“Cisgender” is one of 500 new entries that have recently been added to the Oxford English Dictionary. It is defined as, “designating someone whose sense of personal identity corresponds to the sex and gender assigned to him or her at birth”.

The inclusion of the word has been seen by some as reflecting an increased public awareness of the issues of gender, and a growing understanding of the trans community.

Oxford undergraduate George Haggett, a trans man, told Cherwell that the inclusion of this word “represents a step away from harmful cisnormative ideals. The increasingly widespread use of the word “cisgender” is an acknowledgement that Trans people are not exceptions to the norm, but navigating gender in an equally legitimate way.”

Professor Charlotte Brewer, senior tutor and fellow in English at Hertford College and expert in the Oxford English Dictionary, commented that “words have to be clearly well established in the language, not fly-by-nights” to be included in the OED.

“When they think a word has got over the bar and is becoming established in the language, they will release an entry which shows the earliest usage they can find, with representative examples evidencing how usage has subsequently changed and developed.”

When asked how the inclusion of words such as “cisgender” and “twerk” reflects society, Brewer responded, “It is certainly the case that, reflecting society more widely, the OED is far more hospitable to a wide range of language than it was when the first instalment was published in 1884. Not surprising if you think of the social changes and changes in legislation since then: male homosexuality was illegal up to the 1967 Sexual Offences Act, and not till the Lady Chatterley’s Lover trial of 1960 could publishers be sure that they could publish words like fuck and cunt without fear of prosecution.

“So the 1^st edition of OED definitely had trouble with words relating to sex and the body – but since 2010 the revision has been as careful as it can to do away with euphemism or implicit homophobia in its definitions for such terms, and to be as accurate and descriptive as possible.”

The Oxford English Dictionary is widely considered to be the most comprehensive historical dictionary of the English language, and sets out to include as many words as possible in use from 1150 through to today.

The project currently exists online, and has not been printed in its full form since 1989, where it came to twenty volumes. The dictionary does not attempt to chart all recent changes to the English language; a word has to have been in widespread use for approximately five to ten years prior to its inclusion- the dictionary traces the first use of the word “twerk” to 1993 and “cisgender” to 1999.

There are approximately 70 full time lexicographers constantly on the lookout for the new words and the evolving definition of current words.

The OUSU LGBTQ representative was unavailable for comment.

Oxford University Student Union’s LGBTQ campaign has released an open letter to the organisers of last Saturday’s Pride Parade in which they “publically register [their] disgust at the corporatisation of the Pride in London”.

The open letter deals with several aspects of Pride in London’s conduct which the OUSU LGBTQ campaign regard as unacceptable. Their criticism centres on the inclusion of multinational corporations and financial institutions at the event.

These companies, it is claimed, “contribute to oppression to push liberation groups out of the picture”. The letter argues that “Pride should not be an advertising platform for multinational companies” or become about “selling out queer people”.

The campaign denounced the inclusion of Barclays at the event which it claimed is: “an organisation which had a dedicated tax avoidance branch and contributes to mass homelessness in the UK”. Barclays was 200 places in front of the Albert Kennedy Trust (AKT), a group that they state, provides “help and support to LGBTQ youth who are homeless”.

It further calls the decision to put Rainbows Across Borders next to BP Oil and Gas at the march “a disgrace”. The letter states that Rainbows Across Borders should not have been forced to share a platform with organisations like BP which “create the problems [Rainbows Across Borders] are trying to alleviate”.  

The letter concluded that Pride should be about “supporting and empowering those who are the most vulnerable” and “raising up trade unions and grassroots organisations”.

This year around 40,000 people took part in the London Pride parade, marching with charities, community groups, businesses and Trade Unions. This makes Pride London, according to the organisers, the biggest one-day event in the Capital.

Deputy chair of Pride in London, Stephen Ward, told Cherwell, “This [Pride] is a fantastic demonstration of the progress we have made and a perfect platform to continue to campaign for greater rights for the most disadvantaged and to ensure that we turn legal rights into genuine freedom for all of us”.

In response to the “corporatisation” of the parade, Ward stated that “keeping nearly 1 million people safe costs some £700,000 each year. £100,000 of that is supplied by the Mayor of London and the remainder must be raised in other ways. In the past it has proved very difficult to raise money from the community and so sponsorship is a good route. That sponsorship pays for the parade, the infrastructure in Trafalgar Square and the Women’s and Cabaret Stages in Soho and the Family Area in Golden Square as well as promotion of Pride in London and our festival of arts events and debates”.

Ward also commented, “The campaigners rightly point out that there are other events taking place in London this year for the community that do not require such significant funding, and I think it’s important to see Pride in London as part of that overall mix of diversity of events and campaigning approaches, just as Stonewall and the Peter Tatchell Foundation, Act Up and LGSM bring different approaches”.

Besides the issue of “corporatisation”, the open letter called the presence of the Metropolitan Police “unacceptable” due to the “deep-rooted and endemic racism, homophobia and transphobia of the police [that] propagate the active oppression of LGBTQ people.” The LGBTQ campaign stated that they feel “the presence of the police in the march actively stops Pride being a safe space for many people”.

