On September 24, Quebec’s French Language Minister Jean-François Roberge announced that the government was putting an end to the use of gender-inclusive writing in all public communications of the Quebec Government. Thus, the policy would ban words like ‘iel’, the French equivalent to they/them; other options such as ‘toustes’ or ‘celleux’ that had begun to be used in government communications; and abbreviated doublets like ‘étudiant. e.s’ that encompassed multiple gender identities. These words provided an alternative to the French general masculine, thus acting as an
inclusive, gender neutral option in the gendered language. For Roberge, the absence of one general rule meant the administration and its different offices used various, sometimes inconsistent terms in official provincial communications. For Roberge, “there was a lot of confusion” about gender-inclusive writing. Hence, his solution to this was to outright ban its use.
Roberge then claimed that using gender-inclusive writing led to the employment of words “that pose significant problems for the French language.” While languages evolve and change in accordance with their social context or even to advance social progress, the Office Québécois de la langue Français – or the Quebec Ministry of the French Language – seems to take a conservative approach towards the practice of the French language, preferring an unchanging Quebecois French to a dynamic language. Correspondingly, the ban of gender-inclusive writing can be viewed as the grammatical manifestation of the increasingly conservative turn of the Legault government since the last ministry shuffle on September 11. Widely unpopular in public opinion, Legault promised drastic change and announced a new government to illustrate this change.
However, banning the use of gender-inclusive language from official documents by far exceeds grammatical conservatism: it has a real life impact on non-binary and trans communities. The government has announced a plan to ultimately extend this stance to gender- inclusive writing in schools and the healthcare system. But this stance also shows the lack of consideration Legault’s Government and Jean-François Roberge have for trans and non-binary communities, who are Quebec citizens as much as any other person. Celeste Trianon, a trans activist, says, “It’s a kind of policy which serves absolutely no purpose except to exclude people”.” For Victoria Legault, director for Aide aux Trans du Québec (ATQ), the decision came in the context of increasing polarization: “We’re seeing a rise in hatred, intolerance and violence toward trans and nonbinary people here and everywhere, ” she stated to the Montreal Gazette. “Quebec’s decision just encourages or supports this.”
Gender-inclusive language, even if it only appears as something that “doesn’t make sense” for Roberge, has a tangible impact on LGBTQIA+ communities in Canada and elsewhere. The Edgewood Health Network (EHN) testifies that using inclusive language contributes to the mental health of those concerned. It allows transgender or non-binary people not only to be seen, but to be respected, whether it be in a conversation, via text message, or a government document. Inclusive language and writing practices allow for citizens of Quebec to feel seen, as well as allowing them to receive the same sense of inclusion and respect as cisgender peoples. Banning it leaves queer communities susceptible to exclusion, despite the Ministry’s claims to protect them. Saying the ban does not intend to exclude anyone does not mean that the ban is not exclusive and that it will not have profound effects on the province’s transgender and non-binary communities, as voiced by critics of the proposal.