"Did he come, or did he come?" The Czech language is changing and it's driving some people crazy. Should the language stop forcing people into "he" and "she"?
At first glance, this may seem like another culture war over words. Someone writes "male and female students", another uses an asterisk in the word "student*ka", another tries "camex", and part of the internet immediately feels that both civilisation and the Czech lexicon are collapsing at the same time. But behind the debate about gender-neutral language is not just a desire to provoke, but a very practical question: how to talk in Czech about people who do not fit into the simple division into "he" and "she"?
Czech is relentless in this regard. We have gender in nouns, adjectives, pronouns and verbs. Even the simple phrase "I was tired" or "I was tired" puts a person somewhere. In English, many situations can be circumvented with a neutral "they", whereas English often asks us to make a decision. And this is where the problem begins, which is not only linguistic but also personal.
The Institute for the Czech Language of the Academy of Sciences reminds us that grammatical gender cannot simply be identified with biological sex or gender. For example, "person" is grammatically feminine, "man" masculine, but both words can refer to anyone. At the same time, however, gender in Czech commonly conjures up the idea of femininity or masculinity in the naming of persons. This is what some non-binary people try to avoid.
Why is "camex" even an issue?
The form "přišelx" is not a suggestion that everyone should speak that way from tomorrow. It's one of the attempts to indicate in written English that we don't want to choose between "came" and "came". The x is intended to act as a placeholder for the gender ending. Similarly, the asterisk is used in forms such as "came*a", "student*ka" or "author*ka". In both cases, it is a visual solution for written text rather than a finished form of spoken language.
And that is both their strength and their weakness. On paper or on social media, a writing like this immediately says: we don't want to assume that everyone is male or female. But when one has to read the text aloud, the problem returns. How exactly to pronounce "camex"? Should the asterisk be read as a pause? Or should the sentence be rephrased in a completely different way?
The Institute of the Czech Language mentions several possibilities that appear in practice: the middle gender, the plural, alternating masculine and feminine endings, the asterisk, the letter x or new sets of endings. At the same time, however, he points out that none of these solutions is yet so widespread and established that it can be described as a generally accepted norm.
This is an important sentence. The debate about gender-neutral Czech is not at the stage where someone from the authorities sends the nation a new manual and announces that from Monday it will be spelled differently. Czech is still trying it out. Sometimes clumsily, sometimes creatively, sometimes even comically. But the language has always worked this way. At first, something sounds strange. Then it repeats itself. And after a while, no one remembers that it ever annoyed anyone.
Asterisk, slash, x or copy: what options does Czech have?
The easiest way is often the least obvious: rephrase the sentence so that the gender doesn't have to be addressed at all. Instead of "the applicant must provide his/her CV", you can write "the CV must be provided by...". Instead of "each participant will receive a confirmation", one can say "all applicants will receive a confirmation". Instead of "the doctor will decide", "the medical staff will decide" or "the practice will decide on the next course of action" can work in some contexts.
Such language is not garish. There is no x or asterisk in it. Yet it is more inclusive because it does not automatically assume a man as the basic form of man. This is where gender-sensitive language meets ordinary good stylistics: often the point is not to add novelty to a text, but to write it more accurately.
Then there are the double forms: 'female and male students', 'female and male readers', 'female and male employees'. These are comprehensible, readable and fairly common for English. The disadvantage is that they still work with only two categories. Therefore, for texts that want to explicitly include non-binary people, they may not be sufficient.
Another possibility are the placeholders "student*ka", "student_ka" or "studenthood". The asterisk or underscore is meant to symbolically open up space for identities outside the binary divide. In practice, we encounter them mainly in activist, academic or community texts.
And then there is the "x": "camex", "wasx", "unavenx". It is perhaps the most obvious and, for some people, the most provocative variant, because it interferes with the verb itself. But it also shows well why English is so difficult for non-binary people. It is not enough to change one pronoun. The genus comes back over and over again, often where the majority society is not even aware of it.
"They", "one", "onu": the search for the Czech they/them
When people talk about a non-binary language, English is often automatically brought up. There, "they/them" is used for many non-binary people. English offers "they", but it's not that simple. For one thing, English still resolves gender endings for plurals: "they were", "they were". For one thing, plurals can look unusual in everyday communication.
Nevertheless, the plural is used. Some people prefer it because it is closest to the English model and at the same time has some support in Czech in the form of a howl. Czechs commonly say "Are you here?" or "Are you here?" to one person. But even here the gender is not completely lost.
In addition, new pronouns such as "one", "onu" or other experimental forms appear. Some people reach for the middle gender, i.e. "it", "came", "was". This can be sensitive, however, because the middle gender in Czech often has an alienating or hurtful effect. The Institute for the Czech Language itself points out that the middle gender can have a dehumanizing or dehumanizing effect on people.
Therefore, no variant is perfect. And perhaps that is why it is most important not to argue in the abstract about what is "right", but to ask the individual person what he or she is comfortable with. For some it will be "he", for some it will be "she", for some it will be alternating genders, for some it will be plurals, and for some it will be a completely different way of expressing oneself.
It's not just non-binary people. Gender-sensitive language is also addressed by women
When you say gender-neutral language, many people think mainly of non-binary people. But the broader debate about gender-sensitive English is also about how language makes women visible or invisible.
