Heteronormative Assumptions and Expectations of Sexual Violence: Language and Inclusivity Within Sexual Violence Policy in Australian Universities

Sexual violence is often positioned as a heterosexual experience, perpetrated by men against women. Research from the USA has revealed university sexual violence policies are typically heteronormatively framed and ignore the sexual victimisation of men and sexuality and gender diverse people (DeLong et al. in Journal of Interpersonal Violence 33:3315–3343, 2018; Enke in Journal of College Student Development 59:479–485, 2016; Worthen & Wallace in Family Relations 66:180–196, 2017). In Australia, there has been little examination of university sexual violence policies in terms of inclusivity and language used in relation to gender, sexuality or the framing of sexual violence. Positioned within a feminist perspective, which seeks to promote equitable consideration of all sexual and gender identities, the current study starts to fill this gap. A summative content analysis of 17 sexual violence policies, collected in December 2020 from ten Australian universities, identified and explored the extent of assumptive concepts in language related to gender, sexuality and inclusivity. This preliminary study found that sexual violence policies within Australian universities typically reject traditional gendered narratives of sexual violence and use gender-neutral language that is inclusive of all genders and sexualities. This finding provides the foundation for further research which expands the sample and examines the actual experiences of sexuality and gender diverse victim-survivors when navigating university sexual violence policies. University policymakers may draw from this sample of policies when developing or revising their sexual violence policies.


Introduction
Sexual violence is underpinned by embedded inequalities and power dynamics (Heise, 1998) and is typically committed by male intimate partners or others known to the victimsurvivor (Rogers, 2019;Wooten, 2016). In Australia, more than 80% of reported sexual violence victim-survivors are women (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2020a), and over 90% of perpetrators are men (ABS, 2020b; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), 2020). Among those at highest risk of sexual victimisation are 18-24year olds, a typical age for university and college students (AIHW, 2018;Sinozich & Langton, 2014). US research estimates between 19 and 27% of female students have or will experience an attempted or completed sexual assault while at university (Fisher et al., 2000;Joseph et al., 2013;Sinozich & Langton, 2014). In 2016, over 50% of Australian university students experienced at least one incident of sexual harassment, and 7% experienced sexual assault (Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), 2017, p. 3). Female students were more than three times as likely to experience sexual assault and almost twice as likely to experience sexual harassment than male students (AHRC, 2017, p. 4). These statistics point to a notable risk of sexual violence for university students and reflect embedded gender-based patterns of victimisation.
Much of the existing literature on sexual violence aligns with the experiences of heterosexual, cisgender women (McCauley et al., 2019). As Lockwood Harris and Hanchey (2014) note, "sexual victimisation is feminised via a heteronormative 1 3 frame…" (p. 336). A rigid binary view of the gendered nature of sexual violence risks undermining the experiences of victimsurvivors who do not fit within 'traditional' gender models or stereotypical expectations, for example individuals who do not identify as male/female or woman/man, non-heterosexuals and/ or male victim-survivors (Bates et al., 2019). A number of studies have found that sexual violence particularly affects sexuality and gender diverse people, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, non-binary and queer-identifying individuals (Coulter et al., 2017;Griner et al., 2020;Martin et al., 2011). Sexual and gender diversity "are constructed against the backdrop of heteronormativity" (Shannon & Smith, 2017, p. 249). Both heterosexuality and gender conformity are the implicit 'norm' and are identified as being in explicit disparity to 'diverse forms' of identities, practices and/or behaviours (Shannon & Smith, 2017). Framing sexual violence as a heteronormative experience, in which men are perpetrators and women are victims, limits recognition and understanding of experiences of sexuality and gender diverse persons (Butler, 1990;Edwards et al., 2015;Griner et al., 2020;Lockwood Harris & Hanchey, 2014;Wooten, 2016).
This paper adds to the body of knowledge by reporting findings from a preliminary study which examined sexual violence policies from a sample of Australian universities. Key themes are first set out with respect to gendered attitudes and expectations of sexual violence. Research examining university responses to sexual violence is explored, along with the importance of language within sexual violence policies in higher education contexts. The study deployed a summative approach to content analysis, to examine the extent to which assumptive concepts related to gender, sexuality and inclusivity were present within a sample of Australian university sexual violence policies. Overall, the results suggest that the sexual violence policies examined typically reject heteronormative narratives of sexual violence and use gender-neutral language that is inclusive of all genders and sexualities. This provides a foundation for future research to examine the actual experiences of sexuality and gender diverse victim-survivors when navigating university sexual violence policies.

