Emancipation by inclusive language

IT STRIKES ME THAT Stephen Trott's article, "God as "she"? Include me out!" (29 July) fell foul of its own exclusive verbosity in one or two places.
The assumption made by so many men that one has to be feminist to be in support of inclusive language for prayer and worship puzzles me exceedingly. The issue has very little to do with feminism. On the contrary, it is closely linked to what Fr Trott is so anxious to preserve namely, accurate and faithful expression of the Church's understanding of God.
If God can happily compare Himself with a mother caring for a baby (Isaiah 44) and Jesus, without batting an eyelid can liken Himself to a hen (Luke 13), whatever are we worrying about? Surely it is not a question of converting God into a mother-figure, but rather of recognising, like Julian of Norwich in the 14th century, the reality of God/Jesus our Mother as well as that of God/Jesus our Father.
One question on Fr Trott's article jumped out at me as heavily loaded and thus offen sive: "...to what extent is the demand for such linguistic nicety merely the subjective desire of a minority for a greyer form of English)" Here I would query his use of "demand", "nicety", "subjective", "minority" and "greyer".
question them not because I am a feminist but bccause they are ifiaccurate. !Inclusive language helps me o emancipate both sexes, 4pd this is badly needed in tle Church today. If Fr Trott rre to read his article onto a tate and play it back, he would hear for himself that bondagi to subjectivity which he so deplores.
Regarding the so-called "minority" who are concerned about language, we seem to have forgotten tha about 70 per cent of the iractising Church are women. Of those I know, most would be in favour of inclusive language, though by no means all of these women could considcr themselves feminists.
It seems that th inclusive language brigade e now a majority group, and gaining in popularity.
Louise Swart.ston London W11