Operation LENTUS evacuations by 436 Transport Squadron
Photo Credit: Cpl Beliwicz, CAF/DND
Esprit de Corps Magazine March 2021 // Volume 28 Issue 2
Let's Talk About Women in the Military – Column 24
By Military Woman
Question:
Can you share some more examples of inclusionary language issues in the defence community?
Answer:
Thank you for the chance to continue the conversation we started last month on the importance of inclusionary language. Increasing our word precision is one way to improve on our common understandings of defence related topics.
For an example, let's consider Operational Stress Injury (OSI). TermiumPlus, the official Government of Canada (GoC) terminology database, defines OSI as, "a persistent psychological difficulty resulting from operational duties performed by a Forces member." The OSI Social Support (OSISS) website defines OSI as "any persistent psychological difficulty resulting from operations in the military. Those operational duties can include training incidents, domestic operations and international operations."
When you read these official definitions, is it clear to you whether persistent psychological difficulties from military sexual trauma (MST) are an OSI or not?
Some who read these definitions are completely convinced that OSI is inclusive of MST, but others are equally certain that the OSI definitions above exclude MST. A precise OSI definition would explicitly state the inclusion or exclusion of MST impacted members to the government funded OSI services and programs.
MST is also an imprecise term. US federal law defines MST as the "psychological trauma, which in the judgment of a Veterans Affairs mental health professional resulted from a physical assault of a sexual nature, battery of a sexual nature, or sexual harassment which occurred while the Veteran was serving on active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty training". By this definition, the term MST refers to US military members.
However, in the absence of any equivalent Canadian approved terminology – what options are there for groups like "It's Just 700" but to embrace its use? How can those impacted by MST not feel excluded from GoC research, policy, and programs when there is no agreed to Canadian terminology to describe their trauma?
Sexual Misconduct (SM) is a perpetrator-focused term defined by the GoC terminology database as "conduct of a sexual nature that can cause or causes harm to others." Covering the full spectrum of possible inappropriate behaviours, this term can refer to anything from a one-time slightly off joke to criminal crimes such as premeditated gang rapes. This term's lack of precision means it should be used sparingly, so as to not euphemistically whitewash the profound seriousness of many of its included actions. When possible, discussions should be conducted using more precise language such as sexual insults, gestures, harassment, coercion, assault, stalking, rape and so on.
Can you think of more examples from your own conversations where miscommunications occurred due to the lack of precision in word choices? If we know that precise language use can avoid inaccurate and unclear communication which may result in defence team members feeling excluded, why do we not use it more?
Is it possible that we have been encouraged as "polite Canadians" to preferentially choose neutral terms versus more accurate but "uncomfortable" words, especially for sensitive topics? While euphemisms may sound more "polite", they can have the unintended consequence of excluding and minimizing the real-life experiences of others. This type of exclusion matters, especially in the military.
Problems within Canada's defence community culture are well documented, including Maclean's special investigation reports about military sexual violence (1998 and 2014), Justice Deschamps' external review into sexual misconduct and sexual harassment (2015), the Auditor General of Canada's report on inappropriate sexual behaviour (2018), and the recently settled sexual misconduct class action lawsuit (2020) – and that's all before even considering race, Indigenous or LGBTQ2 issues.
Tackling such a massive culture change requirement can feel overwhelming at the individual level. One small, but meaningful, individual action step we all can take, is to commit to the deliberate use of more accurate and precise inclusionary word choices. To perpetuate the use of vague, confusing, or whitewashing terms is to be part of the problem, instead of the solution.
