welt.de
German Ministries Ban Gendered Language
German Education and Culture Ministers ban gendered language using special characters in their ministries, aligning with the Council for German Orthography's recommendation, despite ongoing use in other sectors and legal challenges.
- How do court rulings on gendered language influence the debate?
- The ban reflects a broader societal debate on gender-inclusive language, with courts also ruling against gendered language in legal documents. This contrasts with continued gendered language use in other sectors, highlighting a lack of nationwide consensus.
- What is the significance of the recent bans on gendered language in German ministries?
- German Education and Culture Ministers ban gendered language using special characters in their ministries, aligning with the Council for German Orthography's recommendation against it as non-standard.
- What are the long-term implications of this conflicting approach to gendered language across different sectors in Germany?
- While seemingly a minor bureaucratic change, the ban reveals a deeper ideological clash regarding language reform and its implementation. The continued use of gendered language elsewhere suggests ongoing resistance to such changes and the likelihood of continued debate.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and opening sentence suggest that the government is responding to the "will of the people" by banning gendered language. This frames the decision as a victory for the public, ignoring potential dissenting opinions and the complexity of the issue. The repeated use of words like "ridiculous" and "false writing" strongly biases the reader's opinion.
Language Bias
The author uses loaded terms such as "ridiculous," "false writing," and "ideology workshops" to negatively characterize gender-inclusive language and its proponents. These terms are emotive and fail to present a neutral perspective. The use of "sogenannt" (so-called) to modify "gendergerechte Sprache" (gender-equitable language) also implies disapproval.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on instances where gender-neutral language has been rejected, omitting examples where it's used without issue. This creates a biased perspective by suggesting widespread opposition where it may not exist. The piece also omits discussion of the arguments in favor of gender-inclusive language, presenting only counterarguments.
False Dichotomy
The article sets up a false dichotomy between "correct" grammar and gender-inclusive language. It implies that the only options are either to use traditional grammar, ignoring gender inclusivity, or to use what it terms "ridiculous" gendered language. This ignores the existence and usage of other gender-neutral alternatives.
Gender Bias
The article uses gendered language to describe those in favor of gender-neutral language as proponents of an "ideology." It frames the debate as a battle between traditionalists preserving the language and those who are imposing an ideology.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the decisions by German ministers to ban the use of gendered language in their ministries. This aligns with SDG 4 (Quality Education) by promoting the use of standardized and grammatically correct language in educational settings. The focus on proper grammar and adherence to established language rules ensures clarity and consistency in educational materials and communication, which is crucial for effective learning and teaching. The rejection of gendered language, as deemed grammatically incorrect by relevant authorities, promotes clarity and avoids confusion in official communication, directly impacting educational standards.