Gendered email blunder demonstrates how far we have to go

The power of inclusive language in achieving equal opportunity – and a lost opportunity to support diversity in all its forms

Today I received email correspondence that I found offensive, and I expect will have incensed many other readers who received it also.

It was sent to me in my capacity as a practising lawyer.

The email was entitled ‘Female, we would love to hear your thoughts on your technology platforms’ and it started with the following salutation:

“Dear Female.”

The sender was a man, with his name and signature panel proudly displayed at the bottom of the email, communicating with me on the behalf of his organisation.

My mouth dropped. I felt myself feeling incredibly incensed as I stared at the email for some time. As I thought about it further, a number of reasons came up which help to explain my reaction.

I wanted to share these reasons as I believe it is important to share experiences for the purposes of learning from them and improving how we deal with diversity broadly. This case demonstrates both the need to use inclusive language, and the corresponding negative impact of using non-inclusive language with stakeholders. In this case, it is demonstrated through the delivery of one single email to my inbox, which served to undermine the reputation and standing of the organisation considerably.

I have removed the name of the organisation that distributed the correspondence from this article. Those who sent it are abundantly aware of the issues it has caused. Those who received it will already be aware of the culprit. The purpose of this article is not to shame the organisation itself, but to highlight the impact that inappropriate, and ill-considered language can have on people and on achieving diversity and inclusion in our community and in my profession, the legal profession.

So we can turn it into a learning experience, for everyone's benefit.

A redacted copy of my email is below.

RE: Female, we would love to hear your thoughts on your technology platforms

Dear [Organisation]

I write in relation to the email I received from you today entitled ‘Female, we would love to hear your thoughts on your technology platforms’ which was addressed to me as “Dear Female.”

I find myself in 2021 asking…. Really??!!

Surely “Dear Reader” may have been more appropriate??

Whilst I congratulate you on correctly ascertaining my gender identity, I found your subject line and address to be extremely offensive. I’d like to make a number of points about the divisiveness and offensiveness of such an address and offer some advice for future communications from [your organisation].

Firstly, as lawyers we know that it is generally preferable to use inclusive language. Use of the term ‘female’ to refer to a woman (who interestingly, does happen to have a first name) is not inclusive, and throughout my career in the legal profession, has never been considered appropriate. I would not have objected to being referred to as a ‘reader’, ‘lawyer’ or other more inclusive term that was relevant to the reason I have subscribed to [your organisation] in the first place.

I think your women readership may find this communication as, if not more, offensive than being addressed ‘Dear Sirs’ – a common yet highly offensive salutation women in the legal profession face, as reported on in the recent article by Lawyers Weekly entitled ‘Dear Sirs’: An outdated, archaic approach?.’ Although, I must add that I had wondered why that heading was posed as a question – it is abundantly evident that use of the term ‘Dear Sirs’ in correspondence (particularly when addressed to women) is outdated and archaic along with being offensive, as highlighted in the article itself.

Whilst women continue to have to fight for equal representation and respect within the profession and broader community, correspondence like yours sets us back considerably and raises significant concern for me in 2021.

Secondly, it is generally more respectful to refer to a group of females as “women” (and males as “men”, if that was your corresponding address to other members of your readership). 

The preference to use the more respectful term “women” is clear from the names alone of the many associations and groups that support women lawyers across the country, such as Australian Women Lawyers, and in my home state, Women Lawyers of Western Australia and the Law Society WA’s Joint Law Society/Women Lawyers of WA Committee etc – wonderfully supportive organisations for women practising law, of which I am proud to have long been associated with. 

It is also evident from the incredible community legal centres that support women all around the country, one such example being the Women’s Legal Service WA, here in Western Australia. There are equivalent organisations in all states and territories. 

Of course, it is also evident in the names of our national and state government and parliamentary organisations and positions – Office for Women (Cth); National Council of Women Australia (NCWA); National Women’s Health Network; Western Australian Minister for Women’s Interests (Hon Simone McGurk MLA), just to name a few.

Thirdly, I cannot see how the survey you were seeking responses to would need to differentiate between men and women’s experiences. The survey was about experiences with digital technology. I note from running through the survey questions themselves that gender was not one of the questions asked, nor were there any questions posed about any other personal characteristics that would differentiate experiences between groups within the profession (such as age, cultural background, experience in the law etc). The only differentiating question was the type of practice that you worked in. You did not even need to know the size of that practice, the type of qualifications of those working in it, or any other professionally relevant characteristic that would give you insight into use of digital technology across the legal profession.

It did make me question however whether you had a version that you sent to women and a version that you sent to men, and what the differences may have been in those versions to necessitate the need for different versions based on gender in the first place. In my experience (which includes developing surveys to ascertain demographical information from respondents), gender alone is usually not particularly helpful without other information that puts one’s experiences in greater context.

Of course, I am not aware of the purpose of your survey other than what is visible to me as a reader, so I offer this as an observation by a reader for your consideration.

Fourthly, although I am comfortable with my gender identity being known, it should be recognised that other people may not be. Individual wishes regarding gender identity should be respected, particularly in a profession founded on principles of equity, human rights and fairness.

Finally, I am concerned at how this communication was addressed members of the legal profession who are also members of the LGBTIQ+ community, and those may neither identify themselves in the way you have addressed them. With plenty of advice available regarding the use of inclusive language for the LGBTIQ+ community, including the option to ask a person what pronoun they use or simply what name they would like to use, it is particularly problematic that your communication fails to recognise this issue. I also found it extremely surprising in light of recent research and reporting on LGBTIQ+ matters, and the broader support for fostering inclusive workplaces and an inclusive legal profession.

I trust that this feedback can be taken on board and that [Organisation] is able to learn from this experience and improve on how it addresses its readers. I do hope that in future you are able to demonstrate greater respect for the wonderfully diverse groups that make up our profession. 

Not only does our diversity reflect the communities that we serve, it also brings a richness of experience and perspectives that make our profession more informed, more capable and more able to navigate a myriad of challenges, no more apparent than the various challenges which we have faced and overcome in the past year or so.

I would be pleased to discuss this with you should you find that of assistance – my contact details are below.

Kind regards

Cathryn Greville

I am pleased to report that following my feedback, I received a positive response from the organisation that indicates to me that its leaders will undertake a full assessment of the incident and how the correspondence was approved to go out in the first place. I trust that this does indeed take place. The organisation confirmed the salutation was unintentional and does not represent the views of the organisation. Indeed, I should hope not.

I do hope that recognition of the gravity of the incident is genuine and that communication 'oversights' like this never happen again. Obviously, the reputational damage to the organisation will play a big part in that.

I would also suggest that some diversity training and full review of gender diversity policies and their application could be of benefit to this organisation, as to any organisation, particularly when an error of judgment occurs. For those new to the area, in addition to the organisations listed above, a good starting point would be the work of various dedicated bodies such as the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA), the Diversity Council Australia, and the Equal Opportunity Commission (WA).

For my many friends and colleagues who support each other and fight hard for diversity and inclusion in all aspects of their work and personal lives, please keep up your great work... in 2021 we obviously still have a very very long way to go.

A confidently diverse community benefits everyone, and your voices must continue to be heard.