Tinder spat in uniform - Why a profile text caused a Bundeswehr career to falter

Image source: Instagram @anastasiabiefang

When the dating profile becomes a matter of business

Is a female officer allowed to look for sex in public? And what happens if she does so on Tinder - while she is a commander in the Bundeswehr? The legal dispute of Anastasia Biefang, one of the first openly transgender officers in Germany, revolved around precisely these questions.

In 2019, Biefang wrote in her Tinder profile: "Spontaneous, lustful, trans*, open relationship and looking for sex. All genders welcome." The Bundeswehr didn't like that at all. Her disciplinary superior then issued her with an official reprimand - a kind of official reprimand.

But Biefang did not accept this. She sued - and failed. First before the specialist courts, and finally before the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. The court rejected her constitutional complaint.

Reference removed - case still closed?

Why the highest German court did not even examine the matter is quickly explained from a technical point of view: the reprimand was automatically deleted after three years. This is what the military disciplinary regulations require. And once the reprimand is gone, according to the court, there is no legal basis for a retrospective review.

Biefang would have had to justify why the case was still relevant. According to the Federal Constitutional Court, she did not succeed in doing this sufficiently. As a result, her constitutional complaint was not even accepted for decision - it was effectively rejected without a substantive ruling being made.

Sexual freedom meets compulsory service

The Biefang case is exemplary of a profound social conflict: how much private life is someone who works in an institution like the Bundeswehr allowed to have - and how openly can they talk about it?

Biefang and her supporters - such as the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (GFF) - wanted to use the lawsuit to achieve a landmark ruling on sexual self-determination. This is because they see the disciplinary measure as a restriction of personal freedom. However, the court saw no reason to deal with the content of this question - because the specific reprimand had been removed.

Topic with explosive power

Honestly? This was an explosive topic - and Karlsruhe simply avoided it. The reference was deleted, but the question remains: Do female soldiers have to surrender their personality at the barracks door? And is an open dating profile really enough to jeopardize the reputation of the Bundeswehr?

If you want diversity and openness in your own ranks, you also have to put up with personal matters becoming public. The case could have been a real statement - instead there was a legal dodge. What a shame. Because there's more than one paragraph between uniform and Tinder.