Forced to use (gender) language conventions in university

[Gori the Grey]

I make a point of doing this as often as possible because it tickles my fancy so much. I say "eye ee (ie)" too and also use internet acronyms like lol in real-life dialogue.

Don't you mean in ar el dialogue?

 

[warpus]

There was a time when politicians were able to simply address the citizenry. All citizens, as one. This time is gone now. Now, you have to address male and female citizens in separation. You can not say "Dear citizens" but have to say "Dear female and male citizens"
Explanation: The German word for citizen is "Bürger". The word "Bürger" is grammatically male, as are many German words describing a type of person or a profession. The root of this grammatical quirk is probably sex-related, okay. However, in its actual usage, in its meaning, those technically male words are neutral, all-encompassing. Similarly to how the German word for stone, "Stein" is also grammatically male, yet we don't expect German stones to have a penis attached to them, while trying to exclude those with vaginas.

In feminist newspeech, it has to be "Bürgerinnen und Bürger".
And what I don't like about this is not only the aesthetic deficit. What I don't like about this is that this case perfectly demonstrates how feminist newspeech in German forces you to constantly address the gender and to constantly separate the two genders vocally. To always make it relevant. You are not a citizen. You are a MALE or a FEMALE citizen.
This is not a language of inclusivity, but of division. And it is embarrassing to hear people talk like that. Like we needed a constant reminder that different sexes exist. Say what you want about males, but they usually notice that much.

Why not just "Bürgerleute" or something similar?

 

[Ryika]

Why not just "Bürgerleute" or something similar?

Because the Plural of "(Der) Bürger" is "(Die) Bürger", not "(Die) Bürger(s)leute", that's like saying "mankindkind". "Bürgerschaft" would work, but that addresses the group as a whole, not the individuals in it.

That's how words that refer to humans are gendered in the German language, you have a male form (Der Bürger), a female form (Die Bürgerin), then you have a plural (Die Bürger) that generally includes both genders and is most of the time composed by using the male form (if it exists) + adding "en" (yes, Bürger is irregular when it comes to that), and then you have an extra plural (Die Bürgerinnen) when a group only consists of females.

Nobody in their right mind would hear somebody say "Die Bürger" and feel excluded, it's only when you're already in a mindset of seeing discrimination everywhere that you even start seeing these things as "issues".

 

[warpus]

So the word isn't even male and people are offended?

ANd isn't saying "Bürgerinnen und Bürger" offensive too because it ignores all the other genders?

 

[Ryika]

Well it is male in the sense that the plural form that encompasses all people is built from the male form, but ALL forms are built from that default male form.

Der Bauer (male form of "the farmer")
Die Bäuerin (female form)
Die Bauern (plural for male-only and mixed groups)
Die Bäuerinnen (plural for female-only groups)

Not that I really have a problem with "Bürgerinnen und Bürger" (which btw. in the past was "Bürger und Bürgerinnen" - but people complained that the man was named first, so obviously now the woman must always be named first because equality), it's just completely unnecessary. In a casual chat, everybody will understand that by "Die Bürger" you mean everybody, but in a speech it will be seen as a faux pas.

Kind of random, but even the German constitution uses the male singular form to refer to all of Germany's citizens:

Artikel 16
(1) Die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit darf nicht entzogen werden. Der Verlust der Staatsangehörigkeit darf nur auf Grund eines Gesetzes und gegen den Willen des Betroffenen nur dann eintreten, wenn der Betroffene dadurch nicht staatenlos wird.

(2) Kein Deutscher darf an das Ausland ausgeliefert werden. Durch Gesetz kann eine abweichende Regelung für Auslieferungen an einen Mitgliedstaat der Europäischen Union oder an einen internationalen Gerichtshof getroffen werden, soweit rechtsstaatliche Grundsätze gewahrt sind.

It even uses the now dreaded 'Jedermann' ("everyone"):

Artikel 17
Jedermann hat das Recht, sich einzeln oder in Gemeinschaft mit anderen schriftlich mit Bitten oder Beschwerden an die zuständigen Stellen und an die Volksvertretung zu wenden.

But then again, that same document also notes that Mothers (but not fathers) "have a right of protection and care by the community", and that men (but not women) can be conscripted.

 

[warpus]

So much sexism in the German language, how do you guys survive

 

[Lexicus]

Don't you mean in ar el dialogue?

