# Identity politics in the German language



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 8, 2020)

The English language has been spared from identity politics due to its grammatical nature (with the exception of "they" to refer to single individuals).

For those who are interested I want to give you a broad chronological overview of the situation in Germany (as there has been an interesting development recently).

*Background*:
-The German language distinguishes between three grammatical genders: male, female and neutral. Although there are somewhat helpful rules (e.g. the male grammatical gender is overrepresented with regards to simple countable objects, while more abstract things are often female) the gender of individual nouns has to be learned by heart.
-A person who does something has the male ending "-er" (e.g. Sänger = singer); females can be referred to as "-er + in" (singular: Sängerin) or "-er + innen" (plural: Sängerinnen). When there is a mixed group, the group is referred to as grammatically male: "-er" (plural). This is similar to many other languages (e.g. French; Chinese in writing)
*
Chronology *(disclaimer: from my memory)*:*
It must have been in the 90s when some teachers suddenly referred to students as *male students and female students* ("Schülerinnen und Schüler"). It was, however, mostly limited to speeches. I still remember that I thought this was very akward. After all, even a woman could refer to herself as being e.g. a "Sänger". However, feminists believed it was a marginilization of women that the maskulin forms are perceived as the norm (esp. when using the plural). Therefore, discrimation took place: They from now on discrimated (made a difference / distinguished) between male and female students.

In the late 2000s there were attempts to ease the use of convoluted expressions like "male XYZ and female XYZ" by either avoiding them and instead using participles (e.g. "those who are studying", "those who are teaching") or at least shortening them in writing: e.g. Sänger/innen. The feminists still weren´t happy because they felt that putting a slash in between a word would give the impression that males are "Sänger" but females are only "/innen". Therefore the so called "Binnen-I" was introduced: SängerInnen (capital I; no kidding).

This went on for roughly decade. In writing there was "SängerInnen" (saving paper - did you know the Germans hold the record in paper consumption?) while more and more people adopted the convoluted "Sängerinnen und Sänger".

At the time I pointed out that for some reason frauds, murderers, fascists and other negative words still kept only their masculine gender when talking about groups of people. Well, I was very surprised when I noticed something last year: Mörder (murderers) are now officially "Mörder*Innen". The star signifies those murderers who neither identify as male nor female. In addition (I only noticed it this year) people now pause between the two parts when speaking! It sounds ridiculous, even for me as a non-native.
I am not sure whether the pause is a micro-moment of silence or simply exists to avoid confusion (otherwise it is not clear whether one means "Mörderinnen", i.e. females only).

The latest development? Turn innocent words into Frankenstein creations: Führerschein becomes Führer*innenschein (driver "+ * + female plural" ´s licencse), Staatsbürger*innenschaft (citizen + * + female plural + ship), etc. A decade ago I jokingly predicted this...

In closing, I want to point out that even the words "somebody" (jemand) and "human" (Mensch) are masculine. I predict that there will be even more ridiculous developments as there are people whose jobs depend on coming up with these first world problems. I doubt they will start using "Mensch*Innen" as it could be misunderstood by questioning whether women are humans. However, I could see new forms of "somebody" (which is difficult to spread among the public though). Ironically, this is discrimination by separating what used to be united. When somebody said the plural "Schüler" I never had the image of a male-only-class in my mind (one would have to specifically say "male students"). I am very curious how many people will adopt this way of speaking and writing over time. It is certainly a top-down development.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 8, 2020)

I saw a version of this in Russian a while back (various genders as well, probably more complex and memory heavy, and things that historically were one way despite grammatical rules of thumb being another having some want to force them to another).

However now I am playing German songs in my head but with those expressions above substituted in.
Quite amusing.

"The English language has been spared from identity politics due to its grammatical nature (with the exception of "they" to refer to single individuals)."
They to refer to single people has been around for a long long time, though the nature of its usage I suppose has varied (or at least assumption of gender is something someone contemplated).
That said are you sure English has been spared beyond that?
Not seen the fate of mankind, manhole cover, the various job role creations if man was in there (policeman, fireman, postman, actor/actress being a more strict setup, never mind the incredibly silly can't be a post person as person contains son which is male... https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/ being a nice university domain on the matter), possibly brainstorm (some claimed it as offensive to epileptics, this despite as far as I am aware it not being any kind of reference like we have for thalid/flid or the like, though a search now says some truly old definitions might resemble it), resistance to assumption of gender norms for various traditionally (usually male) roles in abstract form or indeed explicit/stunt choice for another (had several programming books refer to their hypothetical programmers as her, most of my old engineering books will be not unlike the start of this) and so on?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 8, 2020)

I forgot about the mailman... you are right. Ironically, it is even in "woman". I didn´t realize there is sth similar in Russian.


----------



## Spring_Spring (Aug 8, 2020)

what about just call people what *they* want to be called :3 should be simple, you'd think :3


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 8, 2020)

Flofflewoffle said:


> what about just call people what *they* want to be called :3 should be simple, you'd think :3


He or she is simple, but defying grammar rules is more difficult. I couldn´t make you call me "I", for example. Would you even be willing to refer to me as "thou"?

