Although the contributions in this Special Topic span a variety of academic fields, methodologies, and linguistic contexts, they collectively reflect three key underlying themes. The first of these themes reflects investigations into the processing implications of gender-inclusive language forms. Varying emergent cultural formations of gender-inclusive language have developed over the past few decades, reflecting an epistemic shift in Western gender identity and broader societal changes in our understanding of gender. Nonetheless, these language forms, such as the Ə in Italian and the non-binary gender * in German, have increasingly been met with criticism or even outright prohibition. One of the main arguments against the use of gender-inclusive symbols is that such language forms disrupt reading and comprehension. In the face of such claims, it is therefore essential to empirically investigate whether these symbols do, indeed, inhibit comprehension or impede readability. In this Special Topic, the processing of two instances of non-binary language—the German gender star and Spanish morpheme –x is investigated in the contributions of Zacharski, Kruppa, & Ferstl, and Irizarry & Tamargo, respectively.

The gender star (e.g., Autor*in - author) is a novel neutral gender form that intends to address all genders (including men, women, and non-binary people). In two experiments using a lexical decision task, Zacharski et al. report results that are promising for proponents of the star form. Their findings show, first of all, that practically all participants identified role nouns with the * denomination as words rather than non-words. Second, exploring the role of individual traits and experience in determining readability, the authors show that younger, student participants seem to demonstrate no disadvantage in response speed to star forms (as compared to feminine and masculine forms). In contrast, although an older, non-student participant group accepted star nouns more slowly and less often, initial difficulties were overcome during the course of the experiment. Thus, whilst the claims of opponents of non-orthographical gender-neutral forms do not seem implausible, Zacharski et al.’s findings suggest a rapid facilitatory effect of familiarity and practice in the acceptance and readability of neutral gender forms.

Employing eye-tracking to further elucidate the influence of neutral gender forms on the stage of reading, Irizarry and Tamargo approach a similar question in the context of the Spanish -x. Whilst testing university students in Puerto Rico on a sentence reading task, the authors additionally collected information pertaining to four extralinguistic factors: gender identity, sexual orientation, experience with gender studies, and attitudes towards gender-inclusive morphemes (GIMs). Whilst differences in the processing costs of -x as compared to the masculine and feminine forms arose, individual factors appeared to again act as a moderator, particularly when taken together with attitude and sexual orientation. Specifically, fixation duration was reduced for heterosexual participants if they had positive attitudes towards gender-inclusive morphemes. Combined, the findings of Zacharski et al. and Irizarry & Tamargo highlight the importance of a host of individual factors, suggesting that the broad objection to gender-inclusive language as unreadable represents a vast oversimplification of the nuances of integrating these new language forms.

A second theme that arose in the collation of papers for this Special Topic pertains to gender, sexuality, and speech. Gender and sexuality have long been established to influence both speech production and linguistic choices. Whilst certain voice differences between individuals assigned male or female at birth are biological inevitabilities (e.g., lower fundamental frequency in those assigned male at birth due to longer vocal folds), inter-gender differences point to an equally important behavioral and learned component (Weirich et al., 2019; Weirich & Simpson, 2023). This variation as a marker of social identity can serve as a means of self-expression, signaling group belonging, agency (or lack thereof), and more. In two papers on this theme, Weirich and Fasoli & Teasdale consider the downstream outcomes of socially-meaningful speech variation in the context of occupational stereotypes and—in the case of the former—the role of identity in forming voice perception. Across two studies, Weirich investigates the influence of having a gender-atypical profession on voice production (i.e., does a woman working as a soldier speak in a more masculine manner?) and presumed profession on voice perception (i.e., does being told a man is a kindergarten teaching make him ‘sound’ more feminine?). Whilst their findings point towards no fundamental frequency differences between occupational groups, a significant positive correlation was found between fundamental frequency and self-reported femininity. In regards to perception, stimuli assumed to come from kindergarten teachers were rated significantly more friendly and more emotional than the same stimuli assumed to come from soldiers by younger listeners, while older listeners rated the assumed kindergarten teachers as less warm than the assumed soldiers, potentially pointing to a generational change in attitude towards these occupations.

Switching the focus to sexuality, Fasoli & Teasdale explore perceptions of gay vs. straight voices in regards to suitability for promotion, and the traits associated with these decisions (i.e., communality). Results show that perceiving men as gay can lead to a positive bias in hiring: gay-sounding men were believed to be more suitable for stereotypically feminine senior roles than straight-sounding men, due to gender stereotypes attributing greater communion to them. Such positive bias was stronger among those participants who reported the lowest level of negative attitudes toward gay men. These findings contribute to the current literature on voice-based discrimination as one of the few studies showing positive stereotyping and biases in certain contexts toward gay-sounding men.

