clear, at which point their preference should be respected. Whenever possible, ask the preferred terminology, and do not assume all individuals with a given condition will want to be referred to in the same way. Further, if an individual’s disability is not relevant to the context, it is not necessary to report on it.

In addition to the above, the table below summarizes some additional best practices when writing about disability. In some cases, additional rationale is provided.

As cited closely from: (A Way with Words and Images, 2022; Disability, 2022; Disability Language Style Guide, 2021; Words Matter, 2021; Social Security Tribunal of Canada, 2021).

Gender-inclusive writing

This section outlines three overarching guidelines to consider that would make the SST’s written materials more inclusive from a perspective of gender and sexual orientation.

Avoid courtesy titles

Avoid the use of gendered courtesy titles (e.g., Ms., Mrs., Mr.). Instead, refer to individuals by their first and last name once in the beginning of the decision to establish who the parties are. Then, refer to them by their role in the case in the rest of the decision (cited closely from Social Security Tribunal of Canada, 2021).

Example:

Jane Doe is the Applicant in this case. She applied for disability benefits in November 2018.
[…]

The Applicant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Tribunal’s General Division.

Use gender-inclusive nouns

Instead of referring to gender-specific titles or roles, use a gender-neutral equivalent.

Use gender-inclusive pronouns

It is important to use someone’s identified pronouns; one should avoid the term “preferred pronouns” as this implies that gender is a choice as opposed to a core feature of one’s identity. It also implies that pronouns other than those specified are acceptable.

In situations where the identified pronouns of the individual are unknown, or when the gender of the person is irrelevant in the given context, it is advisable to utilize the singular pronoun "they"⁵ or the generic “you”⁶ instead of assuming a specific gender. This also helps to avoid the use of the phrase “he or she.” Similarly, if the individual in question is non-binary, use “they” unless they have identified a different pronoun.⁷

When referring to entities or organizations (e.g., the employer, the Minister), use “it.”

Examples:

The law explains what it means by “just cause.” The law says that you have just cause to leave your job if you had no reasonable alternative to quitting when you did.

Case law gives three things a claimant has to prove to show that they are “available” in this sense.

Considerations for making written materials more accessible

In its decisions and written communications, SST members communicate with a number of readers at any given time, including the parties to the appeal, the public, and the legal community. As such, it is important for documents to be clear and readable, without sacrificing legal accuracy. Indeed, “the ability of a client before the [SST] to read and understand the basis for the decision on their appeal is fundamental to accessing justice” (Social Security Tribunal of Canada, 2023).

Below are a number of best practices to consider in order to make one’s written materials more accessible. Many of these are listed in the SST’s current style guide, though additional sources have been consulted (Kovac, 2018; The Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (FemNorthNet) & DisAbled Women’s Network (DAWN-RAFH) of Canada, 2014). These are informed by the findings and recommendations of the SST’s 2022 Evaluation of plain language decision writing to both ensure consistency and to determine, at the review stage, if improvements have been implemented.

Make the appeal outcome clear from the outset of the decision

• State the outcome earlier, such as in the cover letter. The cover letter of decisions that refuse leave or summarily dismiss already state the decision, and this practice could extend to merit decisions.
• Consider alternatives to the terms “claimant,” “appellant,” and “respondent” by using, for example, the claimant’s initials to make it easier for people to find themselves in the decision and know if they fall under the winning party or not.

Make the result statement clear and add clarity regarding what happens after the decision

• The result statement should be contained within a dedicated “Decisions” section, and should be accompanied by an explanation of what the decision means, as well as its consequences for the claimant.
• Claimants both successful and unsuccessful expressed a desire for clarity regarding what happens after the decision. Although the decision cover letter does outline next steps, including the claimant’s appeal rights and follow-up actions by Service Canada, consider ways to reinforce the messages found there.

Example:

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

[2] The Claimant hasn’t shown that she had good cause for the delay in applying for benefits. In other words, the Claimant hasn’t given an explanation that the law accepts. This means that the Claimant’s application can’t be treated as though it was made earlier.

Make greater use of headings and subheadings

Improved readability is achieved by employing clear and content-specific headings and sub-headings, which effectively guide readers through lengthy or complex material. When information is structured in a smooth and logical manner, readers grasp and retain complex concepts more effectively. A well-structured composition incorporates headings, topic sentences, and transitions, enabling readers to easily follow the writer's chain of thought.

Minimize the use of legal and medical jargon

To the extent possible, minimize the use of both legal and medical jargon. If jargon cannot be avoided, explain or paraphrase the meaning, as appropriate. These include terms such as:

• Legal jargon – “properly allocated the award,” “established the overpayment,” “varying the requirement,” “without just cause,” “their election was irrevocable,” “concession,” and “natural justice.”
• Medical jargon – “neuropathies,” “accommodated work,” “long-term disability carrier,” and “unable to function in a vocational setting.”

