Judges told postmen are now postal operatives in gender-neutral language makeover

Judges have been told to refer to postmen as “postal operatives” in a push for the court system to use gender-neutral language.

The Equal Treatment Bench Book, most recently revised this month by the Judicial College, provides guidance to judges to ensure defendants, victims and witnesses are handled fairly.

It includes advice on what it describes as “acceptable terminology” in an apparent effort to stop the judiciary inadvertently offending members of the public during a hearing.

Job titles where a gender is implied should be avoided, the guide says, including terms such as postman, air hostess, businessman and chairman.

Instead, judges are urged to refer to “postal operatives” when referring to a postman, or to a “flight attendant” if they are discussing a woman who works on a plane.

“Use gender-neutral language where possible,” the book says.

The guidance similarly warns that referring to a woman as a “lady” or a “girl” can be considered patronising, while care should be taken when talking about disabilities.

Blind or visually impaired people should not be called “the blind”, nor should individuals confined to a wheelchair be described as “wheelchair bound”, judges are told.

The 566-page document has also been forced to revise sections of its chapter on trans people after facing criticism earlier this year for taking its tone from hardline activists.

Policy Exchange called for an “urgent revision” of the guidance in July, expressing concern that it included ideological claims on gender “without warning judges they are hotly contested”.

°Some people feel strongly that they do not wish to be described as cisgender or cis’

The latest revision has now watered down language on trans issues, modifying several claims that had previously been stated as fact.

One section from the previous edition, published in February, had said: “It is important to respect a person’s gender identity by using appropriate terms of address, names and pronouns.”

It was replaced with a more carefully phrased passage which removed the assumption that everyone must agree with the idea of gender self-identification, saying: “In the case of a trans person, it is a matter of common courtesy to use the personal pronoun and name they prefer.”

Another line which said the guidance applied “equally to transgender and cisgender people” was quietly changed to read “all people, whether transgender or not”.

It went on to add: “Some people feel strongly that they do not wish to be described as ‘cisgender’ or ‘cis’.”

Policy Exchange had warned in its report that two tribunals which considered the case of Maya Forstater, a tax expert who lost her job for questioning government proposals to allow people to self-identify as the opposite sex, had “based their understanding of transgenderism” on the guidance.

“The surprising confidence that the employment tribunal had in dismissing Ms Forstater’s opinions as outside the scope of civilised debate can perhaps be explained by the fact that her opinions differed from judicial guidance,” the report said.