A Note About Language: Sex, Gender, Sexuality and Inclusivity 1
There is debate regarding when to use the terms 'sex' and 'gender' and how to conceptualise and define them (Muehlenhard & Peterson, 2011). The term sex may be defined as the biological features of being female or male, whereas gender may be defined as a personal sense of being a man or woman, as influenced by a range of social and cultural factors (Griner et al., 2020;Hood-Williams, 1996;Muehlenhard & Peterson, 2011;Risman, 2004;West & Zimmerman, 1987). Hood-Williams (1996) positions gender as relating to cultural rather than biological differences: whether someone is masculine or feminine differs culturally across time and place. Muehlenhard and Peterson (2011) found that the terms 'female' and 'male' were often used to refer to 'sex', which was associated with biological factors: chromosomes, hormones, reproductive systems, anatomy, etc.; the terms 'women' and 'men' often referred to gender, which was associated with social and/or cultural factors; gender was commonly defined in terms of an individual's feminine or masculine traits, behaviours or interests; and 'gender' and 'sex' were often used interchangeably. Risman (2004) considers gender to be a social structure, "embedded at the individual, interactional, and institutional dimensions of…society" (p. 446). At the individual level, the gender structure shapes interactional expectations which are at the centre of 'doing gender' (Risman, 2009). The gender structure also has implications at the institutional level, with respect to the organisation and policing of social groups (Risman, 2009).
Some suggest that gender is not something individuals have, but it is something they do (Messerschmidt, 2009;West & Zimmerman, 1987). Gender and gender differences are reproduced, achieved and/or sustained through every day, social interactions. 'Doing gender' is comprised of gender performance, where individuals perform a socially expected gender role (Muehlenhard & Peterson, 2011), and gender accountability, where individuals are accountable to the self, others and society (West & Zimmerman, 1987).
Just as people can do gender through social interaction, gender can also be undone through social interactions (Deutsch, 2007;Nordmarken, 2019;Risman, 2004). Gender may be undone during gender-neutral interactions; when people do not follow traditional sex or gender scripts; when individuals ignore or make irrelevant, gender as a concept; and when people alter their expectations of their own and other's gender performance so as to change oppressive behaviours (Deutsch, 2007;Nordmarken, 2019). Gender is undone whenever the "essentialism of binary distinctions between people based on sex category is challenged" (Risman, 2009, p. 83).
'Doing gender' requires "a structural context that enables challenges to the gender binary" (Connell, 2010, p. 52). In challenging the gender binary, Connell (2010) explains that while cisgender people align more seamlessly with their birth sex, sex category and expected gender norms, the sex category and gender of transgender people do not align as consistently with their sex. This "disruption opens up an opportunity to undo or redo gender" (Connell, 2010, p. 32). The shifting of gender norms signals the 'redoing' of gender, where gender still remains but in less restrictive forms and/or less oppressive ways (Nordmarken, 2019;West & Zimmerman, 1987).
For the purpose of this paper, 'sex' is used in relation to the biological features of being female, male or intersex. 'Gender' refers to the cultural and social factors which can influence individual self-conceptualisation and expression of identity. It is acknowledged that the boundary between the social and biological is not completely clear, and that gender is not exclusively defined or manifested by the strict binary of masculine or feminine norms (Lafferty et al., 2021;Marinucci, 2010). The studies referred to in this paper may have defined the terms sex and gender differently or used them interchangeably, and language shifts within the paper occur only to keep the fidelity of the original studies.
Sex, gender and sexuality are interrelated experiences (Hughes, 2019). Sexuality encompasses sexual identity, which refers to labels, communities, politics and positioning; sexual orientation, referring to interests, attractions and fantasies; and sexual status, which refers to behaviours and activities (van Anders, 2015). For the current study, sexuality refers to sexual orientation (who a person is attracted to), sexual identity (what a person self-identifies as i.e. heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc.) as well as a person's sexual behaviours, fantasies, attitudes and values.
Inclusivity refers to the provision of equal access to opportunities and resources for all persons: not excluding people on the grounds of gender, race, class, sexuality, dis/ability and so on. In Ellis' (2009) study examining diversity and inclusivity at universities in the UK, inclusiveness referred to how issues relevant to sexuality and gender diverse persons were adequately represented at a university. For the current study, inclusivity refers to the visibility of issues and concerns relevant to sexuality and gender diverse individuals in policy, through the acknowledgment of sexual violence not only occurring between men and women in heterosexual encounters, recognising sexuality and gender diverse persons' vulnerability to sexual violence and provision of specific resources for sexuality and gender diverse people.

Sexual Violence and Gender
Societal attitudes and constructions of gender affect how we view and respond to incidents of sexual violence (Bates et al., 2019). Traditional gender stereotypes include women being perceived as weak, passive and reliant on men for protection (Gefter et al., 2017;Hollander & Rodgers, 2014). Men are typically framed as strong, independent, aggressive and/or dangerous (Hollander & Rodgers, 2014). Although anyone can experience sexual violence (McCauley et al., 2020), heterosexist patriarchal and feminist perspectives have positioned the cisgender female body as inherently vulnerable to sexual violence, where to be cisgender and female correlates with a constant threat of rape (Wooten, 2016).
Gender stereotypes often manifest through rape myths: inaccurate beliefs about rape that "…sustain male sexual violence against women within society and perpetuate the social milieu of victim blaming" (Grubb & Turner, 2012, p. 445). Embedded within rape myths are expectations about how people should act during sexual encounters (Bates et al., 2019;Reitz-Krueger et al., 2017). Women who stray from social scripts by going out late at night, not actively resisting a sexual assault, or by not reporting to police immediately post-assault can be labelled as 'bad' victims and may be more likely to be blamed for their victimisation (Bates et al., 2019). Iverson's (2006) discourse analysis of five sexual violence prevention scripts from three US institutions of higher education revealed that discussions of morality and violence supported by masculinity produced the male-as-hero and male-as-abuser, respectively. Discussions of dependence and distress, supported by femininity, situated women as vulnerable and the victim, respectively (Iverson, 2006). These discourses contribute to shaping and understanding perceptions and expectations of women and men and their experiences with sexual violence (Iverson, 2006).
Several rape myths specifically relate to male victim-survivors of sexual violence (Javaid, 2015;Reitz-Krueger et al., 2017). For example, men are too physically strong to be raped; men are the initiators of sexual contact and, therefore, cannot be raped; and the belief that men enjoy forced sexual contact (Javaid, 2015). Like women, male victim-survivors of sexual violence can be blamed for their victimisation where they did not actively resist (Reitz-Krueger et al., 2017). Although specific rape myths may differ between men and women, both are largely based on social expectations of conformance with traditional gender roles (Reitz-Krueger et al., 2017).
Feminist scholars have positioned sexual violence as a product of gender inequality, patriarchal beliefs and gender socialisation (Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988;Heise, 1998;Kearns et al., 2020;LeSuer, 2020). Patriarchal ideals reinforce the dominant social position and power which men assume and assert over women (Gefter et al., 2017;Kearns et al., 2020;Smart, 1989). Institutional structures and organisations typically reflect and reinforce patriarchal culture (Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988). Members of government, judges and lawmakers have historically been men, allowing male dominance to be maintained through control of powerful positions within society (Burke, 2019). Universities have also been protectors of male privilege, enabling men to dominate participation, authority and leadership (Eyre, 2000;Garvey et al., 2017). In recent decades, there has been a notable increase in the proportion of women attending university, teaching and occupying leadership positions.
In 2018, 56% of US undergraduate students were female (National Centre for Education Statistics, 2020). In 2020, 57% of Australia's Bachelor's degree students (ABS, 2020c) and 58% of higher education staff members were women (Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2020). Higher education is, therefore, an important area to examine in relation to gender and sexual violence (Griner et al., 2020).