Keep sentences short

Keep sentences short by breaking up ideas and making each one the subject of its own sentence. Sentences should not be more than 25 words, and semicolons should be avoided.

Avoid double negatives

Avoid double negatives which may lead to confusion.

References

A way with words and images: Suggestions for the portrayal of people with disabilities. (2022). Employment and Social Development Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/disability/arc/words-images.html

American Psychological Association. (2021). Inclusive Language Guidelines. Https://Www.Apa.Org. https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines

American Psychological Association. (2022, July). Intersectionality. Https://Apastyle.Apa.Org. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/intersectionality

Disability. (2022, July). Https://Apastyle.Apa.Org. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/disability

Disability Language Style Guide. (2021, August). [National Center on Disability and Journalism]. https://ncdj.org/style-guide/

Jacobs, L., & Tomkinson, S. (2022). Examining the Social Security Tribunal’s Navigator Service: Access to Administrative Justice for Marginalized Communities. University of Windsor. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/lawpub/133/

Karapita, M. (Ed.). (2017). Inclusive Language in Media: A Canadian Style Guide. Humber College.

Kovac, L. (2018, July 18). Accessible Writing Style. Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). https://aoda.ca/accessible-writing-style/

NIH Style Guide. (n.d.). National Institutes of Health (NIH). Retrieved July 6, 2023, from https://www.nih.gov/nih-style-guide

Public Services and Procurement Canada. (2023). Quick Reference Sheet: Inclusive Writing Guidelines and Resources. https://www.noslangues-ourlanguages.gc.ca/en/writing-tips-plus/inclusive-writing-quick-reference-sheet

Social Security Tribunal of Canada. (2021a, June 1). Alternate arrangements policy. https://www.sst-tss.gc.ca/en/decisions-laws-rules-and-policies/alternate-arrangements-policy

Social Security Tribunal of Canada. (2021b, July 22). Style guide: Social Security Tribunal of Canada decisions. https://www.sst-tss.gc.ca/en/our-work-our-people/style-guide-social-security-tribunal-canada-decisions

Social Security Tribunal of Canada. (2023, January 11). Evaluation of plain language decision writing. https://www.sst-tss.gc.ca/en/our-work-our-people/evaluation-plain-language-decision-writing

The Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (FemNorthNet) & DisAbled Women’s Network (DAWN-RAFH) of Canada. (2014). Diversity through Inclusive Practice: An Evolving Toolkit for Creating Inclusive Processes, Spaces & Events.
Wooldridge, S. (2023, April 12). Writing Respectfully: Person-First and Identity-First Language. National Institutes of Health. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/science-health-public-trust/perspectives/writing-respectfully-person-first-identity-first-language

Words Matter: Preferred Language for Talking About Addiction. (2021, June 23). National Institute on Drug Abuse. https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/addiction-science/words-matter-preferred-language-talking-about-addiction

Below, a plain language explanation for PRA’s proposed wording is outlined:

• Why one or more options? Gender identity is a spectrum and individuals may thus identify, for example, as either “she” or “they.” In these cases, you can use either pronoun to address the person in writing. If over the phone or in person, it is always best practice to ask if there are certain pronouns at this point in time that the individual would prefer be used.
• While many who identify as 2SLGBTQIA+ will readily understand what pronouns are, the explanation is meant to make the form more accessible to cisgender people who may not realize that pronouns are a matter of identity.
• The “Other” response category is important as language about gender is evolving quickly.
• If this information is going to be used in any other way than simply as a form of address throughout the appeals process (e.g., future data collection), this must be clearly stated. Some people may use different pronouns in different situations in order to navigate safely in the world.
• To note – there is no consensus on the appropriate translation into French of “they” as French is, by its very nature, a language that revolves around the gender binary. There is also no agreed upon best practice. For example, Le Petit Robert now includes “iel” in its dictionary. However, both the Académie Française and the Office Québécois de la langue française both advise against the use of gender-neutral neologisms and instead suggest people avoid gender-specific language altogether. However, that is tricky in the context of a form.

Other suggestions regarding pronouns

In many cases, the use of pronouns is disproportionately used by members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. This puts the onus on them to self-identify, this can place them in a vulnerable position, and it places the burden of creating a more equitable society on some of its most vulnerable. This dynamic can be altered by having the use of pronouns widely practised by cisgender folks. As applicable, provided they feel comfortable doing so, members could be encouraged to state their pronouns when introducing themselves (e.g., “Hello, my name is John Smith. I use the pronouns he/him/his.”) as this then creates a more welcoming and inclusive environment for others.