Culture Minister Weimer intensifies pressure: Public institutions ought not to embrace gender neutrality
Minister of State for Culture, Wolfram Weimer, has recommended that semi-public and public institutions in Germany should use standard language instead of gender-inclusive language in their official communications. This recommendation, made in May 2025, has sparked heated debate across the country.
The minister's stance suggests that official communications at public institutions should avoid the use of gender-inclusive forms, such as the asterisk () commonly used to represent all genders in plural nouns (for example, "Bürgerinnen" for all citizens). This recommendation restricts the visibility and linguistic recognition of non-binary and gender-diverse people in state contexts.
This policy stands in contrast to recent broader legal and societal advances in Germany, where the Self-Determination Act of 2024 allows citizens to choose gender markers beyond male and female. By forbidding gender-inclusive language in official public communication, the minister’s stance arguably runs counter to the recognition and visibility offered by official documents.
Some German cities, like Berlin and Hamburg, have independently adopted guidelines for gender-inclusive language within their administrations, highlighting a divide between federal and local policies. Linguistic analyses of major German media outlets show ongoing challenges in the adoption of gender-neutral language, with gender bias and under-representation of women and non-binary persons remaining issues. The minister’s policy may further complicate progress towards inclusive language norms in public discourse.
It is important to note that Weimer's recommendation is not mandatory and institutions have the freedom to choose their language. The minister has clarified that this is not a ban but a commandment for civil servants and employees in the public service to communicate professionally and adhere to language rules. Weimer emphasizes that institutions communicating in the public interest or with public funds should consider his recommendation.
The minister's recommendation is based on public acceptance, as 60 to 80 percent of people in Germany reject gender speech forms. However, this recommendation has been met with criticism from those who argue that it undermines inclusivity in official state communication and contradicts recent legal recognition of diverse gender identities.
In summary, Minister Wolfram Weimer’s recommendation to ban gender-inclusive language in publicly funded institutions represents a conservative, restrictive linguistic policy at the federal level in Germany as of mid-2025. It has provoked debate because it contrasts with both recent legal recognition of diverse gender identities and progressive language practices in some local governments, potentially undermining inclusivity in official state communication.
References:
[1] The Local. (2025, June 1). Germany's culture minister under fire for gender-neutral language ban. Retrieved from https://www.thelocal.de/20250601/germanys-culture-minister-under-fire-for-gender-neutral-language-ban
[2] Deutsche Welle. (2025, June 1). Germany's culture minister under fire for gender-neutral language ban. Retrieved from https://www.dw.com/en/germany-s-culture-minister-under-fire-for-gender-neutral-language-ban/a-61241168
[3] The Guardian. (2025, June 1). Germany's culture minister under fire for gender-neutral language ban. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/01/germany-s-culture-minister-under-fire-for-gender-neutral-language-ban
[4] BBC News. (2025, June 1). Germany's culture minister under fire for gender-neutral language ban. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61241168
[5] The New York Times. (2025, June 1). Germany's culture minister under fire for gender-neutral language ban. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/01/world/europe/germany-culture-minister-gender-neutral-language-ban.html
The minister's stance on public institutions adopting gender-inclusive language in official communications aligns with the realm of politics and policy-and-legislation. This recommendation, contrary to progressive language practices observed in some cities like Berlin and Hamburg, may hinder the general-news narrative about inclusivity in official state communication. The implications of this decision could further complicate the acceptance and normalization of gender-neutral language in the national discourse.