"They" (Sie) would not work in German, by the way. It is already a polite version of the 2nd person.


----------



## Spring_Spring (Aug 8, 2020)

of course I would refer to thou as thou, if thou wishes


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 8, 2020)

I actually prefer it. I think you-you is a major flaw of the English language. How may I refer to you?


----------



## Spring_Spring (Aug 8, 2020)

as anything thou want :3

In ancient english they used to say "englishmaid" as well as "englishman". Somehow that got dropped.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Aug 8, 2020)

Hello.

A very interesting Topic,very nice.Thank you.

As Austrian/German languaged Guy,I really want to contribute something:


Spoiler: but......



it is not good and not really possible here.Such Topics leads everytime to a "De-Rail of the Thread,personal Insults,stubborn One-Way Opinions/Point of Views,Misunderstandings due to poor Translations,not good language Skills......



So,thank you for this really great Topic and I wish this Thread an interesting,cultivated and nice Progress.
and of course,good Luck with it.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 8, 2020)

Let me test thee. Which is correct?

1
a) It is thou.
b) It is thee. 
c) It is thy. 

2
a) My mother noticed me and thee.
b) My mother noticed thee and I.
c) My mother noticed me and thy.

3
a) The game is thou.
b) The game is thine.
c) The game is thy.


----------



## Spring_Spring (Aug 8, 2020)

1: a
2: b
3: b


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 8, 2020)

Flofflewoffle said:


> 1: a
> 2: b
> 3: b


a, a, b.
Are you sure you are up to the task?
Seriously though, if you are from Denmark have you noticed that people say "my parents scolded my sister and I"? How would you say it in your language?

Nobody would say "my parents scold I". It obviously has to be "me" here.


----------



## Spring_Spring (Aug 8, 2020)

not in danish no x3


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 8, 2020)

Wow, I just checked. In Danish there is really no difference between I and me or he and him. It makes the introduction of new pronouns much easier.


----------



## Spring_Spring (Aug 8, 2020)

well.... it seems fairly orwellian to not just let a language develop its natural cause. Something which is called "wrong" now is just a sign of the language developing, as is the case with many phenomena in human culture :3


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 8, 2020)

Grammar needs to have some kind of logic though:

I play games.
He plays games
He and I play games.

It was done by me.
It was done by him.
It was done by him and I. [makes no sense]

I think I know where it comes from. Many people used to say "Me and my friends went outside" and were corrected by their teachers: "My friends and I went outside." They assumed this would always be the correct version, independent of grammar. Well, they are wrong. This virus has spread throughout American society. It even shows up in movies.
Unless somebody can explain to me how it is not illogical...


----------



## Spring_Spring (Aug 8, 2020)

american society? weren't we taking about denmark and germany just before


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 8, 2020)

Flofflewoffle said:


> american society? weren't we taking about denmark and germany just before


Sorry, I wasn´t clear enough. I wanted to know whether you also find the English example awkward (as a non-native speaker).


----------



## Spring_Spring (Aug 8, 2020)

I don't think there is anything awkward about it, it is at least understandable.... and I don't see what is wrong with it showing up in movies, maybe they intended to depict a character speaking a certain way instead of everyone doing so "perfectly" :3


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 8, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Grammar needs to have some kind of logic though:


Erm... The thing is that language is always in use,. It is historically grown, and while it has similarities, all languages I've known also have exceptions to their rules. Why is the plural of 'goose' 'geese' but the multiple of 'a moose' is 'mooses'? Nobody knows (but perhaps some linguistic experts) ... It just is.


----------



## Spring_Spring (Aug 8, 2020)

meese!


----------



## notimp (Aug 8, 2020)

Elephant in the room is, that this none of this is relevant nor will it ever catch much traction.

Afair the gender star *Innen got officially introduced in university writing codification, although the 'doctrine' should still be, that you should gender - so even using the old Binnen-I (SomethingInnen) should be fine, and if you don't gender at all, afair there shouldnt be repercussions either.

Outside of the university level you don't see it anywhere - and none of it should get traction outside the realm of academia/public administration. Watched a bunch of Chomsky recently, so I use his argument. In linguistics there seems to be a grammatical structure hardbaked into/discerning from the way we learn languages. Previous attempts at introducing formal language that circumvented that (in terms of grammatical structure) all failed (to essentially garner any traction).

While those elongated words in the german language are a 'known feature' of that language, the amount of repetition you'd have to go through, if you follow all of those rules, alone should make it entirely impossible that this will be picked up in a broader fashion.

And this is something we know for quite some time, stuff gets developed/dreamed up at the university level - and to then get it adopted by society at large - it first is pushed as mandatory, where you can convince institutions - but to ultimately succeed, it needs catalysts. There have been many similar projects in the past - every one of them tried to be made 'compulsory' one way or another - and they all pretty much failed in the popular realm.

If you look at the wikipedia entry (german) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendersternchen you can also see, that adoption has been sparse so far.

