Supreme Court decision to ban LGBT movement alarms feminist lovers

The discussion about the possibility of using feminine nouns (feminine nouns formed from masculine nouns with the same root) in public speech developed after the publication by a number of media outlets of the text of the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) of the Russian Federation of November 30 recognizing the “International LGBT Social Movement” as extremist. “The use of feminine words” is named in the document among the signs that unite participants in the movement, so some representatives of the media sphere fear that they may be held liable for the further use of such words. Others believe that just because someone uses feminine words, they will not be recognized as a participant in an extremist movement; this requires a “set of signs.” Lawyers interviewed by Kommersant also talk about the inadequacy of using feminitives to prove membership in a prohibited community and suggest waiting for the formation of law enforcement practice.

Last week, the Saratov publication Svobodnye Novosti published photographs of all 19 pages of the text of the decision of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Oleg Nefedov dated November 30, 2023 on recognizing the LGBT International Social Movement as extremist. Svobodnye Novosti explained that the document became part of one of the cases of an administrative offense and “was provided to the participants in the process by a representative of law enforcement agencies.” It should be noted that the text of the decision has not yet been published on the Supreme Court website. According to the document, among the signs characterizing participants in the “LGBT movement” are “the presence of certain morals, customs and traditions (gay pride parades), a similar lifestyle (in particular, the peculiarities of choosing sexual partners), common interests and needs, and a specific language.” By specific language, the court means the use of “potential feminine words, such as leader, director, author, psychologist.” A potential feminine is a feminine that is not in the dictionaries – although, for example, the word “leader” given in the text of the decision is found in the dictionaries.

The inclusion of feminities among the signs of the “LGBT movement” caused a discussion among representatives of the media sphere on social networks. Some of them expressed concern that the use of feminine words in itself could be perceived as a violation of the law. They are especially confused by the vagueness of the wording, from which it follows that well-established forms fixed by the tradition of word use may also be affected – for example, “poetess” or “stewardess”. However, other representatives of the media sphere reassure their colleagues, emphasizing that there is no ban on the use of feminine words. “Where does it say what kind of feminists will be imprisoned? Gentlemen (and madams), have you read this decision yourself? Firstly, it talks about the characteristics that unite participants in the now extremist LGBT movement. That is, they will obviously not designate anyone as LGBT for the word “author”. This requires a combination of signs,” wrote one of the participants in the Telegram channel “Journalists and Media People.”

A few days after the publication of the text of the Supreme Court’s decision, State Duma deputy Vitaly Milonov, in a conversation with MSK1.RU, called for the ban on the use of feminitives to be legislated: “A feminitive is a form of disagreement with the traditional distribution of masculine and feminine genders through deliberate distortion of the Russian language. Of course, those who want to use them thereby express their radical protest against the accepted system of relations between men and women.” However, Mr. Milonov explained that the norm he proposed should not apply to feminists that have entered into generally accepted use and are displayed in dictionaries – for example, “teacher” and “writer.”

There are practically no publications in whose editorial policy the use of feminists would play a fundamental role. One of them is the publication “Burning Hut” (publishes materials about cultural, economic, social and scientific phenomena that affect the life, work and position of women in society). “Burning Hut” believes that the inclusion of feminists among the signs of a prohibited community is “an alarm bell, but not yet a ban.” After consulting with lawyers, the editors decided not to abandon their use. “Feminitives are an integral part of both our editorial policy and the modern Russian language, reflecting the movement of society towards equality,” editor-in-chief of the publication Tatyana Nikitina told a Kommersant correspondent.

Yuri Pozhidaev, a legal consultant at Yustikom, drew attention to Kommersant that the positions of the Supreme Court, reflected in the decisions and rulings, are a guideline for all lower courts. When resolving legal disputes, they rely on the positions of the Supreme Court to create a uniform practice of application. The feminists mentioned in the published document are not an exhaustive list, notes Mr. Pozhidaev. He believes that in the absence of law enforcement practice in cases of belonging to the banned LGBT community, an analogy can be drawn with the practice regarding the application of Art. 280, 280.3. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (public calls for extremist activities), 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (inciting hatred or enmity) and 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (discrediting the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation). Based on this practice, it can be assumed that the use of feminists both in correspondence on social networks and in oral speech in the future can be considered as a qualifying feature. From practice, it will soon become obvious exactly how the courts will navigate, believes Yuri Pozhidaev. “It is necessary to understand that the use of feminists as a qualifying feature of an extremist movement can not be considered in itself, but only in conjunction with other qualifying features called VS,” he reminds. Partner at Pen & Paper Bar Association Ekaterina Tyagai believes that it is impossible to analyze a decision that has not been officially published, but the widely discussed formulations are “extremely vague and leave room for ambiguous interpretation, including by law enforcement officials”: ​​“In practice, this means that everything “who resort to using feminine forms may be at risk, regardless of their other personal and professional characteristics.”

Emilia Gabdullina, Alexander Voronov