Annoying or important? Arguments for and against gender-inclusive language use in German across age and gender
Abstract
While the use of gender-inclusive language arose as a topic of widespread public debate as early as the 1970s, it has recently gained renewed interest, especially in Germany. The current study uses a questionnaire design to explore the attitudes of 222 native German speakers – across two age groups and several gender identities – regarding gender-inclusive language and the arguments provided for or against its use. The participants make use of seventeen argument categories, most of which have already occupied the debate since the 1980s. However, some new themes also occur, e.g. the issue of context specific use. Overall, themes of inclusivity and language ideology play a larger role for people with positive attitudes, while categories such as language economy and aesthetics are more prevalent for people with negative attitudes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Bruns and Leiting (2024, 2025) found that non-cisgender participants held more favorable attitudes toward gender-inclusive language than both women and men, who did not differ from each other.
“Bruns and Leiting (2024, 2025) assessed attitudes toward newly created forms of gender-inclusive language (e.g., the asterisk) and existing forms (e.g., epicene nouns) in a closed and an open response format and found that non-cisgender participants held more favorable attitudes than both women and men who in turn did not differ from each other.”
From What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Bruns and Leiting, 2024
Bruns and Leiting (2024, 2025) found that non-cisgender participants held more favorable attitudes toward gender-inclusive language than both women and men, who did not differ from each other.
“Bruns and Leiting (2024, 2025) assessed attitudes toward newly created forms of gender-inclusive language (e.g., the asterisk) and existing forms (e.g., epicene nouns) in a closed and an open response format and found that non-cisgender participants held more favorable attitudes than both women and men who in turn did not differ from each other.”
From What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Bruns and Leiting, 2025
In Bruns and Leiting (2024), highest self-reported use and highest actual use of gender-inclusive language in the translation task was found in non-cisgender participants, followed by women, followed by men.
“Highest self-reported use as well as highest actual use of gender-inclusive language in the translation task was found in non-cisgender participants, followed by women, followed by men.”
From What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Bruns and Leiting, 2024
In Bruns and Leiting (2024, 2025), in open format data, non-cisgender participants named more arguments and a greater variety of reasons for their stance than women, who in turn named more arguments and more various reasons than men.
“They also found that in the open format data non-cisgender participants named more arguments and a greater variety of reasons for their stance than women who in turn named more arguments and more various reasons than men.”
From What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Bruns and Leiting, 2024
In Bruns and Leiting (2024, 2025), in open format data, non-cisgender participants named more arguments and a greater variety of reasons for their stance than women, who in turn named more arguments and more various reasons than men.
“They also found that in the open format data non-cisgender participants named more arguments and a greater variety of reasons for their stance than women who in turn named more arguments and more various reasons than men.”
From What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Bruns and Leiting, 2025
People with positive attitudes mention how hard it is to change language habits, even though they are motivated to do so (Bruns and Leiting, 2025).
“(Bruns and Leiting, 2025, report that people with positive attitudes mention how hard it is to change language habits, even though they are motivated to do so)”
From What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review (2025) · cites this paper as Bruns and Leiting, 2025
Cited by
Sorted by citations
What affects people’s use of and attitudes toward gender-inclusive language? A literature review
Lange, E., & von Stockhausen, L. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1657753 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bruns, H., & Leiting, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Bonn (DE)
- ORCID
- Bruns, Hanna
- Venue
- Journal of Language and Discrimination
- Published
- 2024-11-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 165-191
- ISSN
- 2397-2637 (ISSN-L)
- 2397-2645
- OpenAlex
- W4408016393
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 3.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Language and Discrimination (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies in Language
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistic and Sociocultural Studies
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistic Variation and Morphology
- Keywords
- gender-inclusive language, German language, language attitudes, gender identity, age differences, language ideology, inclusivity, linguistic economy, aesthetics of language, native speakers
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
