I've been wondering what would happen if the same political correctness ever came to Spanish. Every noun is gendered, usually according to whether it is associated with males or female roles.

Latinx.

As “colonist” as that term is it’s been adopted by almost all progressives, and not many actual Latinos. I hear it on NPR all the time

"About One-in-Four U.S. Hispanics Have Heard of Latinx, but Just 3% Use It" (as of Aug 2020):

https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in...

The term doesn't even have a broadly accepted spanish pronunciation yet!

I think the term exemplifies the issues that occur when (especially white) "diversity professionals" are given institutional power to speak on behalf of racial groups they are not a part of.

I'm happy to refer to individuals who identify as latinx as such, but I think it is wildly presumptive and slightly offensive to assume this form should be preferred in general when the Latino community has not yet accepted it. Something about the academic/professional class in America defining the term for a diverse group of people spread over multiple continents rubs me as off-putting and ironically colonialist. (But I'm a white dude, so my opinion doesn't even matter and we should all happily use whatever term becomes accepted by the Latino community)

Latine seems to be gaining some steam as well, and makes a lot more sense: -e is the gender neutral suffix in spanish. However, it is still not broadly accepted (as can be seen in this comment section)

https://remezcla.com/culture/latinx-latine-comic/

I guess what I don't understand is why 'Latin' isn't preferred when speaking in English.

Latin would be ungendered, but it's been said for years by all sorts of people so it doesn't serve the cultural signalling purposes to show that you're enlightened. Gotta use that x to demonstrate your tribal allegiance.

Latin also doesn't imply "of south or central America" in the way latino/latina/latinx/latiné (which is the other approach that's gender neutral and easier to pronounce that I've seen) do. Latin implies, at least to me central European, old and vaguely Italian, as opposed to Latino.

You could also use "Latin American", which may also work, but historically Latino/a have been preferred, possibly since "Latino" is a lot easier to say than "Latinoamericano".

The question is, preferred by whom? Most Hispanic people use "Hispanic", and almost all of the remainder use "Latino". The other terms are fashion statements to show that the speaker keeps up with new intellectual trends, so they lose preference whenever they become too well known; you can date groups like fossil records by seeing whether their name uses "Latinx", "Latina/o", "Latin@", or "Latin".

Or the already widely adopted Hispanic.

Hispanic means Spanish speaking. Spain is Hispanic but not Latin. Brazil is Latin but not Hispanic.

I think phrasing it as 3% is a little misleading. Another way to view that same study is roughly 15% of Hispanics (and 21% of Hispanic women) who have heard the word have almost immediately adopted using it to describe themselves. That gives a slightly different picture on its adoption.

I did some quick searching and couldn't find parallels for adoption rates among other groups for new terminology. For example, the Black community has gone through several different self identifying nomenclature changes over the years. Were any of those changes immediately and universally accepted within a handful of years? My guess is probably not.

And what about the remainder that hear it and reject it? Are they not considered?

I'm Latino myself and I find that almost no one that actually speaks either Spanish or Portuguese (or another language commonly spoken in Latin America) as their first language adopts it. The few I've seen adopt it at those that are born and raised in the US and have relatively literal cultural connection to the country of their ancestors.

If Spanish or Portuguese are truly your native tongue, Latinx feels incredibly awkward. Personally, I'm uninterested in the opinions of those who aren't native speakers of one of these two languages when it comes to using the term Latinx or not.

>And what about the remainder that hear it and reject it? Are they not considered?

I don't know how you got that from my comment. I am not advocating for Latinx as the one and only descriptor. I am simply pointing out that it is being adopted quickly considering how recently it entered the lexicon.

>I'm Latino myself and I find that almost no one that actually speaks either Spanish or Portuguese (or another language commonly spoken in Latin America) as their first language adopts it. The few I've seen adopt it at those that are born and raised in the US and have relatively literal cultural connection to the country of their ancestors.

>If Spanish or Portuguese are truly your native tongue, Latinx feels incredibly awkward.

I can't deny your experience, but I will simply say the numbers from that survey do not agree with your conclusions. The percentage of people who adopt Latinx actually grows for people who use Spanish more. The rough adoption rates are 10% for English dominant speakers, 14% for bilingual speakers, and 29% for Spanish dominant speakers.

>Personally, I'm uninterested in the opinions of those who aren't native speakers of one of these two languages when it comes to using the term Latinx or not.

I don't think this type of gatekeeping is productive. It is meant to be a ethnic identity. Anyone of that identities as part of the group should have an equal input on the naming conventions. I'm not aware of any other ethnic group in the US that is defined by different names depending on their native language.

That is a good point.

From a data science perspective, I'd argue that "a (sub)demographic exists where >50% of people who have heard of the term use it to self identify" could be a good indication of when society should interpret a term as "meaningfully prominent". It looks like there is no demographic which exceeds a 30% proportion of heard to using Latinx.

I wonder if the term reaches this proposed 50% threshold within the college-educated LGBT 18-29y/o Latino/x/e population.

Colonist is exactly how my Mexican born and raised wife feels about Latinx. She finds the term highly offensive.

As far as she is concerned, Latinx is just another instance of white colonizers trying to impose their will on the indigenous population.

LGBT Hispanic people started Latinx.

Is there a gender neutral term your wife likes?

> LGBT Hispanic people started Latinx.

A few Hispanic that were also LGBT started Latinx. LGBT Hispanic are not some hivemind borg and when people state "LGBT Hispanic people did X" it eliminates the agency of all the individuals who are both LGBT and Hispanic.

X people did Y just means the people who did Y were X. American astronauts walked on the moon.

Honest question: how would you pronounce "Latinx" in Spanish?