Eye ar el

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

 

[Angst]

- Changing your language to reflect gender pronouns properly is important to me.
- Still, the teacher is incompetent. Gender politics are important, but they aren't necessarily important in math dissertations for example.
- I'm not forced to the above and haven't gotten bad grades due to it afaik.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

(which btw. in the past was "Bürger und Bürgerinnen" - but people complained that the man was named first, so obviously now the woman must always be named first because equality)

Interestingly, it's always* been "Ladies and Gentlemen" in English. Who knew we were being progressive all this time.

* obviously not since the dawn of time, but at least since the days of the music hall

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The German equivalent for "Ladies and Gentlemen" is "Damen und Herren", have had that since forever, as well.

 

[Angst]

This would be amusing if I didn't know your position on the nuances of these issues.

 

[innonimatu]

Relevant to the topic: the french were also stricken by this virus of "gender inclusive language" and seem to have rejected it:
http://www.academie-francaise.fr/ac...ademie-francaise-sur-lecriture-dite-inclusive

 

[Arent11]

Interestingly, it's always* been "Ladies and Gentlemen" in English. Who knew we were being progressive all this time.

* obviously not since the dawn of time, but at least since the days of the music hall

I wouldn't say that this is "progressive" but simply polite. And that's all you need: A little respect for each other. You don't need to be "progressive".

 

[Arent11]

Relevant to the topic: the french were also stricken by this virus of "gender inclusive language" and seem to have rejected it:
http://www.academie-francaise.fr/ac...ademie-francaise-sur-lecriture-dite-inclusive

Ah, my french has always been very bad. I can only order food in that language

I have nothing against mentioning women & men, no problem. But I'm sorry, language simply goes by its very nature from broad topics to specific topics. You first create words for objects you frequently want to talk about, for example males, cars & females And then you can specify in certain cases that you mean a car with very big windows or tires, a man with a nice sweatshirt or a tomboy.

You simply don't create a catch all term such that any specific case doesn't feel "excluded" when people simply want to talk about a general topic & not a specific one.

 

[Kyriakos]

It is problematic to be triggered by some idea (all things identified as set notions, not dependent on context, break up to that, anyway), cause ideas never actually die. So even if somehow it would happen that gender terms would be replaced with ze (sic) or similar oddities, the actual ideas of specific and set gender terms would remain. The whole thing is futile; if you have a trigger it is itself the issue, not some potential triggering element working with it.
As usual, most people just don't identify that actual change only happens within the self, and not with aspirations to drastically alter how others think or do things; the latter is generally impossible in the first place.
But in current times it also is true that those aspiring to bring about such changes try to do so in a manner which - regardless of the actual change being highly unlikely to inherently impossible to achieve - is itself false and counter-productive. Eg try to shame the other person/group, or argue something which comes across as weak, and then insist that if it seems weak it is the other person's fault. Well, this is all very juvenile. And apparently it goes around not even in a spiral, but in a circle.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I wouldn't say that this is "progressive" but simply polite. And that's all you need: A little respect for each other. You don't need to be "progressive".

It was just a little joke.

 

[Lexicus]

Relevant to the topic: the french were also stricken by this virus of "gender inclusive language" and seem to have rejected it:

Imagine being so hateful that you actually refer to calling people by the pronouns they want to be called as a "virus"

 

[sophie]

Ah, my french has always been very bad. I can only order food in that language

I have nothing against mentioning women & men, no problem. But I'm sorry, language simply goes by its very nature from broad topics to specific topics. You first create words for objects you frequently want to talk about, for example males, cars & females And then you can specify in certain cases that you mean a car with very big windows or tires, a man with a nice sweatshirt or a tomboy.

You simply don't create a catch all term such that any specific case doesn't feel "excluded" when people simply want to talk about a general topic & not a specific one.

What about languages which don't have gender, e.g. Finnish, Hawaiian?

English has words for male and female because Proto-Indo-European developed syntactic forms to distinguish between three morphological paradigms. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[Ryika]

Imagine being so hateful that you actually refer to calling people by the pronouns they want to be called as a "virus"

He called the attempts of injecting language into academia a virus, not the people who want to be called by their pronouns. Your accusation is especially vacuous as this is not even about personal pronouns, it's about nouns that these activists say must be made gender neutral for one reason or another. As such, the metaphor is actually very fitting, as that is exactly what viruses do, injecting themselves into cells to alter the "code", in this case language, that is being produced by them.

You should apologize for your unfounded accusation.