Sexual Violence and Gender in Higher Education Contexts
US college campus-based studies (Fedina et al., 2016;Fisher et al., 2000;Sinozich & Langton, 2014) and surveys (Cantor et al., 2015) suggest that approximately 20% of women will experience sexual assault in college, compared with 5% of men. In their study of US college women with histories of interpersonal violence, Gefter et al. (2017) found that participants viewed men's violence against women as part of a patriarchal and oppressive society, underpinned by traditional gender roles, sexist attitudes and media which sexualises women. In 2017, the Australian Human Rights Commission reported that gendered attitudes towards women and widespread beliefs regarding gender role and relationship stereotypes contributed to sexual violence across university campuses.
Higher education contexts present both problems and possibilities for women; they reproduce and perpetuate patriarchal relations and, at the same time, produce feminist critiques of universal truths (Blackmore, 2002). Although progress has been made in some areas-more women are enrolled and employed in higher education institutions than ever beforewomen continue to sit behind men in relation to leadership roles throughout academic organisations (Madsen, 2011;Nidiffer, 2010). For example, men (predominantly white) comprise up to 74% of senior academics and executives in Australian higher education institutions (Blackmore, 2015;Thornton, 2013). When women do hold leadership positions, it is often within less prestigious areas (Madsen, 2011;Nidiffer, 2010).
It is argued that universities perpetuate gender-based inequity through structural hierarchies that silence 'less powerful' individuals (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005;Fernando & Prasad, 2019;Kachen et al., 2020). The contribution of women to knowledge has historically been disregarded, underreported and/or undermined (Fotaki, 2021). Hart's (2008) interviews with 12 women academics found that participants were often constrained and marginalised, and received clear messages from colleagues that they should "be quiet and compliant" (pp. 184-85). The White House Project report (The White House Project, 2009) argued that "…the presence -or absence -of female academic leaders can have far-reaching influences not only on the institutions themselves, but…on the scope of research and knowledge…" (p. 16).
Feminist scholars and activists have challenged existing methods, structures and foundations of knowledge production (Pereira, 2012). Male-dominated knowledge, particularly in the field of education administration and policy, has involved universalistic claims that either fail to acknowledge gender, race or cultural difference, or which ignore, appropriate or misrepresent feminist theory and research (Blackmore, 2014). Research has argued that universities perpetuate a misogynistic and neoliberal culture (Atkinson & Standing, 2019) that enables persistent gender inequality (Bartos & Ives, 2019) and institutional betrayal (Smith & Freyd, 2014). Kachen et al. (2020) explain that gender hierarchies, unequal distributions of power and masculinities are organisational features which form the basis for sexual harassment. Blithe and Elliot (2019) undertook focus group interviews with 21 female university faculty members in the USA: all participants experienced "…explicit hostility, overt sexual harassment, structural inequalities, and/or microag-gressions…" within their workplace (p. 754).
Feminist theory and research have emphasised the connection between gender inequality, patriarchal beliefs and violence against women (Blithe & Elliot, 2019;DeKeseredy, 2021;Dobash & Dobash, 1979;Heise, 1998;Kearns et al., 2020;LeSuer, 2020). Patriarchal beliefs are positioned as reinforcing male dominance and power over women, and male aggression towards women (Dobash & Dobash, 1979;Heise, 1998). Radical feminists have understood men's violence against women as a form of political and social control rather than a biological 'natural phenomenon' (Mackay, 2015). Feminist research has given rise to a number of invaluable understandings of the forms, causes and barriers to overcoming sex and gender-based discrimination, and domestic, family and sexual violence, occurring in workplaces, institutions such as universities and across public and private domains (Brownmiller, 1975;DeKeseredy, 2021;Dobash & Dobash, 1979;Fotaki, 2021;Renzetti, 2018). For example, gender has been examined by several scholars regarding hindrances to women's career progression, including underrepresentation in positions of power and the gender pay gap (Elliot & Stead, 2018;Fotaki, 2021;Malladi & Mean, 2021). Power relations are central to studies of gender (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005;Dobash & Dobash, 1979;Fotaki, 2021;Heise, 1998). Unequal power dynamics across institutions of higher education reinforce embedded inequities and profoundly influence the shaping of higher education policies, in general, and university sexual violence policies, specifically.

