Wokeism describes a movement focused on social justice, identity politics, and the questioning of power structures. Originally emerging from the fight against racism and discrimination, Wokeism has developed into a comprehensive ideology that seeks to permeate all aspects of social life. Central to its concerns are issues such as racial justice, gender identity, privilege, and structural inequality. What began as a fight for justice has now evolved into a dogmatic system that, in its extreme form, can hardly be questioned.
Wokeism now displays clear signs of a substitute religion. Like traditional religions, it contains non-negotiable dogmas that are treated as moral truths. These beliefs—on topics such as gender, race, or social privilege—are considered beyond question. Anyone who dares to challenge them is branded a heretic
and experiences a form of modern inquisition. Criticism is not met with rational debate but with moral outrage, just as is the case with religious heresy.
Another defining feature of Wokeism is its community-building. Similar to religious communities, there are clear rules and behavioral norms that must be followed to be seen as pure
or enlightened
. These norms also include strict language regulations, dictating exactly how certain topics should be discussed. Violating these rules—such as by failing to use gender-neutral language—is considered a grave offense and leads to social exclusion. The phenomenon of Cancel Culture
is the modern equivalent of excommunication: those who do not comply are cast out from the community.
Wokeism’s missionary zeal mirrors that of religions. It is not enough to live by one’s insights
; they must be imposed on others. Those who do not share the ideals of Wokeism are seen not just as ignorant but as morally inferior. This attitude recalls the proselytizing efforts of many religions, which view non-believers
as morally corrupt and attempt to guide them to the right
path.
Perhaps the most striking aspect of Wokeism is its promise of salvation. It offers the vision of a more just, ideal world that supposedly can be achieved if only enough people adopt the right
beliefs. This utopian idealism differs little from religious notions of paradise or salvation. While the goal remains unattainable, it strengthens the faith and conviction of its followers.
In this way, Wokeism offers a complete moral system: there are non-negotiable dogmas, a moral community, rituals, proselytizing, and the promise of a better future. What began as a quest for justice has, in its extreme form, evolved into a religion—with all the mechanisms of division and exclusion that have long been associated with traditional belief systems.
Rituals in Wokeism
While Wokeism may lack classic religious ceremonies, it has developed its own rituals that symbolically represent moral purity and belonging. These rituals are social in nature and often involve public displays of knowledge
and repentance
, much like in religious contexts.
A prominent example is the Privilege Walk. In this exercise, participants stand in a line and answer questions about their social background, gender, or race. Depending on their answers, they take symbolic steps
forward or backward to illustrate how much or how little privilege they enjoy in society. This ritual serves as a collective awakening
to determine who in the group is considered privileged and who is disadvantaged. It strongly resembles religious purification rituals, where individuals must confess their sins to attain moral purity.
Similarly, there is the public act of self-criticism. Companies and celebrities caught in the media spotlight often feel compelled to publicly repent
. In pre-prepared statements, they apologize for seemingly inappropriate comments or behaviors, thereby submitting to the moral standards of the woke community. These public confessions
are intended to restore social standing, strongly resembling religious confession rituals seeking forgiveness.
Through these modern rituals, Wokeism creates a moral hierarchy and deepens the divide between the enlightened
and the ignorant
, who refuse to participate in these symbolic acts.
Gendering as a Language Ritual
Gendering in Wokeism has become a ritual that symbolically represents moral purity. Language is no longer merely a tool for communication but an instrument of moral self-representation. Those who use gender-neutral language publicly signal their submission to woke norms and acceptance of ideological mandates. It is a sign of belonging, almost like a religious confession.
The use of gender asterisks, colons, or internal capitalization I in German—such as in Mitarbeiter*in
or tLehrer:in
—signals a conscious rejection of traditional language and is meant to demonstrate the purity
of thoughts and beliefs. It is a ritual that cannot be questioned, as those who refuse to comply risk being labeled ignorant or morally inferior. This reveals the dogmatic nature of Wokeism: criticism of gendering is seen as heresy, just as questioning sacred texts is treated in religious contexts.
Interestingly, gendering has little scientific support. There is no evidence that gender-neutral language promotes social equality. Nevertheless, this ritual is defended as though it were a magical solution to deeply rooted social problems. This is strikingly similar to religious dogmas that remain deeply entrenched despite a lack of empirical foundation.
