An emotionally driven topic of debate: gender. It’s so pointless to constantly discuss it if you stop and think for a moment.
The necessity or impossibility of gendering is often discussed – although none of the participants seems as if he or she enjoys it. If there’s an emotion involved, it’s probably anger.
Any emotion that is thrown into the discussion about the sense and nonsense of gender is actually wasted energy – not because the topic is not important and would be on the same level as arguing about whether pineapple on pizza is the gourmet highlight or not. Rather, because something is being argued about here that simply does not serve as a basis for a discussion: biology, language and, above all, feelings.
The “reasonable argument” has no use on many issues
The culture of debate has changed over the centuries. With the Enlightenment, logic found its way in, those who wanted to convince used arguments, which were naturally emotionless. That no longer works so well these days, if you look at the sometimes fruitless attempts to explain the danger of a corona virus to people using numbers, graphs and facts. Some topics, on the other hand, are simply not suitable for a debate due to their emotional nature.
“Today, attempts are often made to use the natural sciences as a benchmark for the reasonableness of an argument,” says communication psychologist Frank Naumann in an interview with “ZEIT”. But that just doesn’t work for many social or ethical issues. The “reasonable argument” does not generally prevail even today, the psychologist continues. “What prevails are interests.” And in case of doubt, the stronger party can enforce it anyway – such as the majority society.
What gendering is about for many people
And what are their interests in relation to gender? Two arguments that speak against gendering are often mentioned: the destruction of the German language and the maintenance of “biological naturalness”. Both are hypocritical, as it is actually more about the untouchable supremacy of socially established norms. More specifically, heteronormativity, since humans are heterosexual, cis, and “at best” white. Still, for fun, let’s talk briefly about the two arguments and why they’re utter nonsense on their own, without already factoring sentiment into this equation.
The meaning of gender
Why gender at all? Simply because the German language has its limits. Proponents often say that the generic masculine is something everyone thinks for themselves. But that’s not the case. Apart from that, words don’t think, they just depict reality. At least that is their real job. But words like “teacher” or “doctor” don’t do that. Whereas “Lehrer:innen” or “Ärzt:innen” enforces a moment of silence for people who are discriminated against and made invisible by the German language. If that’s too stupid for you, you can fall back on “teachers” and “medical staff” – or whatever else you can think of.
Because that’s the beauty of the German language, which some fear will be destroyed: It’s more flexible than we sometimes think. And what can be said about the feared apocalypse of the German language? Greetings, dear lady and noble warrior. Do you carry quill and parchment with you, dear godfather and lovely maid? Then, write down: Language changes. That’s how it always was, that’s how it will always be. If she doesn’t, she’s dead. Is that supposed to be the goal?
Gender doesn’t just mean two drawers
The “biological naturalness” is the next argument that is often used. And I have to ask myself anew every time I read about people like Berthold and Gertrude on social media, when they write with such a self-confidence of two genders: Are they both renowned biology professors, who not only pursued the question of gender, but also found an answer?
Because even if some scientists like Marie-Luise Vollbrecht may claim that what exactly constitutes gender and how many genders there are is still a very hotly debated topic among scientists in different fields. As molecular biologist Emanuel Wyler put it in a “ZEIT” interview: “Different disciplines mean something different when they talk about gender.”
Berthold and Gertrude could perhaps create a consensus where science cannot
As behavioral biologist Elisabeth Oberzaucher summarizes in an interview with “Der Standard”, when visualizing gender, one should not think of pigeonholes, but rather of different characteristics along one axis. But maybe nobody has Berthold’s and Gertrude’s cell phone number. They could dig out the two drawers and create consensus.
That’s why gender is a pointless argument
Feeling tired is a sensation. So is being sad or feeling discriminated against and not seen. When I say: “I’m very tired today,” then that’s not an invitation to a discussion, not a request to weigh up why I should or shouldn’t feel tired. When I say, “I feel sad,” I didn’t mean it as an invitation to dismiss my emotions with, “Don’t be sad, you have so much and others so little.”
I see you, how can I help you?
And if a person feels discriminated against by the German language or I, as a white cis man who is covered by the language in 99% of cases, find them discriminatory, then this is not meant as a request to speak up immediately and screaming, “I’m so sick of all this gender madness, I can’t read it anymore!!!” At best, it can be taken as a hint.
The actual statement meant by this: “Hey, something is going wrong here, people are being hurt here, I feel hurt”, can then be followed by: “I see you, how can I help you?”
Sources used: zeit.de, derstandard.de, taz.de, mittelalter-tross.de, deutschlandfunk.de, geo.de