Sexual Violence, Heteronormative Framing and Inclusivity
Some feminist work has been criticised for only reflecting heterosexual experiences of white, cisgender women and men (Bates et al., 2019;Butler, 1990;Rich, 1980;Wooten, 2016). For example, feminist theories of patriarchy posit that sexual violence is a direct outcome of men operating within a patriarchal society which denies gender equality and legitimises violence against women (Hines et al., 2016). An abundance of research evidence supports this position (for example, Gefter et al., 2017;Hunnicutt, 2009;LeSuer, 2020;Mouzos & Makkai, 2004). However, patriarchy theory may imply that only men possess the capability to commit sexual violence, through power and control (Hines et al., 2016;Pence & Paymar, 1993). Not all perpetrators are male, and not all victim-survivors are female (Lombard, 2013).
Some scholars have also criticised the influence of feminism on university sexual violence policies. Wooten (2016) suggests that the common narrative-perpetrators are men and victim-survivors are women-dictates sexual violence policy broadly and unduly influences policy in a higher education context. For example, in the USA, university sexual violence policies tend to be framed heteronormatively (DeLong et al., 2018;Worthen & Wallace, 2017) and largely ignore the sexual victimisation of sexuality and gender diverse persons, and men (Enke, 2016). The progress made by feminist theory and activism within and for higher education must be acknowledged, but some argue this has occurred at the expense of students, administrators and researchers who do not fit the heterosexist discourse of sexual violence (Stoltzfus-Brown, 2018;Wooten, 2016).
Contemporary feminists have a responsibility to be inclusive of multiple locations of inequality, including race, class, gender, sexuality, age, nationality, ethnicity, religion, dis/ability and so on (Burgess-Proctor, 2006). This paper employs a feminist lens to explore university sexual violence policy and is particularly focused on the inclusivity of sexuality and gender diverse people, in terms of concepts within language. The paper is not intended to ignore or deny the gender-based patterns of sexual violence occurring between men and women within heterosexual relations. However, examining gender and power dynamics requires the acknowledgment of the needs of all genders, including those who reject gender categories entirely (Lester & Sallee, 2017).
In challenging heteronormativity in relation to sexual violence, queer theory is drawn upon. Queer theory emerged during the "postmodern turn", which was marked by an emphasis on language, deconstruction, difference, multiple truths, discourse and rethinking previous ideas of how power is structured (Walton, 2012, pp. 186-187). Queer theory is concerned with sexuality and the gender system that underpins it (McCann & Monaghan, 2019), questions the foundations of sexual identity (Britzman, 1995), is resistant to fixed categorisation (Marinucci, 2010) and aims to challenge heteronormativity (Gamson & Moon, 2004). Heteronormativity not only marginalises non-heterosexuals, but also negatively affects all people through its regulation of sexuality and gender (Butler, 1990;Jackson, 2006). Queer theory illuminates queer identities and formations that would otherwise be invisible under heteronormative arrangements of society and challenges the binary through expanding the range of alternatives and trading duality for multiplicity (Marinucci, 2010;McCann & Monaghan, 2019).
Feminist and queer theories can be used together, under "queer feminism" (McCann & Monaghan, 2019, p. 89;Showden, 2012, p. 8). Queer feminism involves the application of queer conceptions of gender, sex and sexuality to feminist theory subject matter and applies feminist conceptions of gender, sex and sexuality to queer theory subject matter (Marinucci, 2010).
Most efforts to address sexual violence across college and university campuses have focused on female victim-survivors (Reitz-Krueger et al., 2017). The experiences of male victimsurvivors have received notably less attention (Chapleau et al., 2008;Turchik, 2012). While research consistently finds women to be more vulnerable to sexual violence (ABS, 2020a, b; AIHW, 2020; Morgan et al., 2019), rates for men are not insignificant (Reitz-Krueger et al., 2017). Turchik's (2012) study examined the experiences of 302 18-23-year-old men at US colleges. Just over 50% of participants reported at least one experience of sexual victimisation since the age of 16, and 48% reported victimisation by female perpetrators. A 2017 study of 526 US university students found that women were more likely to experience sexual assault, but men were just as likely to experience completed or attempted rape (Reitz-Krueger et al., 2017). Ignoring the sexual victimisation of men reinforces traditional gender roles and rape myths (Javaid, 2016).
Interpersonal violence research has historically focused on victimisation rates between women and men, with limited consideration of the effects for sexuality and gender diverse persons, particularly within college and university populations (Edwards et al., 2015;Griner et al., 2020;Schulze & Budd, 2020). Over the last decade, research conducted primarily in US college settings reports that sexuality and gender diverse students are at a similar or greater risk of sexual victimisation than heterosexual students (Coulter et al., 2017;Edwards et al., 2015;Griner et al., 2020;Martin et al., 2011;Rothman et al., 2011). Martin et al.'s (2011) survey of 5439 US college women and Edwards et al.'s (2015) survey of 6030 US college students both found that sexual assault was more prevalent among sexuality and gender diverse students compared with heterosexual students. US studies by Coulter et al. (2017), Edwards et al. (2015) and Griner et al. (2020) each reported that transgender students experience higher rates of sexual violence than cisgender and/or femaleidentifying students. In Australia, the AHRC (2017) report found transgender and gender diverse students were more likely than cisgender men or women to report incidents of sexual harassment.
Individuals who do not fit the dominant construction of victim-survivors or perpetrators of sexual violence face several additional challenges (Wooten, 2016). Sexuality and gender diverse persons may be unlikely to disclose or report their victimisation experiences for fear of discrimination (Walters & Lippy, 2016). Individuals who experience forms of oppression, such as homophobia and transphobia, are less likely to receive adequate support and care following victimisation experiences (Schulze & Budd, 2020). Ignoring sexuality and gender diverse victim-survivors and perpetrators of sexual violence perpetuates a lack of knowledge and inclusivity. Sexual violence prevention and responses focus exclusively on cisgender heterosexual violence risk invalidating sexuality and gender diverse persons' sexual violence experiences and are largely ineffective for such populations (Coulter et al., 2017;Wooten, 2016).