Gendering, then, is more than just a language issue. It is a sign of submission to woke ideology and serves to separate the enlightened
from the unpure
. Instead of using language to describe reality, it is turned into an instrument of moral agenda.
Anti-Science in Wokeism
In many ways, Wokeism stands in open contradiction to science, particularly in the gender debate. While biology has long established that there are two sexes—male and female—the woke ideology seeks to blur these facts by claiming that gender is purely a social construct. Such claims ignore biological realities and directly conflict with scientific findings.
The core belief of woke ideology is that gender is not binary and that an infinite variety of identities exists. It is often argued that gender is independent of biological sex and is solely determined by personal perception, known as gender. Yet, this approach rests on shaky ground. Scientifically, it is clear that biological sex is determined by chromosomes and is expressed in physical reality. Of course, there are rare intersex cases, but these exceptions confirm rather than refute the rule of two sexes.
This rejection of scientific facts in favor of ideological beliefs demonstrates a clear case of anti-science. Much like religious movements that reject the theory of evolution because it does not align with their sacred texts, Wokeism challenges science when it does not conform to its dogmas. Not only biology but also linguistics are disregarded when claims are made that gender-neutral language promotes equality—despite a lack of empirical evidence.
Wokeism introduces a selective acceptance of science. Only those findings that align with its agenda are embraced; the rest are dismissed as outdated or irrelevant. This attitude shows a clear parallel to the opponents of science in past eras who rejected inconvenient truths because they did not fit into their ideological worldview.
The conflict between science and Wokeism is especially dangerous because it leads to a growing denial of objective reality. Instead, a worldview is promoted based on subjective perceptions and ideological dogmas. When facts are sacrificed in favor of ideology, we are dealing with a modern form of anti-science—much like religious movements that reject knowledge because it does not align with their beliefs.
Gender Studies: Science or Ideology?
Gender Studies examine cultural, social, and political questions surrounding gender and identity. They are not natural sciences like biology but belong to the social sciences and humanities. The central question is whether scientific methods are applied rigorously or if ideological distortions come into play. Especially in connection with Wokeism, the question arises as to what extent Gender Studies are based on solid research or merely promote an ideological agenda.
Scientific Methods in Gender Studies
Some areas of Gender Studies do indeed use scientific methods to analyze gender relations. Through the use of statistics, sociological studies, or psychological surveys, social structures are examined. However, the problem lies not in the methodology but in the interpretation of the data. Much of what is presented as results in Gender Studies is influenced by theories loosely based on empirical facts.
Philosophers like Michel Foucault, Simone de Beauvoir, Jacques Derrida, and Judith Butler have laid the foundation with their theories, which often focus more on the construct of gender than on biological realities. Judith Butler in particular described gender as purely performative—a cultural performance without a solid biological basis. This view directly contradicts scientifically supported findings that clearly show fundamental biological differences between the sexes.
This creates a clear conflict between empirically proven facts and ideologically driven theories that portray gender as a flexible social construct.
Gender Studies and Wokeism
There is a clear ideological proximity between Gender Studies and Wokeism. Both emphasize the idea
that gender is a matter of self-perception rather than biology. The narrative of oppression
is strongly emphasized in both Gender Studies and Wokeism, with the reality of biological sex often being ignored or downplayed.
Originally, Gender Studies aimed to analyze social power structures in relation to gender. However, today the field has largely transformed into a form of academic activism. The focus has shifted from understanding societal structures to actively changing them—often regardless of scientific facts. The line between science and ideology has long blurred.
The Influence of Postmodern Thinkers
Thinkers like Foucault, Derrida, de Beauvoir, and Butler have laid the groundwork for Gender Studies and Wokeism with their postmodern theories. Foucault examined how power is exercised through discourse, and Derrida emphasized the ambiguity of language, which has shaped many woke linguistic rituals. Judith Butler ultimately argued that gender is a form of performance
—a notion that diverges significantly from biological reality.
While these theories have raised important questions, their scientific validity remains questionable. Postmodern theory tends to challenge objective truths and replace them with subjective narratives. While this may be philosophically interesting, it often leads to a relativism that places scientific facts and ideological ideas on the same level.
In practice, this results in a mix of philosophy, ideology, and activism that is far from being considered empirically based science.
Gender Studies: An Ideological Project?
Gender Studies undoubtedly have a place in academia, particularly in the analysis of gender roles and social structures. However, the ideological proximity to Wokeism and the tendency to ignore biological facts raise serious questions about the scientific objectivity of the field.
