What exactly is this about? It is repeatedly claimed in debates that the German state is generally forcing us citizens to use gender. Comparisons are often made with the Third Reich, the GDR and North Korea.
What's the truth? It has to be said so clearly: there is nothing to such a claim. Nothing at all. The state may not and cannot generally force citizens to use gender. The state never intended to do so, such an obligation would clearly be unconstitutional, and it would also be completely impossible to enforce. And how could such a compulsion be enforced? With fines? The state does not even enforce the correct use of clearly existing regulations, e.g. the genitive (not: the genitive). And even if someone were to say "doctors" (and not "physicians"), he (or she) could actually only mean men. And then the term would be correct.
However, even if it is simply nonsense to claim that the state would generally want to, be allowed to or be able to coerce citizens - in certain situations and with regard to specific groups, this is quite conceivable. Namely, wherever the state or its institutions are in a power relationship with citizens: For example, in schools, universities or towards civil servants, employees and people with whom they have a contractual relationship. We will discuss whether such coercion exists here in separate questions. And we could also consider whether it would be a "compulsion" if the state or its institutions were to gender themselves, thereby creating something like "social pressure through a role model function".
And: We find it very interesting how an expert opinion prepared by the constitutional lawyer and former judge at the Federal Constitutional Court, Prof. Hans-Jürgen Papier, is being communicated in the media. The title of the report is "Gendering as a constitutional obligation". In other words, he investigated whether the state even has an obligation to change gender. He denies this as a general obligation, but affirms a fundamental mandate. The newspaper "DIE WELT" then turns this into the headline "The state may not generally oblige citizens to change their gender". In fact, this sentence can also be found in the report, but only in a subordinate clause and as a statement of the obvious.
Our conclusion: The claim that the state would generally force citizens to change their gender is simply nonsense. More than that: this claim can certainly be described as an outright lie. There is clearly and unequivocally no legal obligation for private individuals to use gender. It is another matter whether there is something like an obligation because the state itself genders. Some people may feel this is the case, i.e. "compulsion as a role model". However, it must be clearly stated here that the federal government, the federal states and the public administration have a duty (!) under Article 3 of the Basic Law to speak in a gender-equitable and non-discriminatory manner. Sentence two of this fundamental right states: "The state shall promote the effective implementation of equal rights for women and men and shall work towards the elimination of existing disadvantages."
Significance for marketing and communication: This point has no direct impact on marketing and communication. However, this framing by presumably very conservative journalists and activists creates a difficult environment for gendering. Just as for private individuals, there is no obligation for companies in the private sector (including the media) to use gender. However, they definitely have the right to do so.
If you want to read more about it:
