Any attempt to avoid stereotyping identities is heartening, but its effect on judicial proceedings could bring about deep change in more than one sphere. The glossary of alternative words released by the Supreme Court, called Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes, focuses mainly on altering derogatory or patronising labels used for women, from ‘whore’ and ‘mistress’ to ‘obedient wife’. They become women and wives — each an individual — without their identities being pigeonholed by social condemnation or approval. A ‘mistress’ or ‘concubine’, for example, is a woman with whom a man has had sexual or romantic relations outside of marriage, a ‘prostitute’ is a sex worker, and a ‘child prostitute’ is a trafficked child. Changing ‘carnal relations to ‘sexual’ relations shows not just sensitiveness but also the drive to erase pre-judged values from the language used. When releasing the glossary, the Chief Justice of India pointed out that the reliance on stereotypes about women could distort the application of the law to them in harmful ways. Other words associated with women and gender bias, too, have been given alternatives for use by lawyers and judges. The recommendation of ‘sex reassignment’ or ‘gender transition’ in place of ‘sex change’, for instance, renders it precise and value-free, just as ‘breadwinner’ or ‘provider’, with the underlying sense of male protector, has been altered to ‘employed’ or ‘earning’.

The glossary is remarkable for its progressiveness, vision and contemporary awareness. Yet language is a funny thing. Instructions to describe accurately the characteristics denoted by ‘effeminate’ or ‘ladylike’ in gender-neutral terms are a tough call: the Latin root of ‘effeminate’ means ‘womanish’ in quite an uncomplimentary way. Can ‘ladylike’ be replaced by ‘well-mannered’ or, say, ‘demure’ — ‘amusing’ and ‘assertive’ are the glossary’s examples of gender neutrality here — or would that be value-ascription too? Presumably, such terms must be dealt with within their contexts. Language is full of traps; words carry values that need not be the same for all. ‘Cross-dresser’ has been suggested in place of ‘transvestite’: would everyone prefer the substitute? Or would it be accurate to replace ‘transsexual’ with ‘transgender’? Trying to remove stereotyping with the goal of fairness, justice and equality could be like walking a minefield. But the Supreme Court has set an example for all: it can be done. If debates follow, they will enrich both language and sensibility.