The Importance of Language in Sexual Violence Policy
Policy has been conceived "…as text, discourse, process, assemblage, enactment…" and so on (Anderson & Holloway, 2020, p. 189). This provides a means for consideration of the social, historical and political contexts within which policy exists and emerges (Bacchi, 2015), and of policy implications for power, marginalisation and emancipation (Anderson & Holloway, 2020). Examining language and textual data can help to understand how policy-making institutions, such as universities, frame, conceptualise and problematise specific topics (Bacchi, 1999;Iverson, 2015). Specific forms of text, language and words create broadly circulating narratives, different sets of beliefs and numerous ways of seeing the world, and construct representations of problems, such as sexual violence (Anderson & Holloway, 2020;Bacchi, 1999). How any type of violence is represented, defined and conceptualised determines what is known, what is visible and invisible and what is done and not done about the problem through both policy and practice (Itzin, 2000). How gender is conceptualised in written text, including policy documents, can reinforce or challenge gender roles, stereotypes and norms (Khwaja et al., 2017).
Gender-neutral changes in language have occurred in a number of spaces, policies and practices (Wright & Hearn, 2013). For example, in Denmark, 'domestic violence' and 'violence against women' have been replaced by 'partner violence' and/or 'intimate partner violence' (Sørensen, 2013). Gender-neutral language can be viewed as a positive and productive move towards increasing inclusivity. According to McQueeney (2016), gender-specific approaches serve to reinforce victim-survivors of sexual violence as helpless females and perpetrators as male abusers, while disregarding other victim-survivors and perpetrators. However, the de-gendering of an often-gendered phenomenon like sexual violence has also been criticised (Choudhry, 2016;Sørensen, 2013;Virkki, 2016). Some scholars argue that gender-neutral language conceals the reality of gender-specific patterns and problems related to sexual violence (Sørensen, 2013;Virkki, 2016). Virkki (2016) suggests that de-gendered approaches with a generic category of 'victims' view sexual violence as a violation of human rights (which it is) but, as a result, neglect the role gender inequality plays in (re)producing sexual violence (Choudhry, 2016;Virkki, 2016).
To some extent, gender-neutral language may reify cisheteronormativity. Shannon and Smith (2017) note that "queer subjectivities struggle for representation and inclusion in public institutions that are heralded as 'neutral'…" (p. 252). Nicholas (2020) explains that the 'neutral' subject rests on a logic carried out through declarations of heterosexuality's superiority and the "deviance" and "unproductivity" of sexuality and gender diverse people (p. 248). Neutral language may serve to invoke heterosexuality and cis-heteronormativity through sending queer-erasing messages (Nicholas, 2020). By 'not naming' all possible identities, heterosexual, cis-gendered men and women remain the assumed and expected subjects in sexual violence encounters (Brooks Dollar, 2017;Shannon & Smith, 2017). Further, given compulsory heterosexuality (Rich, 1980) and pervasive heteronormativity (King, 2016), 'neutrality' in language may simply be reifying the very heteronormative binary "…classifications that bind us to injustice" (Brooks Dollar, 2017, p. 11).
The normalisation of sexual violence as a heterosexual experience has influenced the framing of legislation regarding sexual offences, in general, and higher education sexual violence policies, in particular. In the USA, the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act (2013) was originally written for the protection of women on campus (Wooten, 2016). Increased scrutiny regarding the inclusiveness of federal policy led to a revision of the Campus SaVE Act; it is now gender-neutral and includes same-sex assaults (Wooten, 2016). In Australia, before the 1980s, gendered language within legislation resulted in only men being charged with sexual offences against women (Piccirillo, 2019). For example, Victoria's Crimes Act 1928 exclusively named females as victims of offences such as rape and indecent assault, and males as the offenders (Boxall et al., 2014). Following the passage of the Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 1980, gendered language was replaced with gender-neutral terms such as "person" (Boxall et al., 2014, pp. 72-81).
Most universities develop and implement clear behaviourbased policies and responses regarding sexual violence. The way in which policies are framed, in terms of the language and words used, can embed gendered notions, problematic gender expectations and assumptive concepts related to sex, sexuality, gender and inclusivity (Musselman et al., 2020;Wooten, 2016). Enke's (2016) critical discourse analysis of three focus groups of US college students found a prevalence for heteronormative discourses within participants' understanding of sexual violence, typically positioning women as victim-survivors and men as perpetrators. DeLong et al.'s (2018) study of sexual assault policies from 24 US universities noted that they typically position females as victimsurvivors and males as perpetrators. In an analysis of sexual violence policies from 22 US universities, Iverson (2015, p. 23) revealed a "discourse of risk" which constructed women as physically vulnerable and overlooked, by omission, other potential victim-survivors. DeLong et al. (2018) and Worthen and Wallace (2017) agree that US university sexual assault policies are inherently gendered and heteronormatively framed.
As more is known about female victim-survivors of sexual violence compared with male and sexuality and gender diverse students, university sexual violence policies are likely to be informed by gendered information (DeLong et al., 2018;Turchik, 2012). Worthen and Wallace's (2017) mixed-methods study of 1899 US university students found some sexuality and gender diverse students expressed dissatisfaction with the heteronormative biases present in sexual violence education material. Bisexual students viewed online sexual assault education programs as 'valueless'. Sexuality and gender diverse students are also more likely to perceive that their university does not respond to sexual violence issues in ways which meet their needs (Krebs et al., 2016;Worthen & Wallace, 2017). Hames' (2007) study at South Africa's University of the Western Cape drew attention to the binarized understandings of gender in higher education policy frameworks, which failed to acknowledge sexual orientation or sexual identity. Cahill (2017) suggests that universities should write policies that counter, rather than assume, heteronormative, patriarchal models of sexual interaction. From their study of sexual violence policies from 72 universities in Canada, Lee and Wong (2019) suggest that institutions should focus on ensuring that policies are sufficiently comprehensive to handle the complexities of sexual violence, including the experiences and needs of sexuality and gender diverse victim-survivors and perpetrators. Simmons (2017, p. 266) contends that many US higher education institutions are "inconsistent and superficial" in their implementation of inclusive policies. Using data from End Rape on Campus (EROC), Schulze and Budd's (2020) study revealed that 67% of 118 US universities was listed as being inclusive in their definition of sexual violence. From their research involving Black, female, lesbian students at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa, Naidu and Mutumbara (2017) suggest that university policy changes, which recognise sexuality and gender diversity, seem to have made policy more satisfactory rather than transformative: stopping short of "…addressing the inclusion of full sexual citizenship" for sexuality and gender diverse students (p. 50).
It remains unclear how well universities and colleges account for and/or address gender identity and sexual orientation in their policies (Schulze & Budd, 2020). Coulter and Rankin (2020) suggest that inclusive sexual violence policy interventions have not been exhaustively examined in higher education populations. In Australia, the AHRC (2017) found sexual violence to be rooted in university culture and expressed concern about existing policies and procedures (Piccirillo, 2019). The current study draws from and expands previous AHRC (2017) research by examining the extent to which assumptive concepts in language, relating to gender, sexuality and inclusivity, are evident within sexual violence policies in Australian universities. This study, in no way, diminishes the recognition of or effects for women, as the most likely victim-survivors of sexual violence.

Methods
This study examined the presence and extent of assumptive concepts in language related to gender, sexuality and inclusivity within sexual violence policies from a sample of Australian universities. Research suggests that sexual violence policies are often heteronormatively framed and ignore the victimisation of sexuality and gender diverse persons, and of men (DeLong et al., 2018;Enke, 2016;Worthen & Wallace, 2017). In Australia, limited research has explored the language of university sexual violence policies from the perspective of gender and inclusivity. The current study sought to fill this gap, by employing a summative approach to content analysis to examine the language concepts of sexual violence policy and to identify any underlying gendered and sexuality-based assumptions (Aroustamian, 2020;Hsieh & Shannon, 2005;Kuskoff & Parsell, 2021).

