#895 The Rainbow Movement

Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: is “being human” ever wrong, and does uniting sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender roles under one banner help the conversation or blur it? In Room #895 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” the group traces the word “queer” from slur to reclaimed identity, unpacks the original eight-color meaning of the rainbow flag, and asks hard questions about guardrails, gender transition in minors, freedom of speech versus hate speech, and who actually benefits when society keeps redrawing the lines. Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…

Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.

A very good morning to all of you. Today we’re continuing our themes. Under the overarching topic “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” we want to look today at the room topic of the rainbow movement and open up a range of perspectives here. What perspectives can we open up in terms of interests, opportunities, and risks in connection with the much-discussed rainbow movement — that’s the question we’ve formulated here. And in that context we’re talking about gender topics, about LGBT, Q+, everything that’s been added on afterward. And in this context we simply want to take a closer look at it. In that sense I’m really curious about the different perspectives we can open up here. Similar approach to the technological topics and also the social, political topics we’ve dealt with over the past days — simply approaching it here from different angles, picking up different examples, developments that are currently happening, trying, to some extent, since this may also be an emotional topic for one person or another, to step out of judgment, so to speak, and simply gather what the “facts” are, in quotation marks, and to look at it with a certain distance, from a certain meta-level, in order to sort out our own thoughts together, to see in exchange where the whole thing is heading, and to then be able to generate insights for ourselves from the room, so that afterward we can think about what to do with them. So in that sense you are all very, very warmly invited to join today as well, ideally right from the start, because I could imagine we’re going to fill the hour intensively with various thoughts and various examples, etc. And a reminder for everyone: the room is recorded the entire time, so whoever joins automatically agrees that the whole thing will also be published. And then we have three small room rules, for anyone who might be in the room for the first time today: please make sure you have a profile photo in which you’re clearly recognizable, then a first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. And whoever doesn’t want that for whatever reason, or can’t speak but is listening and would like to contribute, has the option of participating via the chat. So, I’m very curious. Marc is joining right away. A very good morning, dear Marc. What are your first thoughts on this topic?

Good morning to the group. Yes, I’ll start with a direct piece of influence — I just want to make it clear that this is my opinion, which I’m voicing here. And I’m coming straight from a room on LinkedIn where Pride was also a topic today. And I heard a really great sentence there that I can underline 100%, which I can’t back up with evidence, but which fully matches my opinion 100%. And that sentence was: “Being human cannot be wrong.” And then came the explanation: if we start — not talking about our language, but about relationships, about what the rainbow movement concerns, being gay, queer, lesbian and so on — and if in our language we then also say that’s “not natural” and so on, then the only thing that’s not natural about it is how we treat one another, not the person. The person is always right. I really liked that. So much for the beginning, as a starting point.

Wonderful, thank you so, so much. And here it’s also important, within the exchange, that we really differentiate — as I already said — between talking about a topic and, well, we tend to go straight into judgment. That’s why I said earlier that this can be a very emotional topic for one person or another. So I’m very curious: what are the first approaches we can take to the terminology, etc., when we dare to approach it? Marc, do you have anything you’d like to bring in on that?

Yes, of course, I prepared for the topic, and it’s good that you’re opening it up this way. I addressed the positive side first — the topics I found quite interesting, I’ll explain in a moment where this statement comes from. Yesterday I also found articles saying: is the rainbow movement a danger to our democracy? And the questions that fundamentally arise for me on the topic of the rainbow movement, if we really look at it from the meta-level — and I find that wonderful, dear Yasemin, that’s why I love your rooms — from the meta-level that means, for me personally, for Marc: first, our language; what does it mean for society, also misogyny and so on; what does it mean for marketing — I keep an eye on that too, I notice that a lot of companies are using this rainbow topic right now to win new customers. We all want new customers. Let’s just say a lot of gay men and lesbians also have good jobs and earn a lot of money. That means whoever earns a lot of money can also spend a lot of money. And at the same time it’s also a question of culture. We also have to take into account that there are different religions, different prior experiences, that look at the topic differently, that maybe don’t look at it from the meta-level. And from that, of course, danger to democracy can arise — a second point that initially has nothing to do with my first one. There can also be a division of society, and last night on Lanz I heard that in America the cultural question, the culture question, is playing a huge role right now, where society is splitting apart, and that’s why it’s so important to talk about so many topics in these rooms, because there are so many complex topics one can look at, that one has to consider. And the question isn’t simply, from an emotional standpoint, do I find the rainbow movement good or not? You’re right that it has very, very many effects — effects on things we might not think of at first.

Yes, wonderful. Thank you so, so much. And it becomes clear quite quickly that there’s a certain complexity here too, with this topic. And the first thing we can basically do is to take a closer look at what’s actually behind these terms. Did you bring something on that, Marc? Behind this LGBTQ, with this thought?

I approached the topic a bit differently. First I googled for myself where the word “queer” comes from. And I found that a really exciting development, because I simply wasn’t aware of it. The word “queer” — hold on, I have to scroll down here, I can’t find it right now — but the word queer simply meant, well, unnatural, strange, odd, and so on, and it was first used in the USA as a slur, just to understand this development of the whole rainbow movement. So it was used as an insult, and it was used to insult people who deviated from heteronormative rules. I really liked that on Wikipedia, because — who sets these rules? That’s a different discussion point. But apparently someone is deviating from a rule there. And it meant, as I said, odd, suspicious, crazy, peculiar and so on. You can already see from the meaning of the word that a judgment was implied. There was no possibility of thinking anything else. And that’s my point of entry: we have to pay attention to our language. And then it completely changed, because a very clever woman, Teresa de Lauretis — I hope I pronounced that correctly — introduced queer theory. And that was a way to overcome identity-political restrictions. And through that they turned the word “queer,” which was actually negatively connoted, into something positive. We are different, we are consciously different, and so on. And through that the word “queer” alone took on a completely new meaning. And that’s why it’s so important to become aware of language, in order to also be able to reclaim words, and thereby achieve new results.

Yes, wonderful. Thank you so, so much. And maybe to add something on this LGBT aspect. For anyone who hasn’t yet engaged so intensively with the terminology, or with what’s behind the abbreviation — what’s actually behind it? LGBT is the abbreviation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender, and was then continuously expanded over time. The Q stands for Queer, which you just described. And then more and more additions kept being added. And the first approach I find worth considering here is basically: it’s about different genders and gender identities and sexual orientations that are hidden behind this term, so to speak behind this abbreviation. And that’s already the first thing where we might look more closely, also with regard to the development of this movement. The rainbow colors — we might get into that later, to make a connection there too. But I think the first approach really is to look more closely at the origin of these abbreviated terms. Because it’s interesting that different aspects come together here. The first question we could ask ourselves in this context is: it’s about genders, gender identities, and sexual orientation. What does that mean very concretely? And what questions can actually be derived from that? Marc, do you have thoughts on that?

Yesterday I actually started with the rainbow flag, because when I read “rainbow movement,” of course I think of a rainbow. And I found it quite interesting to go back to the origin first. The rainbow flag actually stands for diversity. And if I now leave out this sexual designation and we just talk about diversity, then I can underline all of that. And the colors of course also had a specific meaning. Originally there were eight colors. Pink stood for sexuality — I can’t say anything about that, okay, we all have sex, at least I hope so. Then red for life — I affirm life, I find that great too. Orange for healing — healing, wonderful topic. Yellow for the sun — I love the sun. Green for nature — nature is also wonderful. Turquoise for art — splendid, what would life be without art? Blue for harmony — I’m a harmony-addicted person. And purple for the soul — fits me completely. So if I look at it that way and just take the terms, then the rainbow flag should be hanging at my office too, because these are all terms I fully underline. And without these terms my life wouldn’t be as beautiful as it is now.

Yes, so in principle we’ve now gone through the rainbow colors. And I’d really like to proceed a bit more slowly here. I think it makes sense to stay with the origin for now. I’d like to go into exchange with you once more on this question: when we say LGBTQ+, all sorts of things are included in that — we’re talking about genders, gender identities, and sexual orientation. Is all of that actually the same thing? Question mark. Is a sexual orientation, for example, the same as a gender identity, or a gender, or are we actually talking about different levels here? I think it’s worth looking more closely at this, because it might later provide answers as to why this movement has become so large, in quotation marks, because it makes sense to actually look at these developments — what’s all being mixed or blended together in this abbreviation. Layla, a very good morning. What do you have to say on the topic?

A very good morning. Let me just quickly check my audio, because I’m just figuring out where the headphones are. Can you hear me? Perfect. What I can say about it — for me it’s a sign for, well, it’s about equality, and it’s about treating people equally. That’s actually one thing for me, and that’s the question — it’s really important, what you asked, because it’s so often confused, what is sexuality and what is gender. It’s about how a person feels and whether they’re called she or he. It has nothing to do with who that person sleeps with, but with whether they can simply show themselves as they are. And all people have had experiences of discrimination at some point in their life — yes, and any of us can have that. One should keep an eye on that and then also make sure that this diversity can be lived out. And I find that beautiful. I don’t know if I’ve answered your question, but that was important to me to say.

Yes, thank you so, so much. And I don’t think the question can be answered in one sentence either, but it makes sense to really approach the topic step by step through different perspectives and approaches. Because if we say that different things are contained within this abbreviation, and you say it’s ultimately also about this idea of equality — something we’d probably all nod along to, that makes sense somehow — then in a second step we also have to ask ourselves: what genders actually exist, male, female? Then there are more than that. What are we talking about when we talk about gender identity — do I feel like a man, a woman, something else, whatever is hidden within these terms? And then we have the aspect of sexual orientation, which is about preferences, for example in sexual practices. And does gender identity automatically correlate with sexual orientation, or are these different things? And I find these questions aren’t easy to answer at all. That makes it all the more important, all the more sensible, to look closely at this terminology and also ask the question: does it even make sense to unite all these aspects in this one term, which has grown bigger and bigger over time, and which might also provide an explanation for why this rainbow movement has kept growing — because suddenly more and more people find themselves reflected in certain terms, or support one thought or another. The question, however, is: do they then support every single thought behind it, or do we need to differentiate here as well? Layla, go ahead.

Yes, so I think — it was very extensive — I think it has nothing to do with, I mean the LGBTQ movement, I don’t think it’s about — and also this plus, I think the problem is that people often say, okay, so I have to accept all of that. I think originally it was about equality, and also about these gender roles. I mean, Yasemin, we as women, we were prescribed for so long — I always do the topic “typically girl, typically boy” in school, you just have to look at a schoolbook. Images are simply presented of how someone has to be. And that this is being opened up is a very good thing. And I think we can all agree on that. I think it’s important when I ask, what is “typically girl,” what is “typically boy”? Just the phrase “you throw like a girl” — people used to just say that. Today people fight tooth and nail against that. I have girls in my class who do martial arts or play football. That wouldn’t have been possible before. My teacher once said to me, “well, I don’t want to play football with the stupid geese.” That’s simply changed. I think these gender roles, who am I, that’s opened up. That’s what it’s about. It’s very often confused with sexual identity, with who I sleep with. Then people get the feeling, I have to accept all of that now. That’s not actually what it’s about at all. It’s about this idea of equality. I believe that’s fundamentally the truth, and I don’t want to be told what to wear, who to sleep with, what to do in my life, and we have the principle of equality based on the constitution, and I think that’s the basic idea, right?

Yes, good question, right? Marc, what do you say about that?

Phew, this is really — I really have to say, I’m — I find this hard. I find it very hard, because I haven’t dealt with this terminology, because for me personally it doesn’t carry that importance. I don’t know how a woman feels, and I also don’t know how someone who is queer feels. I approach it differently. I accept that it is the way it is, and then I look at how to deal with it. But I won’t speculate about how they feel, because that would be presumptuous of me — distinguishing between sexual orientation. And this morning on LinkedIn I only caught a bit of people who are queer discussing this, and I find it really difficult when people say, how do I feel? So when it’s about how I feel. And Layla is right there, saying, do I feel like a man now or do I feel like a girl? And that starts with how we use language. Really interesting, when someone in school says to someone, “don’t throw like a girl.” But strength has nothing to do with muscle power — girls often throw much farther than men. That can lead to women being more reserved at work because boys are supposedly stronger. That’s why for me this “how do I feel” isn’t so important. For me, there is a sexual orientation. I don’t have to understand it, because everyone feels differently too. That’s why I can’t answer your question, because it would be presumptuous to say how someone feels or what’s going on inside them. I can’t do that, because I don’t feel it and I’m not that. I just accept that there are terms for it. There might be ten of them, or five, and for me the only interesting question is, how do we deal with it? And the only thing — and I don’t want to make light of the topic, but it came up in conversation — I was on the phone with a friend who’s also a managing director, and he said, “hey, I just applied for a position,” and that involved a diversity quota, and now imagine what they’d do if I didn’t get the job and I just said, well, today I feel like a woman. Then they’d have to give me the job, because that would be equality. And then let them try to prove that I don’t feel like a woman today, even though objectively, physically, I’m a man. And then I just smiled. I said, that’s a fascinating topic, I’m curious about the court case if you file a lawsuit over that.

Yes, and here different aspects come together, and that’s why I think it’s important to look closely at this and really go into differentiation here. Because this aspect that Layla brought up earlier, about these attributions regarding the role of women or the role of men, or expressions like “typically girl” or “typically boy” or similar — those are culturally made attributions. They can also be culturally different in different countries, and they have to do with learned socialization, so to speak, in this context — against the background of which country I grow up in, how my parents relate to certain topics, how society relates to it, how upbringing proceeds, and so on. And then there’s another differentiation on the biological level, for example. There we could ask the question: what is it biologically? Is there just the gendered assignment of woman and man, female and male — are there more than these two sexes? That’s now a completely different question, not viewed culturally, but on the biological level. And then we have this aspect of sexual orientation. And when we talk about sexual orientation or something like that, and then about equality or similar, then we’ve also witnessed certain developments that are of course also different in different countries — such as marriage, this further development of marriage, for example being able to marry someone of the same sex, and similar things. And against the background that they should also enjoy the same privileges, the groups of people affected by this, and so on. And then we have this aspect of sexual orientation again, where it’s about who, for example, I feel attracted to. And I think it makes sense to differentiate here among these terms too, because a question arises from this. Of course I can say I’ll throw everything into one pot and say the basic idea is really about establishing “equality.” But I have to look — equality, the idea of equality, in relation to what exactly? Is it about the orientation, the sexual orientation, that should be accepted? Is it about us having more than two genders? Is it about various identities being accepted, in quotation marks, that there are people who might, for example, be born in a male body and feel like a woman, and vice versa, or maybe don’t even want to commit to a definition at all? How important is it even to define that at all? Because that’s where the complexity comes in, with the whole chain reaction that gets triggered. And we could open up examples here too — what consequences that has and what effects it has, both individually and looked at from a societal perspective. And with that I’d like to bring Sabine in as well now. Maybe a reminder for the hand-raising function too. We have three small room rules to observe for anyone who wants to join the interaction: a profile photo where you’re clearly recognizable, a first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio — simply to make sure it’s not Clubhouse trolls, but actually genuine contributions. Whoever doesn’t want that, i.e. wants to remain anonymous, can of course use the chat, and then we can pick up on one thing or another there too. Nevertheless we have various rules in the room, so that we can indeed voice our opinions, but that we differentiate between the factual level and personal attacks or similar. So this, especially against the background that the topic can be very emotional for one person or another, as a reminder too — to really stay on the factual level, and the room is recorded the entire time. That means whoever joins is automatically agreeing that the whole thing, along with their contribution, will subsequently be published. Sabine, a very good morning.

A very good morning. This is a very difficult and far-reaching topic. For me it’s a bit — tolerance is actually the headline over everything, because I don’t think you can put yourself one-to-one into other people. I remember, this was four, five years ago, we had a Christopher Street Day parade in Mannheim, and I stood at the edge and was really just amazed — we happened to be in the city by chance — how different the people were who all ended up marching together in one procession. That was really something. It reminded me a bit of today, sometimes, like a march of the AfD, climate activists, and so on — suddenly everyone who actually thinks very, very differently comes together, and I connect that a bit with this too. And I have to say, for me the top priority would always be tolerance. But nevertheless I also wanted to give an example. A friend of mine is a teacher at a high school, and apparently a student in her class came out as, I believe, transgender, and she told me once what kind of discussions that led to with the principal — she tries to reach the young girls, and he no longer even dared to go to the bathroom, because he didn’t know, do I go there or do I go there? So I think it’s often not as simple as we think, when you’re standing on the other side, so to speak. And when you have a somewhat similar case in the family, you also notice — I mean, that’s why you don’t want to reject that person, that would be nonsense. But you do have to take a big step and say, I grant you that, if that’s how it is, then that’s how it is. And I think that’s where we again come up against our pigeonholing. And maybe there are also negative beliefs from childhood, like with the football example — my daughter also played football, I can relate to that, she always played in a boys’ team, that was always a bit weird for her, not the football itself, but everything around it. Well, that’s what I wanted to share. Thanks.

Yes, thank you so, so much, and the point you made — when you actually look at everything that’s included under this same overarching topic, so to speak, under this abbreviation, that’s very, very interesting to observe, and I hardly think that they all, in quotation marks, so to speak, hold the same stance on the individual terms when you open up these abbreviations, but rather what unites them here — and Layla said this earlier — is that it’s about a certain idea of equality. However, this equality refers to something specific, and quite a lot is actually contained within this specific thing, within this abbreviation. And that’s why I personally think it makes sense to really differentiate here. Because the rainbow movement doesn’t go out onto the streets and say, we are, per se, first and foremost for equality — rather, they are advocating for certain ideas in relation to equality regarding something specific. And the people you find within this movement, so to speak — one person maybe represents certain views on the topic of sexual orientation, another on identity, another on genders, gender roles and so on. And suddenly, completely different thoughts and opinions come together under one roof, so to speak. And that could also be a possible explanation for why this movement has become so large — because it keeps being supplemented with further abbreviations. We’re already at the point where, originally starting from LGBT, the Q was added, and by now so many letters have been added that people are just putting a plus sign at the end. And that’s why it makes sense, on the one hand, to look more closely, and on the other hand — Sabine, you’ve already opened up a first example with the restrooms. There are a lot of aspects that can be picked up here, starting with everyday life — what does that actually mean in everyday life? And especially against this background it’s worth discussing further. There are also various draft laws already being discussed and so on, where it’s about simplifying certain things, especially with regard to, say, if I want to change my gender, etc. And in that context we’re also talking about minors, that also needs to be discussed. And also something like, in the future I should have the option, for example, once a year, to change my first name or have myself addressed differently. That means we’re also talking about a possible regular switch that could take place, where I might want to be addressed differently this year than next year. And then, as a consequence, again to look, similar to the restrooms, what does that actually mean in practice? What could that have an effect on? And on the one hand it might really be necessary to rethink things societally, more openly, and at the same time to look at where there are really massive challenges or difficulties, and whether it even makes sense to discuss one thing or another in this form at all. Marc, Layla, Sabine — would you like to add to that?

Yes, go ahead Layla, then Marc, and maybe afterward Sabine again if you like.

Yes, so I’ll try a definition now. I just looked it up again on SWR. According to the textbook there apparently are definitions distinguishing sexuality — for me this is difficult in the sense that it’s not that I’m not familiar with it, but I’m considering what to say because I don’t want to hurt anyone. That’s already a point where a lot of people would say, well, you used to be allowed to say that. No, well, that’s just how it is now. There’s the biological sex, that’s the English “sex.” And then there’s gender, which is the socio-cultural context. If we now assume — nowadays you have to think about it — I am, say, a cis woman. I feel like a woman, define myself that way, and accordingly have the sexuality and also see this gender within myself. A lot of people suddenly find that complicated and say, “well, but it’s always been that way, why do I have to think about it now?” Exactly because of what Sabine also said — because there are people for whom it’s incredibly hard. I watched a Jan Böhmermann show where, honestly, I was a bit shocked at how it is when someone wants to change their gender, when someone really wants to go through a transition and become a woman or become a man — how that is, and it’s extremely complicated. You get asked a lot of very personal questions. And yes, it’s also connected to, later on, which restroom am I allowed to use? And still, there’s this immense intrusion into a person’s privacy, because you’re prescribing to people how they have to be. And that’s up for debate. Because when I watched that Böhmermann show, I thought, wow, if I wanted to do that, I’d be asked this and that question. I’d be forced to get divorced — apparently that was the case until 2011, I’m not sure. Please go watch the show, it’s from ZDF. So I was a bit shocked. I know people who live out their sexuality and are attracted to the same sex. And I know people who have changed their gender. And I have to say, I find it very complicated for these people. It starts with which restroom do I want to use, then it continues with which sport do I do — does the women’s quota now also apply to me even though I used to be a man? And of course you could say, from now on you can change your name every year, and then tomorrow I could just choose, do I want to be Asian now or whatever. Good grief. And still, it’s the case that it’s very complicated for these people. And I’ve had the experience that there’s a lot of suffering involved, and also a lot of misunderstanding from the other side. And still you have to think about, from what point do I do this? From what point am I allowed to give a child hormones? Should the child be allowed to choose? Well, they’re allowed to choose every day. Will they be addressed as she or he? And those are difficult questions. And that’s why I think it’s important that we talk about this today. I don’t know if I’ve shed any light on it — I did my best.

Yes, wonderful. Thank you so, so much. Marc, what do you say to that?

I understand the complexity now, dear Yasemin, that you also raised. I also looked it up again. In situations like this, when I don’t find an answer, I always try to go back to science. And whether that’s still correct, that’s a different discussion. According to biology, the only role — biology only distinguishes between male and female and defines sex based on reproduction. That would be biology’s answer for now. The legal side — and now complexity immediately comes into play. In law, since 2018, it’s not just a question of reproduction, whether I’m male or female — I can also register as diverse. The law passed that, so it exists. As a business owner — and I want to polarize a little here — as a business owner, I would only have a problem if we now pulled the whole thing onto the emotional level, and I’ll deliberately exaggerate this to the point of absurdity so you understand: if I said in the company, and of course you’ll all jump on me now and say, “Yasemin, sometimes I feel a bit like an alien, I feel like there’s a bit of Saturn in me, and I don’t know which bathroom to use now.” Of course that’s absurd now, but where does that lead, if I have different feelings that are genuinely there, and no one can deny that I feel like an alien? At most you could say, “you’ve got a screw loose, you’re a bit crazy.” But how — and this either answers your question or it doesn’t — how do we deal with it? What’s the basis on which we decide? Do we decide based on science, based on biology, do we decide based on laws, or do we decide based on an emotional state? But if we decide based on an emotional state, then democracy comes into play again. And then the person who feels like an alien can also demand that right. I want my own bathroom, because as an alien I don’t want to use the same bathroom as Yasemin, I just don’t feel comfortable with that. I know that’s absurd, but it shows how difficult it is when terms aren’t defined, or what do we orient ourselves by? What’s the basis of our decision?

Yes, wonderfully illustrated, I think, this complexity too, that’s hidden behind this, behind this abbreviation, let’s just call it that, on the one hand, and then these different levels we can look at and also try to find answers, in order to then figure out how we deal with it now and what that means societally, etc. And I think a lot of people would nod along to this — certainly, at one point or another, a certain rethinking is needed, and at another point it might also be necessary to look and say, no, and there it actually doesn’t make sense, it might go a step too far. Because especially when we talk about identity or something like that, a lot of aspects come into play. Identity isn’t only characterized by aspects like which gender I feel I belong to or similar, but we can also pick up aspects from other, neighboring contexts, like scientific findings that exist in this context — not regarding gender topics, but other neighboring topics, something like migration background, for example. And there you’ll find, when you look at results from science, that for example with people who have a migration background, something happens in the third generation, namely a kind of struggling, I’ll call it that, regarding identity. So if, for example, my parents or grandparents came to Germany with a migration background, they arrive with a firmly anchored identity. That means they feel they belong, in my case that would be Turkish nationality — they grew up there, were socialized there, came here, and then had children here, etc. And in the second generation that still works relatively well. In the third generation, an identity crisis suddenly appears. Suddenly a search begins for “where do I actually belong?” And this isn’t just in relation to people who come to Germany, this is a worldwide phenomenon. That means identity plays a really important role, and here, to not make it any less complex, questions also arise like — what does that do to identity, looked at over several generations, and what effects does that have on the societal level, all the way up to — we had a room once, for example, where we talked about how marriage, in terms of its background, actually represents an institution, so to speak, and had relevance in terms of inheritance, so that you could say you could clearly assign how the line of inheritance works, and so on.

Such constellations have also been institutionalized in order to have clear regulations, for example, on a legal level. And if we now transfer that to this rainbow movement, the question also arises in many places — what does that mean legally, for example, what does that mean on the societal level, and Layla brought up a really important aspect regarding how easy or difficult it is, for example, to undergo a gender transition, and here new questions also arise — does it make sense, or is it maybe also exaggerated? And then, when we discuss something like from what point should that be possible? Sure, we’re “born into” something, so to speak, and don’t have a choice. And then maybe there should also be options to make changes. But from what point, in quotation marks, is that really sensible? Is it sensible, for example — isn’t it the case, just as a question, that people who are in puberty, for example, are anyway still searching for their own identity, that identity is first being formed? And are they even, at a young age, in a position to make final decisions already? Because if you look more closely at the topic, it’s not just, in quotation marks, a gender transition that takes place, but really years-long procedures. That means it’s about hormones being administered, for example to promote breast development, or the other way around to promote hair growth, and so on. And we’re talking about something we haven’t even touched on yet. And it’s worth looking more closely at that too, because it’s barely talked about at all. All these operations, hormones and medications that are involved here, of course also have side effects, meaning also complications. Not every surgery goes flawlessly and everything works out — crises can also arise here, because something goes wrong. And then — I’ll open up yet another door — who actually bears the costs for that? Those are also discussions that of course need to be had, in order to try to find sensible answers.

And with that I’d like to welcome Peter to the round now. Really curious about your thoughts too, and afterward we’ll draw connections again. Good morning, Peter.

Good morning, Yasemin, and good morning to all of you. I really just wanted to say a quick hello, because I find your room incredibly exciting. Unfortunately I can only join for a few more minutes and will happily listen. I just wanted to say briefly: when we talk about the rainbow movement, then the topic of identity and transgender and everything you’re discussing so intensively right now really is just one part of it. I just want to say that. The rainbow movement, if you can even use that term, ultimately stems from the assertion of homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual people toward the majority society. That is, it’s about visibility, it’s about living honestly, and specifically about living with oneself and with society. It’s about not talking about, for example, sexual preferences as some kind of abnormality, when a man loves a man or a woman loves a woman — and that, by the way, it’s not just about sexuality, it’s about living together, so also about a life model, and the recognition in society that this is nothing deviant, nothing contemptible, nothing to be fought, and by the way also nothing threatening. Because that’s something I keep noticing again and again in this discussion — you keep hitting these trigger points where people, forgive me, from the so-called majority society, meaning those who live heteronormatively, perceive it as a threat to themselves or their life when other people are different or want to live differently. Whether now in the sexual sense or in the sense of identity. And I just want to make an appeal here — all these questions you’ve raised, which always resonate a bit with this — it’s not criticism, but it’s my impression when I hear this — with this “oh, what’s coming at us? How are we supposed to deal with this? How do I as a business owner deal with this small ‘d,’ male, female, diverse, now?” Does something change hourly? No, it doesn’t. How do I deal with it? Courageously, I would suggest. Moving forward and turning toward the people it’s about. And that, by the way, doesn’t mean — and this is what I’m already reading in the chat — that you’re putting the other people, meaning those who belong to the majority society, and that’s simply a heteronormative society, in the back seat or cutting back their rights. That’s not what it’s about at all. Not for the rainbow movement at all. Rather, it’s really about making people visible and enabling them to live the life they want to live, and within that life — and I believe they all have a right to feel good in it too. I myself — last sentence, well, one always says that, but then it becomes two — I myself have lived openly gay for over 20 years. I’m living my second marriage with a wonderful man, and I tell you quite honestly, I am extremely grateful to live in a society where this is not only possible, but where I’ve become, at some point, so normal within social life that I don’t even have to concern myself anymore with what my status actually is in this society, who I have to defend myself against, or who’s attacking me, or whatever. But for many, many, many people in this country, who are searching — from sexual identity to gender identity — or who have made a decision, it’s incredibly difficult. And these people need support and strength, and not so much doubt. That’s what I wanted to say.

Yes, wonderful. Thank you so, so much. And I’m fully with you on everything you said. And at the same time, from all these developments, of course, consequences follow, starting with legal developments, whether that’s about marriage, whether it’s about gender transitions, etc. And that’s why it’s inevitable that discussions need to be had on this basis, especially with regard to “change,” in quotation marks, because it’s also a societal development. Yes, Peter?

Yes, my only request would be, Yasemin, and then I unfortunately have to leave you — I ask sincerely for your understanding — but maybe you could carry this thought forward into your further discussion. Namely, that society now allows this, that it also plays a role legally, that all the questions that arise are then discussed going forward. That’s what matters to me. Not in the sense of “does all of this have to be,” and “do we really need all of this,” and “now a minority is forcing its will on us” and so on. I warn against such debates. Instead, let’s really carry these debates forward, in order to develop society further, and to simply develop coexistence in society further. And as I said, it’s just one part of this whole big topic, I’d almost put it that way — how do we want to live together and coexist in this society? And there are so many terrible tendencies right now, especially of exclusion, of verbal attacks, of attacks on social media and so on, that really wear people down. Let’s not have that discussion in this setting — you’re not doing that here, don’t get me wrong. But there are always these approaches of saying, “is something threatening me?” And I tell you, it threatens no one. That’s what I wanted to say. Thank you all very much.

Yes, wonderful, thank you so, so much. And I’m also glad and grateful that you joined and underlined once more that we’re not doing that here in this format. Because that’s exactly our approach under the overarching theme “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” so to speak. We’ve picked up and discussed various aspects. There were a lot of technological topics. Then we made various connections, and now we’re in the process of picking up and discussing certain topics on the societal and political level. And here it’s primarily about establishing a dialogue in the first place. And that of course requires, in terms of approach — I don’t know how closely you follow the Deep Talk rooms — but our aim is always to first take apart terminology and approach the origin, to look at what’s actually hidden behind it, what does it mean, on what levels can we approach the topic, where is the complexity, how can we break that complexity down on the one hand, in order to then also show the connections again on the other. That’s the effort, so that at one point or another we can shed a bit of light on things, and then everyone can sort their own thoughts, so to speak, take away many questions, let them settle, and also decide for themselves where to dock in, what that means for them personally, and how one attitude or another that I previously held as an opinion might change — because, since I often consume media without thinking about it, I now get the opportunity here to open up further perspectives on various topics through a moment of reflection. That’s really important too. I saw, Layla, you wanted to add something as well.

Exactly, and I just wanted to say briefly, I also find what Peter just said very important, and it’s also important how it’s always picked up, because the way we just did it here — that’s always how it’s picked up. It’s a betrayal for me — I got alert earlier when Marc said, well, it’s about reproduction. And then I thought, wait a second, I’m turning 45, I’m a woman, I don’t have children, and I looked into this once with a friend when I turned 40 back then. And we thought about whether to get married or not, how things would continue. And that involves a lot in life. 75 percent of all women, I believe in Germany, have children, 25 percent don’t. I belong to that 25 percent. I’m still a woman. These thoughts you raised, I have to think about them too, as a cis-hetero woman. Namely, how does this continue? Who takes care of me in an emergency? What’s it like if I’m in a partnership and don’t get married, because marriage is protected in Germany? And still, I also have to deal with such questions — say, Yasemin, well, I’m turning 45. First question: are you married? Why don’t you have children? I find that very intrusive, to ask me why I don’t have children. There can be many reasons for that. I have multiple sclerosis, for example. Maybe I don’t even want to tell you that. But it’s part of the standard. And that’s why I used my own example, because I notice you get confronted with these images, it’s just part of it. It’s about reproduction, it’s about the institution of marriage, it’s about what’s protected and what isn’t, it’s about the majority society. And if we look at it that way — who actually belongs to the majority society then? You brought up this nice example with the migration background too, that was also a topic in my studies. And it’s about, is identity crystalline? It keeps developing. My father is Tunisian, I’m German-Tunisian in the second generation. My niece is still partly Tunisian. And then it’s about, well, does she have to decide now? For me, I have dual citizenship, and there’s discussion about whether I’m allowed to do that or not. And it’s about questions like, how does this continue in the future, to bring up the example from the beginning again — when I get old, who takes care of that? What about life-prolonging measures, who decides that? Courts would have to decide that otherwise. And then of course it’s also about, if you’re in a partnership and not married, you don’t belong to the majority society — how are these decisions made? That’s why it’s important that we talk about this. And I brought up my example, Yasemin, to say we all always think, “we’re not affected by that, that doesn’t really concern me.” It concerns me too, somehow, even though I don’t belong to the majority society. I’m single, I’m a woman, I’m in a job — not in my current one, but if I think back over my working life, where I said I want to do this and that — “oh, it’s nice that we have her, because we have young colleagues, we don’t know how things will go for them.” And then I thought to myself, they’re deciding right now whether I’ll have children later or not. If someone asks me why I don’t have children, do I not like children? Then I think, okay, where’s this going now? And that’s why it’s important, and that’s why it’s also important to think about this, because even if we think it doesn’t affect us, do we want these questions — we have to think about it, because every person needs a protected framework. Whether I’m single and have no children, whether I’m homosexual, whether I’ve changed my gender — that’s why it’s important to discuss this. Thanks for listening.

Yes, absolutely. And here too, to pick up on what resonated in what Peter said — whenever any discussions are held, it’s also about this aspect: do I feel threatened in my existence, so to speak. And that’s, on the one hand, really important to look at, because with changes it’s always about this question — does it threaten my existence, and what’s the benefit for me, that’s the second question that follows. And because I might feel threatened in my existence, it’s of course possible that I overreact emotionally on one side or the other, in quotation marks. So, on one hand, to neutralize that and create a certain awareness. At the same time — and now we come to the other side, which is at least equally important — it’s also worth noting that people also need a certain orientation. Why, for example, do we develop routines? Because we need guardrails, because we need something to move within. And the moment a development occurs that would remove all guardrails — I’m not just talking about the rainbow movement now, quite generally — then we again have a problem we need to deal with, because then we again enter new crises, in quotation marks, because we have challenges since suddenly the guardrails are no longer there. That’s why people, per se, feel comfortable in these routines. So on the one hand that also explains why it’s so hard for us to let go of what we think and what we grew up with, or to accept something new. And at the same time it also shows — and this is also the case, for example, with identity and identity development, unfortunately, which you brought up, also referring to the migration background as an example, where there are then challenges in a third generation, which is certainly also conditioned by certain societal views being present, and so on, but also going along with the fact that guardrails might suddenly be missing at certain points. And that does something to people, and that ultimately has an effect too, when we look at it on the societal level. And that’s quite independent of which topic we pick up here. And that’s why it gets really exciting to say, here too it’s not the one extreme or the other extreme, but there are many facets in between, and to establish, again in quotation marks, a “healthy balance,” so to speak, and to say, where exactly do we now need changes, so that something like equality and so on can happen? And how far should that go, and where do we then again need to set new, shifted guardrails, to make sure that orientation, so to speak, can be provided again, within which we can all, again, not just certain groups, feel comfortable and move again, in order to also create a feeling of security again. And that’s quite exciting, because it’s a massive field of tension we’re currently moving within. And that’s why topics like this one today are sometimes conducted very, very emotionally. Those are also the backgrounds we can keep in mind. And with that I’d like to move into today’s closing round. You’re welcome to dock in at one point or another if there’s still a thought you’d like to bring in, and then please add your closing word for today for the room. Marc, then Sabine please, in that order.

Yes, exactly, I’d like to say once more regarding the recording — Marc mentioned reproduction, referring to biology’s definition. And I thank Peter very much for his contribution, because that’s exactly the point: does it threaten me, is there a change? And you started the room, dear Yasemin, by saying we should look at it from the meta-level. The meta-level for me would also be the churches. So who does it threaten? The churches, because they have a great interest in us marrying, man and woman. Then the state, because so far marriage has also been part of it as a community. Then other religions, in other cultures — that concerns them too. And I said something earlier, that’s another point — this isn’t my opinion, but I just want you to know it’s used in the discussion, and I found it really interesting. It was said by someone, by a pastor, a man of the church, that the rainbow movement is also a danger to democracy, because even within the group of queer people there are people who say we need to legally define that these hate speeches also aren’t stigmatized or criminalized. Because — and I struggle with this — I’m fully on Peter’s side, I come from the fashion industry and deal with an incredible number of gay men and lesbians, that’s simply part of my field. I find the discussion interesting, and I really had to digest it when he wrote — but if someone has a different culture, is of a different religion, and if even individual people, only individual people, never all of them, say that if I say something against homosexuals, that has to be criminalized as hate speech, then that’s a danger to democracy, because then the freedom of speech of someone who comes from a different cultural background is also being attacked. And I always struggle a lot with that, because I’m open-minded and then feel torn back and forth — whose side do I take more? Do I side with someone from a different cultural background, where someone says, men with men, that’s not acceptable, that’s just their culture, I can’t say a religion is wrong — and there you see how complex this is. And I just wanted to bring in these thoughts. This isn’t my opinion, but simply so we know what arguments are being made out there, so that everyone can grapple with it personally. Thank you for putting this really complex, difficult and emotional topic on the table today for the group. I wish you all a wonderful day.

