Das Präsidium
Three questions about “gender-neutral language”

The declared aims of the German Academy for Language and Literature include the two following:
- To attentively follow the development of language in conjunction with the competence of linguists, literature and literary criticism. - To support the free exchange of opinions in speech and writing and contribute to a differentiated culture of debate.

No other question concerning the German language is being discussed as fiercely as that of its “gender fairness”. It is not new; the German Academy for Language and Literature already devoted its 1991 autumn conference to this question under the title Does the German Language Have a Gender? A glance at the conference report shows that many of the opinions expressed then are still shaping the debate today. The issue, however, has become more controversial, expanding from the question of whether women are linguistically disadvantaged to cover a whole “gender spectrum”, and it has resulted in a number of fiercely contested proposals for gender-sensitive modes of expression.

When it comes to public controversies about the German language, we do not see ourselves as judges; that would not be possible if only because the members of the German Academy for Language and Literature often hold very different views in these cases. We cannot even be arbitrators, because the current proposals are difficult to reconcile. However, in the spirit of the aims mentioned above, we can perhaps contribute to a free and fair exchange of opinions and encourage a discriminating culture of debate, not by comparing the various positions and their justifications, but by proposing the deliberation of three fundamental questions that govern the use of gender-neutral language. In the following text, the Executive Committee of the German Academy for Language and Literature makes such a proposal.

What kind of discrimination are we talking about?

1) It is not usually up to legislators and public authorities to decide on the rules of the German language or to change them. Where state intervention is needed, for example in the teaching of German in schools, it must be guided by what the generally recognised grammars and dictionaries say about the German language. However, the state is also responsible for upholding the equality guaranteed by the German constitution (Basic Law); this may also apply to language, for example regarding the right to a translator in court or the right to clarity in consumer contracts. In principle, however, the authorities should interfere as little as possible with the freedom of those who use the German language.

2) Not all social groups are equally “visible” in public. Is this a disadvantage in the sense of the Basic Law that may need to be compensated for? It has long been argued by representatives of feminist linguistics that the German language as it is currently used is an important cause of women being less visible in public than men. This is especially true for the use of grammatical masculines where both genders are meant. According to this view, this kind of asymmetry and discrimination may already be present in Article 5 of the Basic Law itself: “Jeder hat das Recht, seine Meinung in Wort, Schrift und Bild frei zu äußern.” (Everyone has the right to express his opinion freely in speech, writing and pictures.) In this sentence, Jeder and seine (everyone and his) are grammatical masculines.

3) About half of all languages have no grammatical gender distinction, Chinese and Japanese are well-known examples with Turkish and Hungarian in Europe; in others it is extremely reduced, for example in English, where it is limited to he and she (plus inflected forms). Are women more publicly visible in societies with these languages than in German-speaking countries? This is difficult to determine, and no reliable comparative studies are known.

What are the linguistic facts?

4) In German, all nouns, whether they refer to a living being or not, have a grammatical gender. It determines inflection and agreement, but does not directly say anything about the natural gender of the thing named. However, most German words for female living beings are grammatically feminine, most for male living beings are masculine; characteristic exceptions are diminutives such as Mädchen (girl) or words such as die Person, die Geisel, die Koryphäe, (person, hostage, eminence) which are used to refer not only to women. The prevailing correlation of grammatical gender with natural gender means that grammatical masculines are often indirectly associated with “the male sex” and feminines with “the female sex” in living beings. The strength of this association varies; for example, no one would think that in the sentence Auf der Fensterbank döste eine Katze in der Sonne (A cat dozed in the sun on a windowsill) the cat could not be a tomcat. Likewise, Der Hund stammt vom Wolf ab (The dog descended from the wolf) does not mean that only male dogs descended from wolves. The controversy, however, concerns mainly people; there the association between grammatical gender and natural gender is particularly strong, especially when it is supported by extra-linguistic facts, such as typical professions. Thus, even in English, “doctor” is primarily associated with “the male sex”, although it has no grammatical gender.

