Debate contribution: Inclusive Language Guide
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 4 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Inclusive Language Guide
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4625797
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I think that the Member can guess what my view on that is. I am sure that there were good intentions behind the guide, but, let us be clear, there is a lot of nonsense in it as well, including not being able to say the word "Miss" and the phrase "ladies and gentlemen". My favourite is that you should not say that someone is "coasting to retirement" but that they have a valuable contribution to make to the team. A lot of this is utter rubbish, and I think that people should have more common sense on this issue. I am particularly concerned about Stonewall's inclusion in this. Stonewall has been largely discredited in some of the work that it has done, and it is disappointing that the Department of Finance is still using Stonewall in this information.
139 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.48 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Controversy escalation (0.83).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.60).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.32 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.17 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.37 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.55 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.83 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.26 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.48 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.60 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.08 |
| Adopts it | 0.31 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.55 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.40 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.04 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:28 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.