Beyond voice quality, gender can also influence vocabulary. Research investigating distinct linguistic styles of men and women has mostly focused on linguistic and paralinguistic features within the same language (e.g., Plug et al., 2021). Deviating from this tradition, Schulte investigates gender differences in the use of two language variants that have distinct lexical and grammatical features, namely Standard German and Namibian German. Crucial to their research are the assumptions that 1. Men are less affected by the prestige of linguistic features than women, 2. Formal social situations may demand speakers, irrespective of their gender, to rely on a formal linguistic register, and 3. Mirroring social psychological approaches to implicit vs. explicit thought processes, lexical choices should occur in a more explicit and intentional way, whereas grammatical choices may reflect spontaneous, implicit processes. Their findings show that, as predicted, male speakers produce more Namibian German variants than female speakers to a greater extent in informal communicative contexts and produce significantly more lexical (explicit) features than females (but not grammatical, implicit features). Schulte’s results contribute a novel understanding of the roles of register, gender, and linguistics features in the context of language variants.

The final theme within this Special Topic addresses the conflict, across many languages, between grammatical and stereotypical gender in the context of occupation. Languages, of course, differ in their use of grammatical gender. English, for example, has little to no grammatical gender, while languages like Dutch or Swedish have partial gender systems for certain nouns. In fully gendered languages like French or Greek, gender applies broadly across nouns, pronouns, and adjectives, affecting grammatical agreement. In their contribution to this Special Topic, Chalyvidou & Weber examine the interaction of grammatical gender and gender stereotypes in Modern Greek. The authors primed Native Greek speakers with common-gender occupation nouns with masculine endings, but a stereotypically feminine or masculine bias (e.g., iδravlikós ‘plumber’ vs esθitikós ‘beautician’). Subsequently, participants saw masculine or feminine pronouns (aftós ‘he’ or aftí ‘she’), and indicated the gender of the pronoun while response times were measured. Slower response times were found only for masculine pronouns primed with a stereotypically feminine role noun (esθitikós ‘beautician’ - aftós ‘he’). The findings suggest that apparent morphosyntactic cues, albeit uninformative about referential gender, seemingly mitigated the impact of gender stereotypes associated with female-biased role nouns in prime-target pairs involving a feminine pronoun, reflecting an interaction between grammatical form and stereotype.

The final contribution on this theme comes from Hodel, Formanowicz and Sczesny, who investigate the interaction between class and the use of gender-inclusive language. Past research suggests that gender-fair language is more commonly used in egalitarian cultures, possibly stemming from middle-class communities’ endorsement of egalitarian values alongside stronger beliefs that social change is possible, as compared to working-class communities. In two studies, Hodel et al. investigate whether—as a result—gender-fair terminology might be demanded more actively (and therefore also used more often) for middle-class professions than working class professions. To explore this, the authors examine the use of feminine and gender-fair job titles for working vs. middle class professions in two grammatical gender languages, namely feminine job titles in Polish corpus texts (Study 1) and gender-inclusive job titles in Swiss German job advertisements (Study 2). Results showed that feminine and gender-inclusive job titles were indeed used more often for middle- than for working-class professions in both countries, findings that highlight – cross-culturally – the need to consider social class in future language research as well as in the implementation of language reforms.

In bringing together research from different scientific fields, with a diverse representation of countries, cultures, and methods, this Special Topic illustrates how gender (conceptualized as identity, norms, and stereotypes) and language mirror and shape each other. Contributions on gender fair language collectively highlight the nuances of an increasingly politicized issue that is perhaps often over-simplistically framed. The findings herein highlight just some of the complex cultural, societal and individual variation underpinning the influence of gender-inclusive language on comprehension, social identity, and societal dynamics. Moving on to the bidirectional influence of voice on stereotypes, alongside gender on spoken language style, voice, and linguistic choices, contributions to this Special Topic emphasize the profound influence of voice and language on perceptions of identity and competence. They underscore the need for greater awareness of these biases in everyday communication, hiring practices, and efforts to promote gender equality. Finally, in the most applied theme of the Special Topic, the contributions on the interaction between speakers, situation and language emphasize how language choices—whether shaped by grammar, stereotypes, or class—affect social perceptions and access to opportunities, calling for more nuanced approaches in promoting linguistic equality and combating gender bias in various settings.

Collectively, these contributions emphasize the multifaceted variables influencing language processing, the role of gender and social identity in communication, and the potential for evolving language forms to reshape social norms.