Scope
Sexual violence policies from ten universities in the Australian state of Victoria were examined: the sample comprised all of the state's public universities plus one national institution with two campuses located in Victoria. All policies were publicly available and covered university requirements and responses with respect to sexual violence affecting students, staff and visitors-on or off campus. Policies were identified and collected in December 2020 via a series of online 'Google' searches using the terms 'sexual violence policy', 'sexual assault policy', 'sexual harassment policy' and 'sexual misconduct policy', followed by the name of each university. This approach is similar to that employed by Lund and Thomas (2015) and Graham et al. (2017) in their studies assessing campus sexual assault policies in the USA. Across the ten universities, 17 policy documents were located and are summarised in Table 1.

Analysis
The 17 policies were examined to explore how each university frames sexual violence in relation to gender-specific 1 3 and gender-neutral language and to identify the presence and extent of assumptive concepts related to gender, sexuality and inclusivity. The use of assumptive concepts in language can form barriers that prevent a particular issue from being addressed and limit the potential benefits or effectiveness of a policy (Kuskoff & Parsell, 2021). Sexual violence policies may encompass implicit (or explicit) ideals and assumptions that subvert their proposed focus.
A summative approach to content analysis was employed to analyse how the policies conceptualise sexual violence as a gendered or non-gendered issue and to explore university sexual violence policies in relation to their inclusion of male-identifying and sexuality and gender diverse victimsurvivors. Summative content analysis involves identifying and quantifying specific keywords or content within text, for purposes of interpreting and understanding their contextual use (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The quantification of words explores their usage, and the interpretation indicates their possible underlying meaning (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The interpretation of the language used may identify how it privileges particular ways of doing, thinking and being, over others (Montessori et al., 2019).
This study draws from Hsieh and Shannon's (2005) explanation of summative content analysis, as well as Aroustamian's (2020) study of 195 US newspaper articles, which examined how victim-survivors and perpetrators of highly publicised sexual violence cases are represented, and Kuskoff and Parsell's (2021) recent Australian study examining embedded assumptions in explicitly gendered policy documents and how language is used to formulate different problem representations of domestic violence.
To identify the nature and extent of any gendered framing within the 17 sexual violence policies examined, each policy was read line-by-line and coded for the presence of specific terms and language related to gender, sexuality and inclusivity. This process began with a top-down, deductive approach in which a predetermined set of keywords were chosen for coding. The policy documents were manually searched for the inclusion of gender-neutral ('they', 'them', 'their', 'person', 'individual', 'someone', 'anyone') and gender-specific terms ('he', 'him', 'male', 'man', 'men', 'boy', 'she', 'her', 'female', 'women', 'woman', 'girl'). The word frequency counts for each identified term were calculated within each individual policy and across all 17 policies. This allowed for patterns in the data to be identified and the contextualising of word usage. The 17 policies were also coded for the presence of each term in accompanying the construct 'victim' or 'perpetrator' and their equivalents. The policies were then examined for language indicative of heteronormative framing and broader inclusivity with respect to sexual violence victimisation. The interpretation component of the summative approach to content analysis allows for the underlying context associated with the use of certain words or language (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), and the embedded assumptions present in policies, to be uncovered.

Study Limitations
The research scope comprised ten universities located in Victoria. Therefore, the findings cannot be generalised across all Australian universities. The summative approach to content analysis focused on policy framing and perceived intent. No