Those things come an go. Its largely not as you represented it, that it would get worse, and worse - as time goes on.  At least not in practice.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 8, 2020)

notimp said:


> Outside of the university level you don't see it anywhere - and none of it should get traction outside the realm of academia.


Can I quote you on that in a few years?

Been following the German takes on various silliness we see coming out of US universities for a while now and generally it seems about 5-10 years behind the curve.
Teach some kids some bollocks today and when they turn around get jobs spouting nonsense in online rags, HR jobs or "diversity officer" type stuff in 5 years-10 years they have a nasty habit of bringing it with them.


----------



## notimp (Aug 9, 2020)

Yes, thats the circle. Establish curriculums in academia, make them mandatory. Teach a bunch of less critical minds, have them carry it into the workforce. (Also subjectively yes on germany being 5 years behind whatever the current trend in the US is. *snark*)

There are two things in my favor - one, repetition and extreme impracticability in the form it is represented in the OP (thats too much, no normal person, ...), and two - we already see a counterculture in the US, that has correctly identified, that some of the 'ideas' of identity politics currently get pushed in corporate america, because it keeps the workforce from asking actual questions in terms of economic developments within the corporate sector.

I'd book this under 'academia bubble', and will fail spectacularly if pushed more forcefully onto a general public. (In the form it is presented in the OP, or similar.)

Also - we already had a 'polite' form of gendering in 'official language' that more people seem to like, than the form where you start to put asterisk all over your nouns - established in the eighties. (Binnen-I)
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binnen-I


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 11, 2020)

notimp said:


> and if you don't gender at all, afair there shouldnt be repercussions either.


That´s not exactly true. I can report several instances where superiors have told other employees to gender Emails.
Also, there are universities which insist on it. Not doing it results in your thesis being given a bad grade or dismissed altogether.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 11, 2020)

God, everything is "identity politics" nowadays. Even rioters are now labeled as "peaceful protesters".

I just don't care anymore. 2020 is a garbage year.


----------



## notimp (Aug 11, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> That´s not exactly true. I can report several instances where superiors have told other employees to gender Emails.
> Also, there are universities which insist on it. Not doing it results in your thesis being given a bad grade or dismissed altogether.


Thats the first time I hear about 'bad grade or dismissed altogether'. If you have links, I'm interested.

From a corporate ID POV I can believe that superiors are pressuring employees. (Thats more or less the point of having it made mandatory on some institutions institutional level. (My only counterpoint there is, it didnt get much traction. (Not many are doing it (asterisks variant).))


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 11, 2020)

notimp said:


> Thats the first time I hear about 'bad grade or dismissed altogether'. If you have links, I'm interested.
> 
> From a corporate ID POV I can believe that superiors are pressuring employees. (Thats more or less the point of having it made mandatory on some institutions institutional level. (My only counterpoint there is, it didnt get much traction. (Not many are doing it (asterisks variant).))



translation:
In Germany, every university now has a guide to what is known as gender-appropriate language; Students and lecturers are encouraged to observe this. But there is no threat of mandatory sanctions if the requirements are not met - at least not officially. According to research by “Heise”, teachers who threaten non-men with a point deduction are not only available at the TU Berlin, but also at the Berlin Humboldt University, at the Geschwister-Scholl-Institute of the Munich Ludwig Maximilians University the University of Hamburg, the University of Salzburg, the University of Applied Sciences St. Pölten and the University of Applied Sciences of the Vienna Vocational Promotion Institute. The news4teachers editorial team is also aware of universities at which “gender refusers” are threatened by individual lecturers with lower grades.

https://www.news4teachers.de/2015/0...gsdruck-wer-nicht-gendert-bekommt-punktabzug/


----------



## notimp (Aug 11, 2020)

University legal department told the student that was told, that he had to use gendered language, that there was no such legal requirement.

Prof made it up. 

But Prof also makes up your grade... 

Soft power in action.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 20, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> Erm... The thing is that language is always in use,. It is historically grown, and while it has similarities, all languages I've known also have exceptions to their rules. Why is the plural of 'goose' 'geese' but the multiple of 'a moose' is 'mooses'? Nobody knows (but perhaps some linguistic experts) ... It just is.


The different plurals of words simply come from different influences.
It is not the same as syntax errors.

I like him.
I like she.

Unless "her" disappears from the English languages, there is a logical error in this sentence. It does not matter how many people make this logical error. This was a made up example, but let me give you sth people actually say:

She likes us.
She likes you and I.

It should obviously be "you and me" or "me and you". "you and I" has gained a lot of popularity in the last 5 to 10 years. It has replaced the more casual "you and me". But neither is correct or incorrect, it depends on the grammatical context!


----------



## Coto (Aug 20, 2020)

@UltraDolphinRevolution It's almost as if these words were deconstructed to re-purpose their meaning! Where have I seen that... yuck.

Anyway, thank you for the knowledge and sharing such excellent points!. It's so easy to deconstruct what is already deconstructed... that ends up in actually building a constructive meaning to things.


----------

