Juzgado niega tutela contra Icbf por excluir “niñas” de su lenguaje

A Colombian court has ruled against a petition challenging the use of gender-neutral language by the National Institute of Family Welfare (Icbf). The Third Criminal Court of Cúcuta declared the tutela, legal action seeking constitutional protection, inappropriate, stating that the requirements for such a case were not met. The petition was filed by three individuals who argued that the exclusion of the term “girls” from internal communications within the Icbf violated their fundamental rights to equality and human dignity. The petitioners, Johans Antonio Chacón Vargas, Danna Valentina Saavedra, and María Camila García Castrillón, claimed that the use of the phrase “children and adolescents” in an internal communication from the Huila regional office excluded girls from the institution’s messaging. They argued this omission undermined efforts to address specific needs associated with female children, including hygiene, sexual education, and pregnancy prevention. The court, however, found the petition improper, indicating that the legal process had not been followed correctly. The ruling does not imply that the Icbf was justified in its approach, nor does it confirm the validity of the petitioners' claims. Instead, it suggests that the petitioners should have pursued alternative legal avenues before resorting to a tutela. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioners could not represent all girls in Colombia, which further complicated the case's legitimacy under the law. This decision comes amid broader discussions about inclusive language policies within public institutions. Last week, the Ombudsman’s Office sent a letter to the head of the Icbf, requesting information on institutional guidelines regarding the use of language related to children, girls, and adolescents. In response, Director Carolina Restrepo stated that the term “childhood” encompasses both boys and girls, yet she acknowledged that excluding the word “girls” from official documents could marginalize a group requiring tailored attention. Restrepo explained that the absence of the term “girls” in policy documents affects access to essential services. She emphasized that girls require specific care, such as menstrual hygiene management, sex education, and measures to prevent teenage pregnancies. These considerations underscore the importance of using gender-specific terminology in institutional communications to ensure equitable service delivery. The debate over inclusive language reflects growing awareness of how language shapes policy and practice. Advocates argue that omitting terms like “girls” can perpetuate systemic biases, particularly in sectors responsible for child welfare. Legal experts suggest that while the current ruling dismisses the petition, it highlights the need for clearer guidelines on how to balance inclusivity with administrative efficiency. In light of these developments, the Icbf is expected to review its internal communication protocols and potentially revise its language policies to better reflect the diverse needs of its beneficiaries. The outcome of this case may influence future legal challenges and shape how public institutions approach gender-sensitive language in their operations. For now, the focus remains on ensuring that all children, regardless of gender, receive appropriate support through accurate and inclusive communication.