Hi Michael Bailey

I see no one has commented on your post.

You are right in that if a particular term requires additional data and in your case inclusive|non-inclusive - amending the term definition can be done and this will tie in nicely with the QA.

While I am sure more can be said on this topic you may have already had your meeting with your diversity officer. 
If however discussions are still being had, do let me know and we can perhaps have a call to explore all options based on a deeper understanding of your requirements 

Have a good day

Lyds

Hi Michael Bailey

I see no one has commented on your post.

You are right in that if a particular term requires additional data and in your case inclusive|non-inclusive - amending the term definition can be done and this will tie in nicely with the QA.

While I am sure more can be said on this topic you may have already had your meeting with your diversity officer. 
If however discussions are still being had, do let me know and we can perhaps have a call to explore all options based on a deeper understanding of your requirements 

Have a good day

Lyds

Dear Lydia,

Sorry that I never responded to you - I have now started receiving the first pieces that used inclusive terminology - my initial approach has been by amending the term definition for inclusive/non-inclusive. At the time being it is at quite a generic level (e.g. experts becoming Expert:innen and not Experten or ExpertInnen - i.e. using what German calls the Genderdoppelpunkt (gender colon) and not the Genderstern (gender asterisk)) I'll add a couple of screenshots to help others faced with a similar issue.

Thank you Michael Bailey