An overview of the scientific discourse of the last 50 years

Sara and Daryl Bem wrote one of the earliest scientific papers on the topic of gender equality and language back in 1973. In two studies, they analysed the effects of gender-exclusive job advertisements and proved that women usually did not feel addressed by the generic masculine and therefore did not want to apply for the respective positions. Men were also reluctant to apply for jobs that were supposedly aimed at women (cf. Bem & Bem 1973). Bem and Bem were not alone in their findings. In 1981, Anne Stericker carried out a comparable study and came to results that largely agreed with those of Bem and Bem. Stericker came to the conclusion that women in particular felt less addressed by male titles and pronouns in job advertisements, while she did not find similar effects in men (cf. Stericke 1981)

In the late 1970s, the discourse on fair language gained momentum, particularly in feminist circles, and women such as Luise F. Pusch (linguist) in the spotlight. Her campaign against linguistic discrimination against women cost her her academic career at the time (see Rinas 2019).

In the late 1990s, Irmen and Köhnke were the first to explicitly analyse the psychological effect of the generic masculine. Their study developed into a basis on which many studies on gender-appropriate language are still based today (cf. Irmen & Köhncke 1996). These studies revealed that women are not always included when talking about doctors, students or educators. In various research studies, alternative forms of gendering were presented to the test subjects - the most frequently used were the double-spaced form, the inline I and the slash. One thing has emerged in all studies: only when women are explicitly mentioned are they also included in thought (cf. Stahlberg & Sczesny 2001; Heise 2003; Rotmund & Scheele 2004; Gygax 2008).
Sabine Sczesny (social psychologist) in particular has achieved a high reputation in the field of gender studies through her numerous publications on gender-equitable language.

Language and the stereotypes it reproduces have a major influence on children. Even at primary school age, they categorise professions as ‘typically male’ and ‘typically female’. Girls in particular internalise the idea early on that they are not made for ‘male professions’. They do not become doctors, firefighters or astronauts (see Vervecken & Hannover 2015). Conversely, boys do not consider becoming an educator, nurse or primary school teacher.

In order to strengthen the self-image of young girls, language is needed that does not exclude them. Gender-equitable language helps girls to see themselves in male-dominated occupational fields. Not only that, it strengthens their self-confidence that they are at least as competent as boys in these fields and deserve the same recognition (cf. ibid.). These findings are reinforced by a study from the French-speaking part of Switzerland, which shows that gender-sensitive language helps to break down outdated and sexist stigmatisation among young people (cf. Vervecken 2015).

Current studies show that women still do not feel addressed by male tenders. This effect is also relevant in other contexts: In a study from 2017, tenders for programmes for female entrepreneurs were examined. If the generic masculine is used, women believe that they cannot fulfil the requirements of the job advertisements despite having the appropriate qualifications. As a result, fewer women apply for these job advertisements, even if the intention behind the programmes is to recruit more women (see Hentschel 2018). The extent to which women are seen as less competent in management positions was also analysed. It was found that management positions are increasingly awarded to men without good reason if women are not explicitly mentioned in job advertisements. In gender-inclusive job advertisements, significantly more women were seen as being able to fulfil the position (cf. Hovarth & Sczezny 2016). Gender-inclusive language has a massive influence on the self-perception and external perception of women. It is therefore an important step towards achieving a gender balance in all professional fields and at all career levels.

Probably the biggest criticism levelled at gender-inclusive language relates to its (in)comprehensibility.It is often said that texts that use inclusive language forms lose readability.
Other critics are concerned with the aesthetics of the German language. According to them, words are broken up in an unattractive way and special characters should not be used within words. For those who use special characters such as the gender gap or asterisk, the visual stumble is not an annoying coincidence, but the intention: the special character stands out, makes the reader pause for a moment and thus leads to active thinking by all genders (JDAV 2018).

A conscious stumble is not to be equated with incomprehensibility.
Since 2013, texts have been tested for their subjective comprehensibility in various studies; test subjects were presented with texts using the generic masculine, both nouns and other forms of gender-sensitive language.Women found the texts to be equally easy to understand in all studies. A few men rated the generic masculine as more comprehensible (see Rothmund & Christmann 2002; Steiger & Irmen 2007; Braun 2007; Steiger-Loerbroks & von Stockhausen 2014; Pöschko & Prieler 2018). The double naming was perceived as particularly disturbing. In a study by Braun (2007), participants were asked about the texts after reading them and it was found that there were no significant objective differences in comprehensibility. Gender-neutral terms are most readily accepted in most studies (cf. Weise 2007). Regardless of which age group was surveyed, no disadvantages in memorisation, comprehensibility and readability were found.