Wonderful, thank you so, so much. Layla?

Yes, what can I say? Well, guardrails are important, that’s enough for me. But they also force you to make decisions. And I decided for myself, I am more. So I’m a German-Chinese woman, I’m a woman, I’m single, I have no children. But I love children and find them wonderful, and I don’t want that to be denied to me. And I also don’t believe that I as a woman have to accomplish a certain achievement in order to feel fully like a woman. And I don’t believe I have to have used my uterus. When I sometimes look at schoolbooks, it makes me really uncomfortable, or also books like that — I look at things like Conny, the images of women and men that are created. That’s not meant as criticism, just simply that you look at images of women and men. And I find it really important that you take a look at that. And I want to be allowed to be more. That this is also protected. And that you’re not pinned down too much, even though maybe you need guardrails so that equality can find its way. I wish you’d make another room on this topic, because it’s really very complex. Thank you so, so much.

Sabine.

Yes, very exciting. On one hand, what Peter said, about the possibility of living the way you want and also thinking forward, I find that really, really important. My daughter moved to Berlin, certainly not without reason, because she’ll certainly find a different environment there than here. On the other hand, I have to say I also find it quite difficult — Yasemin, what you just said about the guardrails. Yes, I believe we need guardrails, but the difficulty is, in such a fast-moving time as we currently have — you said it yourself, now people just add a plus sign at the end. What will we have tomorrow, what will we have the day after tomorrow? How are you supposed to set a guideline in that? On the other hand, as a mother of three children, I also have to say, if you have no guardrails at all — you still have to model something for your children. I mean, I was always very liberal, I say, do what you want, have fun with it, that’s the most important thing, and try to support the children wherever possible. But I can’t think in all directions, I have to be myself. So, a difficult topic. Really wonderful room. I also found it great that we talked about this. Thanks, and a lovely day to all of you.

Yes, wonderful, thank you so, so much, and it really shows the complexity, ultimately. So, I’ve jotted down a few more things for the closing, from my side as well. First we had this aspect, still included right now in the closing round — who does it threaten? That was one of the questions, and the church was brought up there, for example. At the same time, of course, I can also ask myself the question, not just who does it threaten, but who benefits from it? And here I could give an answer and say, the pharmaceutical industry, especially when it comes to surgeries and so on — we can think about who’s profiting from that. Then we had the aspect, also in the closing round, of freedom of speech. Maybe it’s worth rethinking freedom of speech at one point or another, or reconsidering it, in the context of hate speech and so on — up to what point is freedom of speech okay, from what point is a line crossed, so to speak — that would be the question we could deal with. Then this aspect of, on one hand, change, changes, which is also necessary, and at the same time, in this fast pace that was also mentioned, we also need guardrails, but where do we set them, and how quickly can we even keep up — and that shows exactly this field of tension we’re moving in, and that represents a massive challenge in everyday life too, to even keep up here, to keep pace, also legally and so on. Those are all aspects that play into this. And regarding “where do I come from, who am I, who do I want to be,” various examples were brought up from personal biography, or based on one’s own sense of belonging. I think it’s always really important to mention, in closing, that regardless of where we come from, whether we feel like a woman, a man, or transgender, or whatever sexual orientations we have — and we could open up many, many more examples here, it’s not about completeness, you’re welcome to add your own points, dot, dot, dot — we must not forget, in everything we discuss, that in the end we are all human. And with that I’d like to leave it there. In that sense, I hope it was worthwhile for everyone who was here — it won’t be conclusively resolved, even if we open up a second room. What matters is that we raise a lot of questions here, start to reflect again, at one point or another check our own personal thoughts, in one direction as well as the other, in order to make decisions for ourselves from the insights gained, also regarding attitudes, etc. And yes, and today it might be a different result than if we talk about it again in a year — then one thing or another will have changed, and also our attitude toward it. That will certainly be exciting too, so there will certainly be occasions where we pick up on this topic or that one again, or dock back in at certain points. Tomorrow it will probably be similarly complicated, complex, and quite emotional too. So tomorrow we can look forward to a room dealing with the question: Peace Weapons or War Business? What perspectives can be opened up regarding interests, opportunities, and risks in connection with arms deliveries into war zones? And I’m really curious about that too. That means we’re approaching the next complex topic, in order to, under this roof “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” bring the various topics together toward the end of the rooms we open under it, and see how all these topics connect with one another. So I’m really looking forward to an insightful dialogue tomorrow too. Feel free to join, bring in various aspects, and tomorrow too we’ll make sure to leave emotions out as much as possible, open up different perspectives on the meta-level, approach the topics, in order to see what insights we can draw from them and take away for ourselves. In that sense, I wish you all a wonderful day and look forward to tomorrow. Until then. Ciao.