In response, Stephen Ward commented “I cannot accept that there is any basis for the Metropolitan Police not being able to participate in the Parade. The Met is committed corporately to diversity and inclusion as an employer and in policing and are a hugely valued delivery partner for Pride in London events.

“As the campaign may be aware, there has been debate this year around the participation of UKIP and this has prompted us to ask the Community Advisory Board to help us develop clear criteria for participation in Pride in London. We expect that this will include wide consultation of all parts of the community that we serve.”

Ward concluded, “Like every other organisation, Pride in London is on a journey.  As we grow and become stronger we can make a bigger impact on attitudes towards LGBT+ people. For the journey to continue, we need to plan our growth carefully and work with the community as one small part of the incredible network of campaigning and support organisations that have brought us so far in the last 40 or so years and who will continue the work of liberation that the brave patrons of the Stonewall Inn began in 1969.”

OUSU’s LGBTQ campaign open letter can be found here.

Stephen Ward’s full comment can be found here.

A complaint has been made against the bus company Stagecoach Group regarding alleged incidents of Islamophobic discrimination along Cowley Road.

According to a complaint made against Stagecoach Group Muslim commuters were ignored on two separate occasions by company bus drivers on the number 10 bus route. The complaint was submitted to ‘Tell MAMA’ (Measuring Anti Muslim Attacks), a project that records anti-Muslim abuse in the UK.

On the first occasion, the complainant stated, a couple who “were obviously Muslim… tried to flag the bus down but the driver despite seeing them completely ignored them and continued to drive on.” In the second instance, a bus driver “deliberately chose to drive on” after “being flagged down by a group of people, one of whom was clearly wearing a Hijab and clearly identifiable as a Muslim.”

In a written response to the complainant, a Stagecoach employee apologised for the incidents, saying, “I can see the situations you described. I am at a loss to explain why the driver did not stop. I completely understand how these incidents have been interpreted. I give you my assurances that matters of this nature are treated very seriously. We are an equal opportunities employer who ensures that all customers, employees or job applicants are treated fairly and equally.”

Further assurances were also made, including a formal interview with the driver and an investigation “in line with the Company’s disciplinary procedure.”

In a statement to Cherwell, a spokeswoman for Stagecoach Group said, “We would be very disappointed to hear of any situation where a driver is found not to have stopped for passengers waiting at a bus stop. We have investigated the matter fully, including viewing CCTV and speaking to the driver involved.

“There was one occasion on which a customer remained inside the bus shelter as the vehicle passed the stop and did not appear to clearly indicate a desire to board that particular bus. There were a number of other buses in the area at the time. In addition, we have not found any evidence to suggest that the driver’s behaviour on this occasion was racially motivated.

“The welfare of our customers is of the utmost importance to us and we are very clear that anyone employed by Stagecoach should treat both customers and colleagues fairly and with respect and that we will not tolerate discrimination of any kind.”

According to Tell MAMA, transport is one area where victims of anti-Muslim abuse “consistently raise concerns.” The organisation was founded in February 2012 to record physical, verbal, written and online attacks against Muslims and provide support to the victims. In 2014-2015, 548 verified incidents were reported.

Kiran Benipal, Co-Chair of OUSU’s Campaign for Racial Awareness and Equality (CRAE), told Cherwell of her “horror and disgust” at the alleged incident, stating that “the racial tension which it highlights is particularly poignant at this time of the year – Ramadan.”

“Incidents such as this one and those similar have become all too commonplace, and are too rarely logged. Instead, they have become anecdotes for Oxford BME residents and students to share and momentarily reflect on, before they return to the reality of Oxford life as a ‘racial minority.’”

The University has pledged that a minimum of 30% of professorships and senior positions are to be filled by women by the end of 2020.

This is part of the United Nations’ ‘HeforShe’ campaign to increase gender equality. It is one of 10 universities and 20 world institutions to make this new commitment.

Vice-Chancellor Andrew Hamilton is quoted on the official HeforShe website as saying, “Addressing gender equality and ensuring that Oxford is a safe and inclusive space for all our students have been among my main priorities. We have already agreed targets for improving the representation of women in academic roles and we will now consider under the HeForShe Campaign how we can achieve greater equality for women across all areas of our work.”

When asked why 30% was chosen as the target, rather than a higher proportion, a University spokesperson told Cherwell, “We know that 30% is the threshold at which women achieve meaningful representation and it should be seen as the minimum we are seeking to achieve. Our overall aim is to create a larger pool of academic women who are able to serve in the University’s most senior leadership roles.

“The 2020 target is challenging, but realistic. Currently only 26 per cent of academic staff and 21 per cent of professorial staff are female. This is not out of line with many other UK universities and compares favourably with many British and international research-intensive universities. That said, we recognise that we must achieve more.