For a long time, Czech operated with generic masculinities: 'students' to refer to an entire group, even if it included women; 'doctors' to refer to a general profession; 'voters' to refer to all people who vote. Linguistically, this is traditional and mostly understood. Socially, however, it can have consequences. When people keep referring to politicians, scientists, investors, CEOs or professionals in the masculine, women easily disappear from these images.
This is why many institutions, universities and companies are now addressing gender-sensitive communication. The Faculty of Education at Masaryk University, for example, reported in January 2026 on an update to its guide to gender-sensitive communication, which now includes practical recommendations for communicating with trans and non-binary people, including respecting names and pronouns or using neutral language where appropriate.
This shows that this is not just an internet trend. The topic is gradually moving into schools, the workplace, HR, marketing and official communication. And companies that want to speak to a younger generation or a diversified audience are starting to realise that language is not a detail. It's a signal of who they take seriously.
Why does this irritate so many people?
Gender-neutral language also provokes resistance because it touches on something very intimate: the sense of home in the mother tongue. Czech is not just a tool. It is the language of childhood, of school dictations, family announcements, first messages, arguments and declarations of love. When someone puts an asterisk or an x in it, some people don't feel they are seeing a stylistic device. It feels like someone is taking away the language they know.
But language has never been an immovable museum. Words that feel natural today must have once sounded new too. The feminized names of professions are a good example. Today, no one is surprised by 'minister', 'director' or 'surgeon', yet even these forms were disputed in the past. Similarly, a section of society today resists neutral or non-binary forms because it has not yet memorized them.
Moreover, resistance often arises from the idea that someone will force everyone to write exclusively "přišelx" and rewrite the entire Czech language. The reality is much less dramatic. Even professional institutions describe existing practice rather than promulgate a new standard. The Institute for the Czech Language explicitly states that it cannot yet make a clear recommendation in this area because no solution is generally settled.
In practice, therefore, it is not a question of banning the words "man" and "woman". Nor is it about the end of Czech. It is about extending the possibilities where the traditional pairing is not sufficient.
What might gender-sensitive language look like in a regular article?
In the media, the situation is particularly sensitive. Journalistic text needs to be readable, fluent and understandable. At the same time, it should not unnecessarily hurt the people it is writing about. That is why it is not always best to put as many stars as possible in an article. Sometimes it is more sensitive and stylistically elegant to simply rewrite a sentence.
Instead of "experts say", one could write "according to the experts". Instead of "any visitor can choose" it can be "visitors and visitors can choose" or "tickets can be chosen according to...". Instead of "the reader should know", "it is good to know" works. Instead of "an employee is entitled", it can be "workers are entitled" or "entitlement accrues to people who...".
But in an article about a particular non-binary person, it's cleanest to ask them directly. What name does she use? What pronouns? How does she want to be referred to in the past tense? Does she prefer copy, gender alternation, plural, x, asterisk, or something else? That's not an exaggeration of political correctness. That's the same journalistic accuracy as spelling a name, function or quote correctly.
The Czech language doesn't get used overnight. But it's already changing
It is likely that "camex" will not become a common part of everyday speech. It may remain mainly a written community trait. It may be replaced by other forms. Maybe descriptions, collective labels, or new forms of pronouns will become more common. No one knows at the moment.
That's what's fascinating about this whole debate. We are watching language at a moment when it does not yet have a ready answer. It's not a textbook example that can be closed with a rule. It is a living process. And it's where grammar, identity, politics, empathy and simple practicality meet.
The Anxiety Institute, for example , has published the Manual of Czech Language Queering, a collection of texts devoted to gender-inclusive Czech, its forms and problems in everyday communication, translation and various language registers. The aim of the project was not only to propose new forms of non-binary Czech, but also to map those that already exist.
This is perhaps the most accurate description of the current situation - it is not a finished reform, but a mapping of the terrain. Some paths will lead to dead ends, others will be trodden in time.
What is the ordinary person to do about it?
Perhaps less than it seems. They don't have to immediately rework their entire vocabulary. He doesn't have to use every new word that pops up on social media. He doesn't have to worry that once he says "came" instead of "camex" he will become a linguistic enemy of humanity.
Just start with sensitivity. Don't automatically assume that the masculine includes everyone. When writing a public text, wonder if it could be phrased more openly. When speaking to a particular person, respect their name and manner of address. When unsure, ask politely. And when we make a mistake, correct ourselves without unnecessary drama.
Gender-neutral language is not a test of moral purity. It's an attempt to make more room in the language for people who have long heard mostly silence or bad pigeonholing. And yes, sometimes that will sound unusual. Sometimes it'll sound a little skeletal. Sometimes maybe even ugly. But almost every linguistic change scrubs at first.
So the question isn't whether "came" should replace "camex" across the board. Rather, the question is: can we accept that for some, even a simple ending can be a place where they don't feel seen? And can we treat the Czech language in a way that keeps it beautiful, alive, and at the same time a bit more spacious?
Maybe we won't all learn a new language after all. Maybe we'll just learn to assume less automatically in the old one who is the "norm" and who no longer fits in a sentence.
