An employee is suing Audi. Because the company wants employees to use the adapted gender form among themselves. This leads to discussions – also in the FOCUS Online editorial team. A colleague sees gendering critically, her (male) colleague welcomes it. Now you are asked: How do you feel about gender?
The excitement: At the Audi Group in Ingolstadt, a dispute with an employee on the subject of gender is now in court. A male employee feels that his “free personality development” is being impaired by the company’s internal requirement to use the adapted gender form to maintain “mutual respect and appreciation” among employees. He finds the arrangement “anti-male” and complains. ( Read more about this here)
Discuss with us – also in the comments:
In the FOCUS-Online editorial office, the topic also leads to fundamental discussions: Editor Hannes Brenner has a clear stance on gender: “Manliness has probably never been so threatened: If doctors are to become doctors, the doctor sees himself in his gender identity threatened because he doesn’t want to be addressed as a “doctor”.
You can see from the polemic that I am clearly in favor of gender. At first it seemed awkward and artificial, and I quickly found reasons not to. But I forgot at least two points and it seems to me that the people at Audi and – even worse – the German language association that supports them are making the same mistakes.”
Brenner elaborates on the error in reasoning: “On the one hand, personal development plays a much more important role today than it did 20, 30 or 100 years ago. Jobs should not only secure life, but also be fun. Education should be open to everyone, as well as opportunities for advancement. We can express and show our gender and sexual identity more freely. Milieus disappear and form anew. In addition to all the opportunities, there is the risk that other people no longer feel addressed and excluded by the language used. Many studies have shown that gender does make a difference and reflects diversity better than the generic masculine. It may not be comfortable and perfect and deprive men of a privilege, but overall it fits the way we live today much better.
On the other hand, gendering is not just about making our language but our society more inclusive. Of course, the former is a goal that is often heard and at the same time a frequently used counter-argument. One can rightly say that language alone changes nothing. But the Association of German Languages should know that social change and linguistic change go hand in hand in history. So why should we assume that an inclusive society, which we (hopefully) all want, can emerge without a change in language? In doing so, we are probably laying the foundation for the further development of our society.”
Editor Sonja Sporrer takes a critical view of the discussion about gender at Audi, but also in general: “Without wanting to belittle the achievements of the gender movement, I think it is much less important for a woman to be given an *in than to be paid the same for the same work to get. In texts I can still understand the emphasis on the female form. But I don’t find the common use of language of stopping briefly before the “in” and starting again with the “i” particularly exciting, especially since this short pause has meanwhile been swallowed up and is no longer precisely audible. Which now leads to discrimination against male representatives of professions etc.
Can you now say: “So what … we women weren’t given equal rights for long enough, now it’s the men’s turn”. But that doesn’t solve the real problem of women-specific disadvantages either.
My opinion: Instead of getting into heated discussions about the right gender and even going to court, one should recognize and name the true issues of all (!) discriminated persons.
The debate seems to me far too one-sided, too emotionally charged and not very constructive, sorry. I also find it somewhat disconcerting that someone who speaks without hesitation is immediately labeled as reactionary and no longer up-to-date. A little more composure on the part of everyone involved would do the discussion good.
But maybe I’m just too old (fashionable) not to feel addressed and to be outraged by “Dear Citizens”.
What do you have to say about this topic, dear readers? Let us know what you think in the comments on FOCUS Online or our social media channels. We will select some of them editorially and present them in this article. Join us! Your opinion counts!