Who uses gender-inclusive language?
How does it spread? And does its benefit go beyond the visibility of women?It has already been mentioned that the discourse on fair language is older than the reporting of many mainstream media suggests. Nevertheless, the debate seems to have gained particular momentum in the last ten years. This is due to the fact that gender-equitable language appears in all areas of our everyday lives and has already become the norm in many areas. Terms such as student, employee, carer and chancellor are an integral part of our vocabulary and are no longer questioned.

Mass media have an influence that should not be underestimated - not only on the spread of gender-inclusive language, but also on the behaviour of their consumers. As part of a study in 2016, Hansen, Littwitz and Szczesny presented participants with short contributions in which either ‘heroes’ or ‘heroes and heroines’ were mentioned. The gender-inclusive contribution not only led to increased visibility of women, but also encouraged participants to use gender-inclusive language (cf. Hansen et al 2016).

Not everyone adopts gender-inclusive language. Gendering is political - this applies both to the use of inclusive forms and to the use of the generic masculine. It has been shown that the intention behind the use of masculine language is influenced by systemic sexism and that the use of gender-inclusive language represents a conscious decision to defend oneself against this sexist system (cf. Sczezny 2015). The simplest and probably also one of the most effective methods of convincing a person to use gender-inclusive language is a simple presentation of the arguments in favour of gender-inclusive language and the consistent use of gender-inclusive language. An uncommented example is the best way to dispel concerns about complicating speaking and writing. In contrast, arguments by critics against gender-inclusive language do not appear to have any significant influence on recipients and their use of language (cf. Koeser & Sczezny 2014). A comprehensive study by Gygax (2008) shows how deeply gender and the associated stigmatisation are anchored in people's minds. In it, the psycholinguist proves that dual names and inclusive language forms cannot overcome the boundaries of stereotypical job titles on their own. It is therefore clear that gender-equitable language can only be seen as one building block on the way to greater gender equality. The study ‘Can Gender-Fair Language Reduce Gender Stereotyping and Discrimination?’ by Szczesny et al. (2016) provides an overview of the use, dissemination and effects of gender-equitable language.

The discourse on gender-inclusive language has been going on since the 1970s, but the inclusion of non-binary people only became a widely discussed topic in the 2010s. As early as 2003, social philosopher Stefan Kitty Hermann called for the gender gap in order to include all those who have always been invisible in the German language (cf. Hermann 2003). The internal I, which contributed significantly to the spread of gender-inclusive language, is now increasingly being replaced by gender gap_, gender colon: and gender asterisk*. The latter seems to have become increasingly prevalent since 2015.

Despite their widespread use, these forms of inclusive gendering have hardly been the subject of any academic studies to date. Since 2017, the gender entry divers has been used in Germany alongside male and female. It was created for intersex people who do not recognise or locate themselves in the binary gender system. These developments also encourage further discussion of language that is critical of discrimination and the visibility of all genders.

Um zu sehen, wie die Zukunft für eine genderinklusive Sprache in Deutschland aussehen könnte, hilft ein Blick nach Schweden. Die schwedische Sprache war bis vor wenigen Jahren in Bezug auf Gender ähnlich aufgebaut wie die deutsche: binär getrennt in männlich und weiblich. In 2012 hat die schwedische Regierung das alte System aufgebrochen und das geschlechtsneutrale Pronomen „hen“ eingeführt, was eine Alternative zu sie (hon) und er (han) bietet. Wurde hen 2012 noch negativ von der Bevölkerung aufgenommen, hat sich in nur vier Jahren die Attitüde gegenüber dem Neopronomen gewandelt. Hen wird zwar nur allmählich von Schwed*innen in ihren alltäglichen Sprachgebrauch aufgenommen, aber die dritte Option wird in Schweden zunehmend akzeptiert (vgl. Gustafsson Sendén 2015). Mit den Dimensionen der Vorbehalte gegenüber dem geschlechtsneutralen Pronomen hen befasste sich eine Studie, deren Ziel die Forschung nach den Ursachen für Kritik und Verunsicherung der Kritiker*innen ist. Die Ergebnisse sind in einem Artikel zusammengefasst, der zahlreiche Argument für eine geschlechtergerechte Sprache enthält und auch Vorbehalte und Sorgen der Kritiker*innen entkräftet (vgl. Vergoossen 2020).

The discourse on gender-equitable language is developing rapidly and it is not always easy to keep up to date. It is important to continue researching, uncovering discrimination and recording positive changes. Everyone can work to ensure that gender-equitable language becomes commonplace by using it themselves in speech and writing. Current developments can be seen in discourses in the mass media and in sources that deal with the debate in a targeted and well-founded manner. One example of this is the ‘blog interdisziplinäre Geschlechterforschung’ (interdisciplinary gender research blog) of the NRW Women's and Gender Studies Network.