Should German neutralise its genders?
Opinions differ on the question of whether the German language needs gender-appropriate formulations. Franziska Schmid and Rudolf Friederich, employees of ETH Zurich, stand up for their position.
For
In today’s gender-aware environment, the German language uses the ending *Innen to denote that a noun could be referring to males or females: the word Studenten, for example, technically only refers to male students, but including *Innen adds the female form too. This approach has been the subject of much debate – but why? Mainly because the asterisk makes us stop and think. Language and thought have always influenced each other, and claiming that a masculine plural word like Studenten naturally includes women goes against the body of research clearly showing the opposite. Children draw Wissenschaftler – the supposedly neutral word for “scientists” – as men, not women.
Studying German at university, I spent a lot of time grappling with language and thought – but I have to admit that I never paid much attention to gender-neutral language. When Sarah Springman became Rector of ETH Zurich, she introduced a gender-neutral language requirement for Corporate Communications – reminding us that this was our duty as federal employees. I’m immensely grateful that she did this: I have since written hundreds of texts incorporating this principle, and the process has made me much more aware of what is at stake. Gender neutrality isn’t just a matter of style – it has a direct impact on how we see the world.
I love the clarity of the German language, its unambiguous distinctions. But this clarity also poses a problem: it applies a binary approach to people that favours the masculine. Detractors often argue that the language has always been that way – changing it would be ungrammatical. However, this ignores the fact that language is both standardised and living at the same time: in other words, we need rules but we also have the right to change them. Unfortunately, no single solution to this problem will make everyone happy. Some don’t want anything to do with gender-neutral approaches and some want to throw out the rule book altogether, but these extremes say more about their proponents than the language.
I would urge everyone to be part of the solution. Use gender-neutral language wherever you can. This could mean experimenting a little, swapping between feminine and masculine forms. Let your texts show that you’re engaging with the question of gender – however you do it, and however consistently. Even if your readers find your approach bemusing from time to time, they’ll stick with you. You’ll gain a greater awareness of gender issues – and you won’t be betraying the rules as much as you might think.
Against
My dear readers – or should I say, liebe Leser – imagine revisiting classic works of German literature and finding that they’ve been made gender-neutral using the asterisk (Bürger*Innen), the capitalised I (MitarbeiterInnen) or even the underscore (Student_innen). Think about a Thomas Mann novel, with its intricate sentences: not only would it be grammatically incorrect, it would also produce something unreadable, with none of the original flow.
Applying gender neutrality ignores the fact that grammatical genders have nothing to do with biological sex. Der Mann (“the man”) and der Knabe (“the boy”) take the masculine article and refer to biological males; die Frau (“the woman”) takes the feminine article and refers to a biological female; and das Mädchen (“the girl”) takes the neutral article – and refers to an object? Of course not.
Those in favour of gender neutrality argue that language shapes our perceptions, so we need to rid German of its patriarchal remnants. Their intentions might be good, but they get one crucial thing back to front: our perceptions inform how we use language. No society has ever undergone change as a result of artificial tinkering with its language.
Der Schriftsteller (“the writer” with the masculine article) probably used to conjure up the image of a man, but that is because it was also said to be a job for a man. In fact, the word Schriftsteller is intended to refer to a trade and all its members, whether they’re men or women.
Another method of applying gender neutrality but avoiding insertions like the asterisk is to change the noun form into die Studierenden or die Mitarbeitenden (literally “the studying ones” or “the working ones”), for example. This is grammatically incorrect, however, as it indicates that the people have their heads in books or are sitting at desks at the moment you are describing them. They are still “students” and “employees” in their free time, so why not stick with simply Studenten and Mitarbeiter?
Gender neutrality also loses points for inconsistency: there is no consensus about how to apply it, when and to what. Why do we use Bürger*innen (“the citizens”), for example, but never Straftäter*innen (“the criminals”) – only the masculine form Straftäter? And you’re telling me that’s not discrimination?
