Item_Boring already clarified what I meant better than I could ever express it.
But yeah basically "Kleidermacher" was historically a genderless term for quite a long time (potentially always) and was then gendered again, by people who seemingly misunderstood the generic masculinum. The people who made this worse misunderstood that sexus and genus are two different things.
As I explained before, this is quite ironic given that the -in suffix is now being said to be not inclusive.
Actually "Kleidermacher" is a genderless word in German.
Source: I'm German. :D
But historically this has been a complicated topic.
Basically about a hundred years ago the genus and sexus of words started to get separated.
Thanks to that you can say "Katze" to both male and female cats.
Historically you had to say "Kater" to a male cat.
But of course there were people in the 90s (it started earlier than that) who considered the generic masculinum uninclusive for women, since why is the male genus allowed to be the generic form of the language? Everything had to be gendered explicitly again! Awesome! /s
Instead of rolling back the split of genus and sexus of the past decades, they instead opted for just sticking the already existing, but less popular -in suffix to everything and anything.
A generic word like "Student" now had it's proper sexus again as "Student und Studentin".
But as you might already know that's uninclusive for nonbinary people and thus we're now at a point where we say "Studierende" or "Studentx" or "Student:in" instead, which linguistically really doesn’t make much sense at all anymore. Awesome! /s
One step forward, two steps backwards.
But again, as explained above, the "Kleidermacher" can be of any genus, because...
Genus and sexus are two different things in German.
But yeah basically "Kleidermacher" was historically a genderless term for quite a long time (potentially always) and was then gendered again, by people who seemingly misunderstood the generic masculinum. The people who made this worse misunderstood that sexus and genus are two different things.
As I explained before, this is quite ironic given that the -in suffix is now being said to be not inclusive.