Simone de Beauvoir, in her work The Second Sex, raised important questions about gender roles and the other
. Her approach to critically reflecting on gender roles was groundbreaking. However, there is a significant difference between this critical reflection and the radical rejection of biological facts, as seen in parts of Gender Studies and the Woke movement.
When science distances itself from facts and is used to defend an ideology, it is a dangerous path towards anti-science. Instead of relying on empirical findings, theories that contradict biological and scientific knowledge are often defended.
Empirical Evidence for Oppression?
Gender Studies rarely provide solid empirical evidence to support the sweeping claims they make, especially regarding oppression narratives or the influence of language on reality. Many of the concepts presented in Gender Studies are based on theoretical considerations and philosophical constructs that are only partially supported by empirical data.
While there are attempts in Gender Studies to document social inequalities and discrimination through sociological studies and statistics, these investigations often remain superficial. They rarely provide clear causal connections or reliable evidence that systematic oppression exists to the extent claimed. Often, data are selectively interpreted or presented in such a way that they fit into the narratives of oppression and victimhood.
A typical issue is the tendency to interpret correlations as causality. For example, when women are underrepresented in certain industries, this is often immediately interpreted as evidence of structural discrimination, without adequately considering other factors such as individual preferences or socioeconomic conditions.
Does Language Shape Reality?
The idea that language shapes reality, as is often claimed in Gender Studies and Wokeism, is based more on postmodern theories than on empirical science. Philosophers like Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler have argued that language not only describes reality but also creates it. Butler argued that gender is created through performative acts
like language.
However, this thesis has little empirical support. Linguistic and psychological studies show that language can certainly influence our perceptions, but there is no convincing evidence that changing language automatically leads to changes in social realities. gendering language (i.e. in German), such as adding gender asterisks or colons, is often promoted as a means of combating inequality, but there are no statistical or experimental data showing that this actually leads to greater equality.
While Gender Studies offer valuable theoretical perspectives on social structures, they often lack solid empirical evidence to support their sweeping claims. The supposed link between language and social reality remains largely unproven, and many of the oppression narratives are based more on ideological assumptions than on concrete data.
Private Matter, Not Politics
The discussion around gender and sexuality is unnecessarily complicated and politicized in today’s society. The difference between biological sex and sexual preference is actually clear and should be treated as a private matter. While biological sex is based on scientific facts—there are men and women, with a few exceptions like intersex individuals—personal preferences are increasingly dragged into the political and social arena.
Sexual preferences, such as whether someone is homosexual, bisexual, asexual, or heterosexual, should fundamentally be considered private matters. As long as it involves consensual relationships between adults, there is no reason to publicly discuss or even politicize these preferences. In most Western societies, the right to sexual self-determination has long been accepted, and there is no need to constantly bring these issues into public discourse.
Another problem is the exaggerated variety of labels like LGBTQIA+
and the ever-growing list of letters and identities. Ultimately, all these categories boil down to two central questions: Who do you want to have sex with?
and Do you keep your biological sex, or do you want to change it?
These questions are simple and pertain to one’s personal life. But by the inflationary use of identity labels and the politicization of these issues, unnecessary complexity is created, leading to confusion rather than clarification.
It becomes particularly absurd when purely personal preferences are turned into political demands. Sexuality and gender identity are not topics that should be debated in the political arena. They belong in the private sphere, where they concern no one except those directly involved. If there is any political demand to be made, it is that the state should not know the gender of its citizens, as this is the most effective way to prevent any discrimination.
The current tendency to make these personal issues a political program leads to a harmful overburdening of public discourse. It distracts from real societal problems and creates an artificial divide where none is necessary. Instead of emphasizing privacy and individual freedom, woke activists overcomplicate and politicize these issues to the point of unrecognizability.
Sexual preferences and gender identity are and remain personal decisions that should have no impact on the functioning of society. Such questions belong in the personal sphere, not in the public domain or politics.
The Corruption of Language
One of the most absurd manifestations of Wokeism is gendering. Language is a tool to describe reality, not to change it. The belief that adding gender asterisks, colons, or internal capitalization can erase real societal inequalities is naive. There is no empirical evidence that gender-neutral language has any positive impact on actual gender equality. On the contrary, most surveys show that the overwhelming majority of German speakers—up to 80%—categorically reject gendering because they find it artificial, unnecessary, and impractical.
