Topical question AQT 714/22-27
Topical question by Mr Trevor Clarke on .
- MLA
- Mr Trevor Clarke
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 5 November 2024
- Type
- Topical question
- Assembly reference
- AQT 714/22-27
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4631834
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Mr Clarke asked the Minister of Finance, noting that many previous questions focused on financial problems for businesses, universities and individuals, how much her Civil Service inclusive language guide, which indicates that one must now address a woman as "Mx", cost her Department, given that she is so busy with sensible things that need to be addressed, as opposed to nonsensical stuff like that.
64 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Follow-ups by the same MLA in the Chamber
These were assessed together with this record:
Assessment
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues
Decided as qualifying on a second assessment, because Jev’s answers did not settle it. The reasons are given below.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.69 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.78); Controversy escalation (0.87).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.55).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The answers did not meet either automatic threshold.
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.
Second assessment
Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works
- Verdict
- Qualifying
- Public interest or divisiveness
- Mainly advances divisiveness
Against the published rubric
The question asks what a Civil Service inclusive language guide cost, but the cost request is thin: the guide is described as "nonsensical stuff" and wrongly summarised as requiring that "one must now address a woman as 'Mx'". The follow-up dismisses gender-neutral terms as a "manufactured title" and asks whether the Minister supports the guide, not about spending or service delivery. That fits the rubric's markers of a pronoun and gender-identity flashpoint: ridicule of inclusive terms, a premise built into the question, and a practical request used as a vehicle for disapproval.
Public interest or divisiveness
The evident function is to put an objection to inclusive language for non-binary and trans people on the record and to mock it, not to obtain figures that serve a departmental decision. Contrasting "sensible things" with "nonsensical stuff", and invoking colleagues who would prefer their "proper titles", turns a minor guidance document into an identity row. It mainly advances divisiveness rather than scrutiny of public money.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.34 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.20 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.43 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.78 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.87 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.21 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.69 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.55 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.42 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.81 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.09 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.09 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:30 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.