Gender-appropriate language: not everything changes even with female astronauts

Icon: enlarge

American astronaut Sally Ride 1983: Don't you have any other problems?

Photo: Gado / Smith Collection / Getty Images

How much longer will we play this game?

The game goes like this: some institution decides on a more gender-fair language than before.

Conservative men explain why this is a pointless buckling in front of the feminist mob, against the rules of the sacred German language, against the Basic Law or just against their aesthetic feelings.

They explain it on newspaper pages or in open letters, they whine about the Internet.

Why?

Instead of simply saying which would be more honest: that it annoys you.

Margarete Stokowski, arrow to the right

Photo: 

Rosanna Graf

Born in 1986, was born in Poland and grew up in Berlin.

She studied philosophy and social sciences and has been working as a freelance writer since 2009.

Her feminist bestseller "Bottom Rum Free" was published in 2016 by Rowohlt Verlag.

In 2018, »The Last Days of Patriarchy« followed, a collection of columns from SPIEGEL and »taz«.

Just say that it annoys you to "gender", as one says colloquially, which is of course not entirely correct, because even texts in which the masculine form is used for all groups of people are "gendered", just: masculine .

Just say that it annoys you to mention women, to use an underscore or an asterisk, or any of the other inclusive, non-binary variants.

Why all these fancy arguments when it really comes down to one thing: that some people find it difficult to change their language and have different priorities?

It might not be cool and not progressive, but at least it would be more understandable and more humane than embarrassing yourself with makeshift reasons.

A popular objection to gender equitable language is: Don't you have any other problems?

Feminist language would really not change anything, while in other countries women are not even allowed to drive and so on.

There are basically two objections: there are more important things and there are no effects.

The thing is: Of course there are more important things, which is why it's so silly to discuss it with offended boomers every time.

Anyone who says »Gendergaga« has given up completely in terms of language aesthetics anyway.

Nobody believes that fairer language changes everything.

But even through quotas for women, free tampons in public toilets or interviews with female astronauts, »everything« does not change.

It has been explained a million times why it is right and necessary to use gender-sensitive language, among other things because studies have shown that people do not use the male form of a group name to represent all genders.

In most cases this change does not cost anything, except maybe a quarter of a second speaking or a few punctuation marks while writing.

There are enough people who just do it, and they still manage to take care of other things.

You have to learn that, of course.

For example, ARD boss Tom Buhrow said in an interview that when presenters like Anne Will speak of »politicians«, it seems »artificial« to him, since it has so far »not passed into everyday use«.

It's like clothing: "Anything that distracts you in any way means that you no longer focus on the topic." It's cute, but also really silly when a seasoned journalist with a management position says he is because of gender equitable language can no longer concentrate on the topic.

more on the subject

• Dispute over gender-neutral Berlinale prizes: no gender star will riseA comment by Hannah Pilarczyk

• Gender equitable language: Who is afraid of the "gender madness"? A guest commentary by Liane Bednarz

• Anonymous teacher confession: Get rid of the gender word monsters!

• Gender-appropriate language: "It's also about giving up power" By Elisa von Hof

The same applies to the objection that "gendered" texts are "illegible", often brought forward by people who speak various foreign languages ​​and who are also generally intellectually able to keep up with them.

Often this objection is then justified with aesthetics - it would just look ugly to use a gender asterisk - and put forward under the catchphrase »gendergaga«, but, to be honest: Anyone who says »gendergaga« has given up completely in terms of language aesthetics anyway .

Resistance from Linguistics

But back to suitability for everyday use: It is a popular objection that »in reality« nobody speaks like that and / or that gender-equitable language is an elite project from the very top.

(Quote: "Language control is brainwashing", Sabine Mertens, Association of German Language.) From our fees, in public law!

It is not suitable for everyday use to say the underscore or the gender asterisk by taking a short break before the "inside".

But: a lot of people already talk like that, especially young people.

Even people who are not overly progressive often simply use the feminine and masculine form, for example saying "teachers", and that is still binary, so two and no more genders, but: For the beginning it is enough and is not so hard.  

Even the argument that the whole underline and asterisk thing is only intended for writing and does not work verbally does not work, because firstly there is the possibility of speaking for a short pause (keyword "glottic stroke" sounds more complicated than it is , it just sounds like "teachers").

And secondly: Even if it were only customary in writing, that would not be a counter-argument, because things like "Kind regards ..." or the semicolon do not appear in the spoken language and nobody wants to abolish them.

Another objection: gender-based forms are illogical, for example when you say "students" instead of "students".

They don't always study, they also do other things, so it makes no sense to always refer to them as "studying".

But: That's how we talk otherwise. When we talk about "breastfeeding mothers" who shouldn't take a drug, we don't mean: When breastfeeding, they shouldn't swallow this tablet at the same time, but neither before and after.

You already understand.

In general, logic: difficult.

Opponents of gender-sensitive language often argue that women are included in male forms such as "citizens".

But when the Ministry of Justice recently formulated a draft law entirely in the feminine form, so that men were "included", the anger was great: The text was "most likely unconstitutional," said the Interior Ministry.

If women were as sensitive as the opponents of this text, they would only be reporting and complaining.

There is also resistance from the linguistic sciences, so recently in the »FAZ«.

The reason was the announcement that the Duden - is nothing sacred anymore?

- Now “gender-sensitive revision” is to be done: “All around 12,000 person and job titles should be changed in such a way that in future there will be two word articles instead of one word article, one for the male and one for the female form,” reports Deutschlandfunk.

In the future, a tenant will be described as a "male person who has rented something".

more on the subject

• Personal and job titles: Online dude wants to make female forms more visible

• Dispute over gender-sensitive language: Minister Lambrecht's law now in "male" form

• Criticism of gender-sensitive language: "I wonder what these people are actually afraid of" An interview by Lisa Duhm

In the "FAZ" the retired linguistics professor Peter Eisenberg wrote: "Now the Duden is also buckling".

Eisenberg mainly argues against the gender star, which he finds wrong to write or speak, but which he has not even understood.

He writes: "The gender star is inserted into word forms or appended to them to show that they include all possible genders, including sexual orientations such as lesbian, trans, queer, bi, gay, inter, diverse and others."

That is simply wrong.

The gender star has nothing to do with sexual orientation, you can not find out from a word like "readers" whether they are lesbians.

"Inter" and "diverse" are also not sexual orientations, but rather descriptions of gender identity beyond male and female.

How seriously can you take someone who listens so little to the other side?

You don't have to do it perfectly

Eisenberg argued that those who use gender-sensitive language are not familiar enough with language: "The supporters of linguistic gender want to dictate rules for us, but they do not know the history of language." His reasoning goes back to antiquity, but it works with Gender-equitable writing and speaking is not about knowing the rules and customs since antiquity, but about trying out new forms.

It doesn't really matter in the end whether you go for the underscore or the asterisk or the colon or whatever.

You don't always have to do it perfectly.

I don't always get it right either.

For example, I sometimes say "friends of mine" even though it is a woman and a man.

Or something like: "When you talk to Horst, he doesn't listen to you at all." Why "to one"?

"One" would be more correct in my case, but it sounds strange to me.

Maybe not in ten years, who knows.

I also think it's silly when you write "guests".

But if you want to do it like that: Go ahead.

It's about making an effort to be fair.

If you don't want to go to the trouble, then you shouldn't, but then you should simply admit that you don't feel like it.

Then it won't be so embarrassing if at some point you find the energy to change it.

Icon: The mirror