Clearly language changes over time: nobody who speaks German these days uses the language of Goethe. But language changes to simplify things, not complicate them. Indeed, readability is a vital part of what encourages us to read – and reading is what helps us form our opinions. And because women now have just as much right to read what they like as men do, to the women reading this article, I hope you felt included in my address of liebe Leser – as you should!
This article appeared in the current ETH magazine "life"
Comments
Additional comments are available for the German version of this article. Show all comments
Ich kann das Argument der Contra-Seite "das sagt die Grammatik" nicht nachvollziehen. Die Grammatik wurde von Menschen festgelegt, und genau wie viele andere Regeln/Gesetze unterzieht sie sich einem Wandel. Andere Menschen hätten die Grammatik vielleicht anders definiert. Deshalb kann die Grammatik auch angepasst werden, um auf gesellschaftlichen Wandel zu reagieren. Es wäre doch schlimm, würden Gesetze nicht angepasst werden, wenn sich die Gesellschaft verändert. Dann sähe es nämlich in vielen anderen Bereichen für Frauen und alle, die nicht dem Mehrheitsbild entsprechen, deutlich schlimmer aus. Ausserdem gibt es einen Unterschied zwischen Belletristik und Sachtexten. Während Sachtexte (z.B. Formulare, allgemeine Informationen, Gesetze, Bedienungsanleitungen) nicht dafür geschrieben wurden, Menschen beim Lesen zu packen und in andere Welten zu entführen, kann in meinen Augen bei der Belletristik gerne so geschrieben werden, wie es sich die Verfasserin wünscht. Bei "offiziellen" Dokumenten gilt es sich deshalb eher, sich der Wirkung auf die Leser:innen bewusst zu sein und für gender-neutrale Sprache zu entscheiden. "Vereinfachen" ist schön und gut. Wenn Vereinfachen aber bedeutet, Minderheiten auszuschliessen, kann auf dem Vereinfachen nicht die Priorität liegen. Und selten wurde gesellschaftlicher Wandel mit "Vereinfachung" erreicht. Im Gegenteil: Es wurde immer unbequem, wenn man die bestehenden Normen in Frage stellt.
As members of SWiSH (Society for Women in Social Sciences and Humanities, D-GESS), we consider it important to make the topic of gender equality visible at ETH. We also welcome that ETH had positioned itself in favor of gender-neutral language before. It is great to read comments like the one by Ms Schmid in which she describes the development of her personal opinion on this topic. From our perspective, it is necessary that more and more people consider it important and natural to integrate gender neutrality in their language. At the same time, we would like to seize this opportunity to take a clear stand against the Contra position – that notably comes from a very privileged male position. The aim should not be to simplify language but to adapt it to the cultural changes of our time. Aesthetics must not be valued higher than key values of our society. We insist that language is not shaped by our perception: it has been shown that women* might be implied by the speaker but are often not perceived as included by the audience. Therefore, language needs to be used consciously to promote social change. Otherwise, engineers at ETH will remain what the German term “Ingenieure” suggests: male.
As an English-speaking learner of German, I find the differences between the two arguments interesting. In some ways English seems more progressive - the gender neutralisation of human-related nouns has generally assumed the masculine form (e.g. "actresses" are actors, nobody considers "student" to be exclusively male). Nouns equivalent to "Putzfrau" or "Krankenschwester" would not be used as official terms in English any more. Where such gender-specific titles existed, e.g. fireman, draughtsman, bin man etc., we now use "draughtsperson", "fire-fighter", "refuse collector" and so on. On the other hand, as Franziska Schmid said, using the masculine form does not address prejudices - people will think of a man when they see "professor", or a woman when they see "secretary". In this respect, I agree that "*innen" makes you think. On that basis, I disagree with Rudolf Friederich that "No society has ever undergone change as a result of artificial tinkering with its language." Offensive words get banned in many languages, and most who hear those offensive words now will perceive them and the person saying them differently than in the past. On a lighthearted and purely selfish basis, as someone still struggling with dealing with different articles, I would advocate getting rid of "der" and (singular) "die" and replacing all with "das" - this could solve a lot of problems, not least my learning difficulties :-)