When Discussions About Gender and Language Escalate Today

Anyone engaging in discussions about gender and language today quickly realizes that the issue has long since gone beyond asterisks or the “inner I.” Many discussions escalate within minutes—sometimes because facts are disputed, sometimes because emotions run high, and often because there is a lack of common ground. As a result, positions harden, and tensions escalate not only on a personal level but also in society at large. In the U.S., funding programs are being cut; in some German ministries, gender-neutral language is banned in official documents; and in Bavaria, a “gender ban” applies to schools, universities, and government agencies. At the same time, companies worldwide are pulling back from Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and public discussions are becoming more heated. And yet there is often a lack of scientifically grounded approaches on how to handle highly polarized debates.

The KoKoKom Research Project

This is precisely where the research project “KoKoKom – Debating Sex and Gender: Conflict and Consensus as Challenges in Science Communication” comes in, funded by the Federal Ministry of Research, Technology, and Space under the Science Communication funding line. To this end, the Chair of Science Communication with a focus on linguistics, headed by Professor Annette Leßmöllmann, collaborates with the Leibniz Institute for the German Language (IDS) in Mannheim and with the chairs of rhetoric research and linguistics at the University of Tübingen.

Auf der Suche nach dem Common Ground

Das interdisziplinäre Team untersucht eine grundlegende Frage: Wie wirkt es sich auf die die Kommunikation über Wissenschaft und Wissen aus, wenn geteilte Annahmen und Gesprächsgrundlagen verloren gehen? Dazu untersucht es – anhand großer Datenkorpora, aber auch in Detailstudien – besonders kontrovers geführte öffentliche Debatten über Geschlecht und Gender der jüngsten Zeit, die sich immer auch um die Frage drehten, was gute Wissenschaft ist und wie es um die Wissenschaftsfreiheit im Lande steht.

Warum Verständigung schwieriger wird

In öffentlichen Diskursen beobachten Forschende zunehmend, dass Gesprächspartner*innen nicht nur unterschiedliche Meinungen vertreten, sondern sich nicht einmal mehr auf Tatsachen oder Gesprächsregeln einigen können – oder wollen: Ein Blick in die politische Kommunikation der USA, insbesondere die des US-Präsidenten Donald Trump, zeigt, wie Fragen mit Beleidigungen oder ausweichenden Antworten abgewehrt werden – ein Muster, das Verständigung untergräbt.

Ziel von KoKoKom ist es, besser zu verstehen, wie Polarisieren auf sprachlich-rhetorischer Ebene funktioniert, ob Wissenschaft in solchen Debatten instrumentalisiert wird und welche Bedingungen nötig sind, damit Wissenschaftskommunikation konstruktiv gestaltet werden kann. Denn: Common Ground entsteht nicht von selbst, sondern braucht Räume, klare Regeln – und die Bereitschaft, eigene Überzeugungen zu hinterfragen.

Dialogformate als Lern- und Gestaltungsräume

Das Projekt verbindet Forschung mit praktischen Dialogformaten, in denen unterschiedliche Gruppen miteinander ins Gespräch kommen. Ein Beispiel sind sogenannte Unterhausdebatten und World‑Cafés. In diesen moderierten Formaten diskutieren Expert*innen aus Wissenschaft und Diversitäts- oder Gleichstellungsarbeit, Aktivist*innen und Interessierte gemeinsam über kontroverse Fragen rund um Geschlecht und Sprache.

In Search of Common Ground

The interdisciplinary team is investigating a fundamental question: How does the loss of shared assumptions and common ground for discussion affect communication about science and knowledge? To this end, it examines—using large data corpora as well as detailed studies—recent, particularly contentious public debates on sex and gender, which have consistently revolved around the question of what constitutes good science and the state of academic freedom in the country.

Why Understanding Is Becoming More Difficult

In public discourse, researchers are increasingly observing that conversation partners not only hold differing opinions but can no longer—or are unwilling to—agree on facts or the rules of conversation: A look at political communication in the U.S., particularly that of U.S. President Donald Trump, shows how questions are deflected with insults or evasive answers—a pattern that undermines understanding.

KoKoKom’s goal is to better understand how polarization works at the linguistic and rhetorical level, whether science is being instrumentalized in such debates, and what conditions are necessary for science communication to be shaped constructively. After all, common ground does not arise on its own, but requires spaces, clear rules—and a willingness to question one’s own convictions.

Dialogue Formats as Spaces for Learning and Collaboration

The project combines research with practical dialogue formats that bring different groups together in conversation. Examples include “House of Commons-style debates” and “World Cafés.” In these facilitated formats, experts from academia and the fields of diversity and gender equality, activists, and interested members of the public discuss controversial issues surrounding gender and language.

Exchange on Equal Terms

It becomes clear time and again that understanding often begins with challenging basic assumptions that are taken for granted in one’s own environment but are not necessarily universally valid. Different emotional reactions—such as to derogatory terms—are part of the learning process. Clear boundaries are set in the dialogue formats: discriminatory language has no place in these dialogue spaces. At the same time, participants explore together where discrimination begins.

Exchanges across generations and social groups prove particularly valuable. Students, researchers, experts, and social actors contribute diverse experiences with language and the public sphere.

A summary of the insights from the dialogue formats:

1. Polarized debates follow recognizable patterns—which means solutions can be found.

2. Mutual understanding requires deliberate effort—particularly agreements on rules of engagement—; it does not arise by chance

3. Research and practice must work together—only then can communication truly become inclusive

Especially when it comes to socially controversial topics, we need formats that enable dialogue on equal footing and create a shared knowledge base. Science (and science communication) can play a moderating role here—by showing which patterns shape polarized debates and how constructive communication can be designed. Through applied theory-practice interaction, KoKoKom is already contributing to this. In a time that feels increasingly polarized to many, this constructive exchange is gratefully received.