Distorting language to please a small, ideologically driven segment of society does more harm to social cohesion than good. Many people see gendering as an imposed form of activism that hinders everyday communication. Instead of leading to better understanding, it creates confusion and rejection. In the workplace, in education, or in the media, gendering is often seen as unnecessary bureaucracy with no measurable benefit.
Interestingly, no scientific studies show that changing language automatically leads to changes in reality. While linguists agree that language can influence our perceptions, there is no evidence that gendering solves structural problems or promotes equality. Proponents of gendering often defend it as though it were a moral obligation, but in truth, it is a linguistic ritual
that divides rather than unites.
The rejection of gendering by the majority of the population clearly shows that this concept does not have the broad support its advocates claim. It remains an ideologically charged practice aimed more at signaling moral purity than bringing about real change. Instead of being based on solid scientific facts, it is defended as a dogma, much like a religious practice: those who refuse to comply are morally condemned.
Gendering in its current form contributes little to equality; instead, it deepens societal divides. Language should remain a tool for communication, not a means for political or ideological battles.
The New Racism
Wokeism claims to fight discrimination, but in reality, it promotes a new form of racism
directed against white, heterosexual men—the so-called cis men
. This movement revives long-overcome categories of race and gender to categorize people into a hierarchy of victimhood. Those who do not fit the image of the oppressed
or marginalized
individual are morally devalued. This is particularly evident in the new narrative that portrays white men as privileged
and therefore morally inferior.
It is deeply problematic that this discrimination is often portrayed as morally justified. Arguments legitimizing attacks on white men or heterosexuals are based on the notion that they belong to a ruling class
and therefore bear the guilt
for past and present injustices. This mindset strongly resembles old racist theories, where people were categorized and morally judged based on their origin or skin color.
Wokeism has managed to repackage racism and present it as a form of reverse justice. It is an ideology that no longer judges based on individual behavior but based on group affiliation. If you are a white man, you are automatically considered privileged and therefore guilty. This is nothing more than a new form of racism and sexism wrapped in a modern, politically correct guise.
This new racism is especially dangerous because it is presented as just
. It divides society and promotes conflict rather than offering solutions for true equality. These attacks on white men are not only hypocritical but also harmful because they actively undermine societal progress. Instead of judging people based on their abilities, character, or achievements, the focus is placed on skin color and gender—the very traits that were supposed to be overcome.
Wokeism is taking us back to a time when people were judged and stigmatized based on their outward characteristics. This leads to new forms of discrimination that make social cohesion more difficult. The return to a racially charged mindset under the guise of social justice is not only morally questionable but harmful to progress toward real equality.
In conclusion, the new racism promoted by Wokeism poses a serious threat to a just society. Instead of combating discrimination, it creates new hierarchies and deepens old divides. A healthy, liberal society should treat people equally regardless of race and gender, focusing on individual freedom and responsibility—not collective guilt and victimhood.
A Step Backward for Society
Wokeism presents itself as a movement for social justice, but in practice, it brings about deep division and regression. While it claims to fight inequalities, it often creates new injustices by basing itself on rigid moral dogmas and replacing individual responsibility with collective guilt.
A core problem with Wokeism is that it sets up moral absolutes and sells them as infallible truths. Complex social issues are reduced to simple narratives, often maintaining a victim-perpetrator dichotomy that contributes more to division than to building bridges.
Another issue is the increasing corruption of language through gendering. Wokeism elevates language to a moral instrument, believing that by changing words, social realities can be reshaped. This idea—that gender asterisks and internal capitalization lead to more equality—is rejected by the overwhelming majority of people and has no scientific basis. Despite the lack of evidence, it is defended as a linguistic ritual that deepens the divide between various groups in society rather than resolving it.
In practice, Wokeism does not create true justice but rather new conflicts and tensions. It promotes an ideological agenda that leaves little room for debate or dissenting opinions. This missionary mentality leads to people being excluded or morally judged if they do not adhere to the prescribed norms. The dogmatic nature of this movement resembles religious structures that exclude dissenters and create clear enemies.
Ultimately, Wokeism leads to a society where ideology is placed above facts and individual freedoms are restricted. A free, liberal approach based on protecting individual rights and fostering mutual respect would be a better way to build a fairer and more inclusive society—without falling into ideological rigidity or furthering division.