Aren't we grafting what's, at its roots, a germanic construction onto a latin-based word? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

>It rhymes with Kleenex

In Spanish? I’m having a hard time imagining how a word in Spanish would sound with an “X” at the end. “Latine” seems easily pronounceable but I’m not sure what the point of adding the “e” is. It’s not like that vowel signals gender neutrality in any consistent manner in Romance languages.

Spanish speaker here. X after N is basically non existing in Spanish. Most people who don't speak other languages will struggle pronouncing that. Spanish speaking woke-alikes use "e" or "@", or unnecessarily repeat the words in both genders.

Also in Latin(American) includes Portuguese and French speakers. Limit it to Spanish language/culture/heritage would be Hispanicx, which is also nonsensical, especially because I just made it up.

But I'm just a person who speaks Spanish, French and Portuguese, so take my word with a grain of salt.

Latinx is pronounced the same in English and Spanish. It being unusual for Spanish is why Latine is more popular in countries with less English influence.

Nothing signals gender neutrality. That's why people made something up. e is a simple replacement for a and o and sounds more natural than i or u.

Latinx came from LGBT Hispanic people originally.

Latine seems to be more popular than Latinx outside North America.

Way more Latino Democrats watch Fox News than listen to NPR: https://images.app.goo.gl/kpSgBJpsvVGTqPNC6. I suspect the third of Latinos who voted for Trump listen to NPR at even lower rates.

So what? Not sure why that’s relevant?

The point is that typical Latino people aren’t in the NYT’s and NPR’s target audience. That’s why those outlets use terms like “Latinx” that polling shows are unfamiliar to most Latinos. (I’m using the example of Fox News just as the banana for scale, so to speak. If you have a preconceived view that people of color who watch Fox News are relatively rare, ones who read the New York Times are rarer still by a large margin: https://images.app.goo.gl/vgyXCnAoS8TdPYU3A)

There is such a push in French, works fine with some words, much less with others.

A much more ridiculous one is to change the word endings to reflect gender neutrality. You're supposed to write both endings separated with dots.

"Chers lecteurs", a group plural, so like in all latin languages you default to neutral (ie masculine), becomes "Cher·e·s lecteur·rice·s".

It makes text nearly unreadable.

Spanish equivalent would be : "Querid·o·a·s lector·e·a·s"

Querides lectores would be an option for Spanish.

Lectores is still a masculine. And it doesn't work for "Lectores!".

I had the opportunity to ask a very social-justice-minded friend of mine how custom pronouns and genders could possibly work in Arabic, which has many deeply integrated rules on gender modification of words. Adjectives, verbs, and pronouns all change depending on the gender of the object. Her response was that the language must be changed to suit the preferences of people with nonstandard genders.

It really feels sometimes that this is a sort of soft English imperialism, forcing other languages to the margins by making their use "impolite" to the global audience.

Some words' genders come from male or female associations. Most are arbitrary though.

Some people use e for a gender neutral ending. Elles instead ellos or ellas for example.

As my wife would say, her country's Academy* in her will slap that shit down and machete the offenders in the street

*Spanish Academy, royal or otherwise.

yes.

I’m sure they are as well, especially if they’re in a heavily male dominated field. I can only speak of tech and what I’ve personally learned about.

Plenty of women have told me they don't think "guys" is gendered at all. Most (all?) of the women in my office use it irrespective of gender.

Maybe it's because you're asserting your anecdotal experience as truth, when it's not at all representative of most other people's experience.

Another personal anecdote, but not only do I consider "guys" gender neutral, but I found it kind of alienating when a few people clearly stopped saying "guys" shortly after I joined the team. I was the only woman on the team that summer (internship), and I think they were just trying to be nice, but I don't like when attention is called to gender in the workplace. The more (actively) aware I am of being "different", the more it impacts interactions.

I never said all (or even most!) women feel this way, I said 'you'd be surprised at the number'.

I don't doubt that some people think the way you're describing, but it just seems to me that complaining about gender-inclusive "guys" is the exact mirror of complaining about AAVE. It's extraordinarily exclusive to say that you can't be comfortable unless everyone talks the same way you do.

Not at all -- you're using a very specific word to refer to someone that they could consider inaccurate. If in AAVL there's some word that would refer to me as a woman or straight or a diff identity than I have, I wouldn't like that very much.

What does guys and gals mean in your dialect?

It's hard for you to wrap your mind around people telling you guys is gendered in their dialect?

Have you considered they'd show you the same courtesy they want from you if something in their dialect was rude in yours?

I'm pretty confident they would not. I've often asked for such courtesy with regards to terms like "male privilege", and the most courteous responses I've ever gotten are attempts to educate me on why the term is not meant to be offensive, much like the response I've offered here. (The most common responses are along the lines that my discomfort is the whole point of using the term, so I'm sure you can see why it's hard to believe there's any symmetry here.)

How does the definition of male privilege differ in your respective dialects? What is your dialect's inoffensive term for what they mean by male privilege? Or is it the concept that offends you?

I have no objection to claims like "Men have gender-based advantages in many things" or "Women face many problems which are hard to understand when not experienced daily". The problem with the term "male privilege" is that it comes across to many people (including me) as a sort of attack - it seems to suggest men should feel embarrassed or ashamed about their gender. (And this isn't just some crazy scenario I made up - I've heard mainstream figures say they're embarassed to be men as many words.)

What I dislike about things like male privilege is it points the spotlight away from women and ways they are unfairly treated to men.

To me it feels likeanti-colonialist rhetoric perversely applied to gender relations. When you comment on colonialism it makes sense, I'm using a f'ton of resources from say Africa that saps that live there aren't allowed to. But for gender relations, it's not a zero sum game.

AAVE?

African American Vernacular English

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Vernacular_En...