5) In the case of living beings, it is possible in German to add a female gender marker to a simple masculine noun by using the derivational suffix -in; the grammatical gender of the noun then becomes regularly feminine. With persons, this is very common (Lehrerin, Diebin – female teacher, female thief); with animals, it is used only occasionally (Hündin, Löwin – bitch, lioness). There is no comparable suffix for male gender. Therefore, the simple forms Lehrer, Dieb (teacher, thief) can be understood in two ways: (A) neutral, i.e. they do not make any indication of gender and can therefore be used for women, men or even intersexuals, or (B) restrictive, i.e. they apply exclusively to men. The neutral interpretation (A) is the conventional one; it corresponds to the gender-neutral forms in closely related languages (English teacher, thief, Dutch leraar, dief), and it largely corresponds to the factual use of language in history and the present. When we say Der Halter haftet (The male license holder is liable), this is true regardless of gender, and a sentence like Die meisten Diebe sind Männer (Most thieves are men) would be meaningless if Diebe (thieves) referred only to men, just as Viele Diebinnen sind Frauen (Many female thieves are women) is meaningless.
The restrictive interpretation (B) can refer to the fact that where – implicitly or explicitly – an antithesis is involved, the simple, grammatically masculine form is only used to refer to men, for example in Lehrer verdienen im Schnitt mehr als Lehrerinnen (Male teachers earn more on average than female teachers) or Es gibt weitaus mehr Diebe als Diebinnen (There are far more male thieves than female thieves). Otherwise the contrast would be meaningless. It is therefore easiest to summarise the facts by saying that simple forms such as Lehrer or Dieb (teacher or thief) are gender-neutral in terms of word meaning, but that in certain contexts – especially when a contrast is expressed or implied – they can be restricted to “male living beings”. Such contexts may occasion debates about gender-equitable language.

6) In German, there are no grammatical means and only a few lexical means to refer specifically to persons who do not clearly identify themselves as men or women – or identify themselves as both. The Prussian Civil Code of 1794 speaks of the Zwitter (hermaphrodite) as er (he), using the masculine; since 2013, the modern German Civil Status Law speaks of Personen, die sich nicht dauerhaft dem männlichen oder dem weiblichen Geschlecht zuordnen lassen (persons who cannot be permanently assigned to the male or female gender), using the feminine (die Person). In both cases, however, the biological distinction is meant, not a concept of “gender” that goes beyond that. If one sees words like Lehrer, Dieb, Person as sexually neutral (interpretation A), then they are by definition also “gender-neutral”. With interpretation B, only men would be meant; so alternative forms of expression are needed. The best-known proposal uses a new sign, the “gender asterisk” together with the suffix -in and the feminine article: die Lehrer*in, die Dieb*in; at the same time, feminine nouns like Person are considered gender-neutral from the start. In other words, the grammatical masculine is not considered neutral, but the grammatical feminine is. There is a certain inconsistency here. The “gender asterisk”, however, does not create an expression specifically for people who feel neither male nor female – or both – but is meant to imply gender neutrality. In this respect, however, Lehrer*in and Dieb*in say no more than the simple forms Lehrer and Dieb, as long as the context does not suggest a restriction.

How should we use the German language?

7) We can look at the question of “fair language” from a legal point of view and in terms of linguistic facts. We can also evaluate these facts according to various aspects – moral, practical, or aesthetic. As with all such evaluations, there are individual differences here. The Executive Committee of the German Academy for Language and Literature holds these opinions:
- The use of language, like all action, should be guided by respect for one’s fellow human beings; this includes avoiding terms that may offend others.
- The language of law and administration should, as far as possible, be plain and clear so that it can be understood by all concerned; this applies in particular to all those who have special difficulties in understanding such texts.
- One should avoid clumsiness and strive for deliberate expression not only in literature but also in other fields of language use, especially in the media.

These criteria for good language use are not always easy to fulfil, especially where they are contradictory; therefore, there can be no simple rules. We also have to differentiate with whom we communicate and by what means – spoken language, written language, new media – and what our intentions are. For all this, the German language has developed over the centuries an almost inexhaustible repertoire of expressive possibilities. All Sprecher, Sprecher und Sprecherinnen, SprecherInnen, Sprecher!innen, Sprecher_innen, Sprecher*innen, Sprecher/innen, Sprecherïnnen, Sprechex und Sprechys (speakers) are called upon to make good use of this wealth. Advice can be given on how to do it; no one should presume to set general rules or even guidelines.

The Executive Committee of the German Academy for Language and Literature, July 2019

Möchten Sie den Beitrag kommentieren? Schicken Sie uns Ihre Meinung, wir veröffentlichen sie nach redaktioneller Prüfung.