?
Язык и гендер: лингвистические, социальные и этические парадоксы инклюзивной коммуникации
Contemporary scholarly discourse on gender-inclusive communication remains predominantly descriptive, often avoiding a systematic critical analysis of its internal contradictions and social consequences. However, the growing social tension around new linguistic norms, their ideologization, and direct impact on public institutions demand unbiased examination. The aim of this article is to identify and analyze the key paradoxes generated by gender-inclusive communication, which persist despite its proclaimed goals of equality and respect. The research material comprises English-language texts of various genres and styles, including scholarly articles, media publications, documents from university websites, healthcare institutions, governmental, non-governmental, and commercial organizations, as well as data from blogs and social networks from the period 2017 to 2025. This allowed us to examine gender-inclusive communication both in the sphere of academic reflection and within the context of public practice. The methodological framework is based on critical discourse analysis, which interprets linguistic changes as a struggle for power, and Lotman’s theory of the semiosphere, which views inclusive language as a phenomenon of cultural dynamics. The study establishes that inclusive communication generates a complex of systemic contradictions across different dimensions: linguistic (between the striving to erase and simultaneously multiply gender differences, leading to semantic tautology and a violation of linguistic conventionality); social (where inclusivity in practice becomes a tool for excluding dissenting voices and marginalizing the experiences of traditional groups); ethical (encompassing the conflict between the ideology of self-identification and biological realities, as well as the imposition of Anglo-centric models onto other linguacultures). Interpreting the results through the chosen methodological lens reveals that inclusive language functions not only as a discourse of power but also as a tool of auto-communication, aimed at redefining the core of the cultural semiosphere and consolidating a “progressive” identity. The findings open perspectives for comparative studies on the reception of inclusive practices in different linguacultures and for interdisciplinary research into the long-term social effects of linguistic reform.