Results
The research findings consider the policies with respect to their inclusivity from a gender and sexuality perspective.
The overall results are discussed in the final section of the paper. Table 2 summarises the results for the presence of genderneutral terms within the 17 university policies.
Gender-neutral terms are used consistently by each university. When describing students, staff and visitors, all policies used the terms 'they', 'them', 'their' or 'person'. The terms 'individual' and 'someone' were also used by all but Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) and Australian Catholic University (ACU). All gender-neutral terms coded were used in the policies to describe 'students' and 'teachers' in a non-gender-specific way.
Policies consistently used 'person', 'someone' or 'anyone' when defining specific terms, such as 'consent', 'sexual harassment', 'sexual assault', 'respondent', 'complainant' and 'victimisation'. These descriptors are gender-neutral and inclusive. Importantly, policies which define the complainant (or discloser) and respondent (or complaint receiver) do not assign a specific gender to such individuals. Nine of the universities (90%) used gender-neutral terms when outlining support services available following an incident of sexual violence, including 'person', 'student/s', 'staff', 'staff member', 'resident', 'visitor' and 'associate/s'. This implies that individuals of any gender or individuals who reject gender categories entirely can be victim-survivors of sexual violence and can, therefore, access support services. Swinburne University (SWIN) did not include any sexual violence support services within their policy. Table 3 summarises the results for the presence of genderspecific terms within the 17 university policies.
Five (50%) of the universities used one or more genderspecific term in their sexual violence policies. Gender-specific language was used when defining specific terms, such as 'sexual harassment' and 'gender identity', and/or when outlining available support services. Gender-specific language was not used by these universities to explicitly exclude other gender identities, outside of the male/female construct, but its use could exclude by implication.
ACU used the terms 'males' and 'females' when defining 'sexual harassment'. Their Staff Sexual Misconduct Policy states that sexual harassment can take many forms, including being "…perpetrated by males and females against people of the same or opposite sex" (p. 4). This includes both males and females as potential victim-survivors and perpetrators of sexual violence and is inclusive of individuals in nonheterosexual relationships. However, it does not specifically consider people of other gender identities, or individuals who reject gender categories.
Deakin University (DEAKIN) used the term 'female' when defining 'sexual touching'. Their Sexual Harm Prevention and Response Policy states "…touching may be sexual due to the area of the body that is touched or used in the touching, including (but not limited to) the genital or anal region, the buttocks or, in the case of a female or a person who identifies as a female, the breasts…" (p. 5). The gendered term 'female' is present but does not exclude other gender identities.  Anyone'  DEAKIN, FED, LT, RMIT, SWIN, VIC  60  'Individual'  ACU, DEAKIN, DIVINITY, FED, LT, MELB, MON, SWIN, VIC  90  'Person  ACU, DEAKIN, DIVINITY, FED, LT, MELB, MON,   The terms 'female' and 'male' are used by Federation University (FED) when defining 'sex', 'gender identity' and 'intersex status'. They also use inclusive language such as "…something other, or in between" male and female, "… with or without regard to sex designated at birth…" and "…neither wholly female nor wholly male, or a combination of female and male" (Equal Opportunity and Valuing Diversity Policy, p. 2). The term 'women' is used by FED to describe populations in the university community that may face diminished participation and achievement due to gender inequality (Equal Opportunity and Valuing Diversity Policy, p. 7).
Victoria University (VIC) used the terms 'women' and 'men' in their Sexual Harassment Response Policy, stating that "…the laws relating to sexual harassment apply equally to women and men" (p. 3). While this indicates both men and women can be victim-survivors of sexual harassment, this aspect of the policy ignores individuals of other gender identities and those who reject gender categories. This is contradicted by the university's acknowledgement of "… the experiences, needs and perspectives of distinct populations, including…those who identify as transgender or gender diverse, those who identify as LGBTQ + …" (Sexual Harassment Response Policy, p. 3).
The term 'women' is used by Monash University (MON), when outlining the sexual misconduct support and advice services available for students (Sexual Misconduct Response Procedure, p. 2). This may limit the types of services available within the policy to women only. Similarly, VIC used the terms 'men' and 'women' when outlining support services for sexual violence victim-survivors: 'Men's Referral Service' and 'Women's Information & Referral Exchange'. However, VIC also includes 'Q Life', a sexual violence support service for sexuality and gender diverse persons.
Only MON used the terms 'she' and 'he' when defining consent. Their Sexual Misconduct Response Procedure states "…a person does not freely agree to an act in circumstances including…the person submits because she or he is unlawfully detained…" (p. 6). This implies only individuals who identify as female or male can be unlawfully detained as a (potential) victim-survivor of sexual violence and, therefore, may not be perceived as inclusive of individuals who do not use 'she/her' or 'he/him' pronouns, who do not identify as female or male, or who reject gender categories entirely.
The policies of seven (70%) universities recognise the need to be specifically inclusive of underrepresented, marginalised and/or vulnerable populations, such as sexuality and gender diverse persons. Most commonly, policies included a clear statement that sexual violence can affect anyone regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race or dis/ability. ACU, LT and VIC are the three universities that do not include such a statement. When explaining who can experience sexual violence, DEAKIN specifically references "higher risk cohorts" which include sexuality and gender diverse students, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and persons with a disability. This approach recognises and specifically includes populations within the university community who may be more vulnerable to sexual violence.
When defining 'sex', 'gender identity', 'intersex status' and 'sexual orientation', FED is inclusive of people who do and do not identify as female or male, and of heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. Similarly, MON's policy acknowledges "…sexual misconduct can involve behaviour by, or toward, a person of any sex, gender…and sexuality…" (Sexual Misconduct Response Procedure, p. 1). RMIT states that "…sexual harassment can impact anyone regardless of their sex, gender identity or sexual orientation" (Sexual Harassment Policy, p. 1). University of Melbourne (MELB) also states "…sexual misconduct can involve behaviour by a person of any sex, sexual orientation and gender identity" (p. 5). SWIN "…commits to eliminate…any source of direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of gender…(and) sexual orientation…" (People, Culture and Integrity Policy, p. 3). DIVINITY states individuals cannot be discriminated against based on gender identity, gender, sexual orientation and/or sex. MELB's policy expresses that "…all people have the right to live, work, study and socialise in an environment that is free from sexual misconduct regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, immigration status and citizenship status" (Sexual Misconduct Policy and Procedure, p. 4).