“The challenge over the next five years will be to diversify our leadership without imposing too many administrative roles on the relatively small number of senior women. 30 per cent may sound like a small target, but evidence from the 30 per cent Club, designed to increase the proportion of women on UK company boards, shows that this is the critical mass needed to achieve further positive impacts. So 30 per cent represents an important step.”

OUSU Vice-President for Women, Anna Bradshaw commented, “I am pleased to see the University commit to working for gender equality in such a serious way.  I am in particular pleased that OUSU has been able to work closely with the University on these commitments so that a number of the student-facing commitments relate directly to supporting OUSU work.

“Having said this, I do believe that there are a number of very serious problems with the HeForShe campaign, and I look forward to the University being able to offer constructive critique to the HeForShe campaign from their new position.”

As part of the campaign, the University has also announced an intention to make Undergraduate sexual consent workshops compulsory. They were first introduced in Freshers’ Week 2014 and attendance was encouraged but optional. Cherwell understands they will operate in the same manner this upcoming year, with the addition of ‘Race 101’ workshops, which aim to combat perceived cultural appropriation and racist micro-aggressions in the University.   

A national civil rights organisation, Liberty, has threatened legal action against Oxford City Council’s proposed restrictions on busking and begging in the centre of Oxford.

Oxford City Council were to vote last Thursday evening on a new Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) to tackle non-aggressive begging and non-compliant busking. However, the vote was postponed after concerns over potential legal action by Liberty.

If the new PSPO had been approved, it would have allowed police and council staff to serve fixed penalty notices, with those failing to pay facing court action and prison.

Currently, Oxford City Centre is covered by a PSPO under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. It is a breach of the PSPO to busk not in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Busking and Street Entertainment in Oxford, which is a list of ‘Do’s’ and ‘Don’ts’.

The ‘Don’ts’ currently include not selling merchandise, not busking “in a way that is repetitive, intrusive or causes a nuisance”, and not busking for more than one hour at a time.

However, the civil rights group Liberty delivered a letter addressed to the City Council last Thursday morning, claiming that the new PSPO was unlawful and would “criminalise homeless people and buskers”.

After receiving the letter, the Council dropped discussion of the proposed PSPO from the City Executive Board meeting agenda.

Freya Turner, Chair of the OUSU-led ‘On Your Doorstep’ campaign, explained to Cherwell, “We at On Your Doorstep applauded the Council’s concession on rough sleeping in the PSPO, and hoped that it might be an indication of their willingness to listen to a range of voices when seeking the proper approach to supposed ‘anti-social’ behaviour.

“However, their plans to ban and criminalise persistent begging and non-compliant busking are badly thought through and, due to the intersections between busking, begging and homelessness, will likely have a detrimental impact on a highly vulnerable group. As we face the onslaught of austerity and further welfare cuts in the next five years, it will become all the more important for local campaigns to stand up for a compassionate treatment of vulnerable people. This is why we cannot support the criminalisation of ‘persistent begging’.”

When the PSPO was being drafted, a Member Reference Group was set up to consider the need for and potential content of a PSPO for the city centre area. This group comprised ward councillors, the Board Member for Crime and Community Response and a Scrutiny Committee member. The Member Reference Group then presented a list of anti-social behaviours, as drafted by the City Council, to the public for consultation on an online voting system called eConsult.

In the poll, 54 per cent of respondents voted against ‘persistent begging’ being included on the list of behaviours to be criminalised, and 53 per cent voted in opposition to the inclusion of ‘Busking or Street Entertainment’. Only 13 per cent of respondents were in favour of criminalising busking; the remaining 36 per cent of voters were ambivalent.

Prior to the threats of legal action made, the City Council explained their decision to propose the new PSPO in a report given to the City Executive Board, stating, “The inclusion of persistent begging in the Order will provide other staff to regulate this behaviour and will provide an updated legal remedy, including the use of fixed penalty notices.

“This is likely to prove a more cost effective and proportionate approach to controlling this activity. Linking the Code of Conduct to the PSPO provides a means of enforcement of the Code for flagrant breaches which do occur infrequently, causing considerable nuisance to people in the street and occupiers of nearby premises”.

In response to the ‘On Your Doorstep’ campaign, the City Council stated, “We have an excellent track record of supporting homeless people and helping them find a bed or a home. Oxford City Council spends over £1 million on support for homelessness. It is wrong to suggest the proposed PSPO would change any of that support. It is also untrue that the proposed Order would ‘criminalise’ rough sleeping. The proposed City centre PSPO is aimed at tackling persistent types of anti-social behaviour which can spoil the experience of using the city centre for residents, businesses and visitors.”

A protest against the planned PSPO took place on Thursday on Cornmarket Street. Ruthi Brandt, Green Party Councillor for Carfax Ward, and attendee at the protest, told Cherwell during the demonstration “It’s [the protest] highlighting the problems with the PSPO that’s been suggested for the city centre in Oxford. There are lots of issues with it.

“It would be possible to fine someone £100 for begging-as a beggar, that’s ridiculous, and if you don’t pay the fine then you go through the court system. That could get them up to £1000 in fines, so we’re here to protest that, and to call on the City Executive Board not to pass that.”