A contribution of Dominik Hetjens and Marlene Rummel, Research Associates at the Chair of Linguistics and History of German

TU Dresden is adopting guidelines for gender-inclusive communication, venturing into territory that is a hot button issue in public debates. We will try to contribute to this discussion from a linguistic perspective, which differs from some other views: While in society, linguistic change is often viewed with suspicion (up to a feared "destruction" of language), linguistics in principle initially observes change with neutral interest.

Nevertheless, positions are not uniform even in linguistics; we have recently published an overview (in German) of these differing views. However, where major empirical studies are being conducted, a certain trend seems to appear: Various experiments suggest that the "generic" masculine, the masculine plural form in languages (e.g. German) where this exists, also tends to evoke associations of males first; when we say "doctors", listeners are more likely to think of men. Equally, female schoolchildren indicate that they are less interested in certain professions when asked about these professions in the grammatical masculine form (compared to mentioning both feminine and masculine). From such a perspective, not “everyone is equally included", as it is often said. While it is rare for these findings to be completely discarded, there is disagreement about the extent of their influence and about how to deal with them. Both within and outside linguistics, there are discussions about different forms and variants: What are the implications of using gender asterisks, colons, mentioning the male as well as the female version, gender-neutral terms, or "generic" masculine for intelligibility and the representation of different genders? And last but not least: Which forms will be accepted by society, which is a prerequisite for establishing these forms in the long term?

TUD is now presenting guidelines that provide some reassurance on how to write appropriately, while at the same time recognizing that debate is still ongoing and inconclusive. For all those looking for advice, these guidelines contain sufficient guidance on wording, while seeking to be inclusive of non-binary persons and striving for overall accessibility. In doing so, they aim to "build bridges", as the university's mission statement puts it. After all, language creates reality and can contribute to the exclusion of social groups. Whether one of the formulations mentioned will become socially accepted and which of them this will be, in particular whether the colon as a gender variant will persist in the long term in the sense of accessibility, must remain open at present. This circumstance is acknowledged by the guidelines. Therefore, these guidelines will need to be updated in the future in order to adapt to changing linguistic realities, which is typical for texts of this kind.

We would like to prevent a misunderstanding at this point: These guidelines were developed at TU Dresden in a participatory process and provide advice and guidance on communication for people when they represent that very institution. They are not intended to coerce anyone to choose one side in the debate over gendering, but rather provide the opportunity to choose formulations in the spirit of the institution. These guidelines do not have the objective of controlling language use in private life or among colleagues, to impose "speech bans," or to establish grades for gender-inclusive writing. In this respect, the guidelines could be more explicit, but it is our view that they nevertheless make a welcome contribution to the exciting public debate about how we want to deal with the diversity of our society and its linguistic representation. Striking the optimal balance between linguistic creativity and necessary normative support will certainly be the subject of future guidelines.