Discussion
This study found that the majority of the Australian university sexual violence policies examined acknowledge the potential breadth of sexual violence and do not presume that it occurs only within heterosexual relationships or that it is something only men do to women. This is a significant finding: it differs from previous, primarily US-focused, research which has repeatedly reported that sexual violence policies are typically heteronormatively framed (DeLong et al., 2018;Worthen & Wallace, 2017) and ignore the sexual victimisation of men (Chapleau et al., 2008;Reitz-Krueger et al., 2017;Turchik, 2012) and of sexuality and gender diverse persons (Enke, 2016). The policies implemented by these Australian universities have largely moved away from the traditional narrative of sexual violence, which can ignore non-heterosexual incidents, male victimisation and the experiences of sexuality and gender diverse and gender-nonconforming individuals. These findings align with recommendations made by Garvey et al. (2017) that university sexual violence policies should state clearly that they "…serve any person regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation, and regardless of the gender identity and sexual orientation of the perpetrator" (p. 165).
Inclusion and exclusion are actively perpetuated through language choices (Šorli, 2020. The gender neutrality and level of inclusivity found across this sample of Australian university sexual violence policies may suggest a conscious effort to avoid using language and words which may be interpreted as discriminatory and exclusionary or imply that sexual violence is experienced only by women at the hands of men (Bates et al., 2019;Butler, 1990;Enke, 2016;McCauley et al., 2019;Rich, 1980;Wooten, 2016). However, this was not definitively proven by the findings of the current study due to the methods deployed and, therefore, more research is needed to examine this further.
Through moving away from the common heteronormative narrative of sexual violence, the use of gender-neutral and inclusive language within these Australian universities' sexual violence policies may help victim-survivors of all genders and sexualities to recognise their unwanted sexual experiences as a form of sexual violence. This may also indicate Australian universities' commitment to encouraging reporting of sexual violence; a common barrier to reporting pertains to victim-survivors not recognising their experiences as a form of sexual violence (Fisher et al., 2000;Wilson & Miller, 2016). Sexuality and gender diverse victim-survivors, for example, are less likely to report sexual violence due to a lack of acknowledgment of their vulnerability and fears of discrimination (Calton et al., 2016). By acknowledging sexuality and gender diverse persons and using gender-neutral and inclusive language, the sexual violence policies examined in this study may help sexuality and gender diverse individuals overcome these barriers and increase sexual violence incident reporting.
As well as promoting inclusivity and acknowledging the complex reality of sexual violence, these findings are important in the context of the potential wider effects of such policies. Kettrey and Marx (2019) note that young adults may be more likely to reject traditional gendered explanations of sexual violence and respond more positively to gender-neutral explanations that employ inclusive language and acknowledge a wider range of victim-survivors and perpetrators. Gender-neutral terms, such as 'person' or 'people' can be used to refer to all people equally and literally, which is inclusive of transgender, sexuality and gender diverse, non-binary and gender-nonconforming persons, as well as men and women (Marinucci, 2010). As the more outdated sexual violence stereotypes were not evident within the Australian policies examined, sexuality and gender diverse persons and male victim-survivors may be better able to perceive and position themselves as victim-survivors and seek out and access essential support services.
This study found no instances where the terms 'victim' and 'perpetrator' are accompanied by a gender-specific descriptor. There was no embedded presumption that women are victim-survivors and men are perpetrators of sexual violence. Most policies examined acknowledged that any 'person' can be a potential victim-survivor or perpetrator of sexual violence, and that sexual violence can occur within any relationship, interaction or encounter. This finding aligns to some degree with Schulze and Budd (2020), who found that 67% of 118 US universities presented a definition of sexual violence within a policy, inclusive of acts applicable to all individuals and not just to those who identify as a cisgender woman or man. However, the current study differs from other notable findings. Iverson's (2015, p. 23) "discourse of risk" constructs women as physically vulnerable victims, and Bedera and Nordmeyer (2015) note that sexual violence prevention information typically advises women of their vulnerability. As a range of research has found that sexuality or gender diverse college students are at a similar or greater risk of sexual victimisation than their heterosexual cisgender counterparts (Coulter et al., 2017;Edwards et al., 2015;Griner et al., 2020;McCauley et al., 2020), it is essential for university sexual violence policies to acknowledge the needs and realities of sexuality and gender diverse students.
A notable exception to the general level of inclusivity is the use of gender-specific terms by ACU and MON when defining 'sexual harassment' and 'consent', respectively. The embedded implication is that only individuals identifying as female or male can be either victim-survivors or perpetrators of sexual violence. This potentially undermines the overall level of inclusivity as there is no acknowledgment of non-binary or gender-nonconforming individuals. Iverson (2015) suggests universities in the USA use 'she/he' to refer to the subjects in sexual violence policies, as an effort to be "ungendered" or "neutrally gendered", and "reject heteronormative descriptions of sexuality" (p. 27). However, this may be perceived as not inclusive of individuals who do not use 'she/her' or 'he/him' pronouns, nor identify as female or male. It is possible that ACU is influenced by its religious affiliation in its use of gender-specific terms within its sexual violence policy. US students who report having religious beliefs are less supportive of sexuality and gender diverse persons (Enke, 2016;Finlay & Walther, 2003;Woodford et al., 2012). This may suggest that religiously affiliated universities are less supportive of sexuality and gender diverse students (Hughes, 2019). However, little research exists in relation to the environment within Catholic universities for sexuality and gender diverse students (Hughes, 2019), particularly regarding experiences of sexual violence. Given this and the anomalous finding in the current study, the relationship between university religious affiliation and sexuality and gender diverse persons' experiences of sexual violence merits specific examination in future research.
A further anomalous finding came from VIC's acknowledgement of "…the experiences, needs and perspectives of distinct populations, including…those who identify as transgender or gender diverse, those who identify as LGBTQ + …", followed by the use of the terms 'women' and 'men' to explain to whom sexual harassment laws apply. The wording is contradictory as it initially implies all individuals are included in sexual violence discourse, but then describes sexual harassment as only occurring between women and men. Such an apparent lack of care in the way that polices are worded may inhibit an individual's ability to perceive themselves as a victim-survivor of sexual violence. VIC may be trying to adhere to legal provisions by including the explanation of sexual harassment laws. These laws can be gendered and non-inclusive of sexuality and gender diverse persons, and people who reject gender categories entirely. For example, in Victorian legislation, Sect. 92 of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) states that "…a person sexually harasses another person if he or she….". As this is Victorian law, VIC may be conflicted by wanting to produce a legally accurate sexual violence policy. VIC may benefit from citing federal legislation within its sexual violence policy: the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (s.28A(1)) uses 'person' rather than 'he' or 'she' with respect to sexual harassment.
There are arguments for and against the use of gender-neutral language in relation to sexual violence, but problems of gender inequality, pervasive heteronormativity and the lack of inclusion of sexuality and gender diverse persons cannot be solved by changes to language alone (Šorli, 2020). It is possible to acknowledge and stress the typically gendered nature of sexual violence while still using gender-neutral language that is more inclusive for all victim-survivors, specifically sexuality and gender diverse people. Continuing to interrogate and critique assumptive concepts in language remains important as words "…can be used both to empower and create change, and to form stereotypes and breed mistrust" (King, 2016, p. 17). It is also acknowledged that using gender-neutral language within sexual violence policy may lead people to feel as though they are excluded if their identities have not been explicitly named (Brooks Dollar, 2017;Shannon & Smith, 2017). An additional consideration concerns the risk of forced 'outing' of sexuality and gender diverse victim-survivors of sexual violence. Although the sexual violence policies examined in this study may be inclusive, they cannot account for the potential uncertainty generated by policies and practices for sexuality and gender diverse persons who are not 'out'. Further, resolution processes and strategies deployed by universities when handling sexual violence reports may prevent 'closeted' sexuality and gender diverse persons from engaging in formal justice processes. This point is beyond the scope of the paper but is an important area for future research to explore.

Conclusion
The Australian university sexual violence policies included in this study do not align with the common narrative that typically frames sexual violence as a heteronormative experience.
The findings are notable in that the Australian university sexual violence policies examined do acknowledge the breadth of sexual violence-this differs from similar research which has mostly been conducted in the USA. Higher education communities, and society in general, should strive for more inclusive and gender-neutral depictions of sexual violence, which acknowledge a wider range of victim-survivors and perpetrators (Kettrey & Marx, 2019). University policymakers may draw from the sample of policies included in this study when developing or revising their sexual violence policies.
As the research scope comprised ten universities located in the state of Victoria, the findings cannot be generalised across all Australian universities. The content analysis of keywords and content focussed on assumptive concepts within language and perceived intent. Nothing can be inferred about the operation of the policies or the effect of the language used. The project is now extending the scope of this study to incorporate a national sample of universities. In addition, the project is exploring the perceptions and experiences of sexual violence policies for all university members, including persons who are underrepresented in terms of gender and sexuality-to look beyond the words and to examine their operational effect and effectiveness.
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Availability of Data and Material
All data is publicly available, as described in this report.

Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.