Swarthmore's independent campus newspaper since 1881

The argument against the use of the term “Latinx”

in Op-Eds/Opinions by

As we continually search for ways to improve gender inclusivity in Spanish, we have come up with a myriad of broad language such as Latino/a and Latin@. The most recent of these solutions is the term “Latinx.” In our opinion, the use of the identifier “Latinx” as the new standard should be discouraged because it is a buzzword that fails to address any of the problems within Spanish on a meaningful scale. This position is controversial to some members of the Latino community here at Swarthmore and beyond, but the other positions within the community also deserve to be heard. We are Latinos, proud of our heritage, that were raised speaking Spanish. We are not arguing against gender-inclusive language. We have no prejudice towards non-binary people. We see, however, a misguided desire to forcibly change the language we and millions of people around the world speak, to the detriment of all. Under the “degenderization” of Spanish advocated by proponents of words such as “Latinx” words such as latinos, hermanos, and niños would be converted into latinxs, hermanxs, and niñxs respectively. This is a blatant form of linguistic imperialism — the forcing of U.S. ideals upon a language in a way that does not grammatically or orally correspond with it.

The term “Latinx” is used almost exclusively within the United States. According to Google trend data, “Latinx” came into popular use in October of 2014 and has since been widely popularized by American blogs and American institutions of higher education. The term is virtually nonexistent in any Spanish-speaking country. This is problematic for many reasons. It serves as a prime example of how English speakers can’t seem to stop imposing their social norms on other cultures. It seems that U.S. English speakers came upon Spanish, deemed it too backwards compared to their own progressive leanings, and rather than working within the language to address any of their concerns, “fixed” it from a foreign perspective that has already had too much influence on Latino and Latin American culture. The vast majority of people in Latin America from personal experience, would likely be confused and even offended by this attempt to dictate for them how their language is to be structured and how they ought to manage their social constructs. It is interesting to observe how many “Latinx” activists become outraged when a non-Latino person wears traditional Latino costumes such as sombreros without understanding the significance of what they are wearing when they themselves participate in a form of reverse appropriation. To be clear – this is not to say these Latinos are detached from the culture, but rather taking American ideals and social beliefs and inserting into a language that has widespread use in places outside of the U.S. Rather than taking from a culture or people a part of them without respect or reverence for it, this reverse appropriation aims to put into a culture a part of one’s own beliefs. This is not the forced and unwarranted taking of culture but rather the forced and unnecessary giving of incompatible segments of U.S. culture.

Perhaps the most ironic failure of the term is that it actually excludes more groups than it includes. By replacing o’s and a’s with x’s, the word “Latinx” is rendered laughably incomprehensible to any Spanish speaker without some fluency in English. Try reading this “gender neutral” sentence in Spanish: “Lxs niñxs fueron a lx escuelx a ver sus amigxs.” You literally cannot, and it seems harmless and absurd until you realize the broader implication of using x as a gender neutral alternative. It excludes all of Latin America, who simply cannot pronounce it in the U.S. way. It does not provide a gender-neutral alternative for Spanish-speaking non-binary individuals and thus excludes them. It excludes any older Spanish speakers who have been speaking Spanish for more than 40 years and would struggle to adapt to such a radical change. It effectively serves as an American way to erase the Spanish language. Like it or not, Spanish is a gendered language. If you take the gender out of every word, you are no longer speaking Spanish. If you advocate for the erasure of gender in Spanish, you then are advocating for the erasure of Spanish.

What then, is the solution if not “Latinx”? It may surprise you to learn that a gender-neutral term to describe the Latin-American community already exists in Spanish. Ready for it? Here it is: Latino. Gender in Spanish and gender in English are two different things. Even inanimate objects are given gendered -o/s and -a/s endings, although it is inherently understood that these objects are not tied to the genders assigned to them. In Spanish, when referencing  groups, we only use the feminine ending when referring to an exclusively female group. On the other hand, when we refer to groups using the masculine ending, the group could either be exclusively males or a mix of people. For example, when someone says “los cubanos” an English speaker may instinctively interpret this as “the male Cubans,” but a Spanish speaker simply hears “the Cubans.”  In fact, the only way to refer to a group that is not exclusively female in Spanish is by using the masculine ending. Therefore, according to the grammatical rules of Spanish, the term “Latinos” is already all-inclusive in terms of gender. For those that want the singular form of “Latino” without the association with gender, alternate forms exist — one can state their ancestry (“soy de Cuba/Mexico/Venezuela/etc”) or “soy de Latinoamerica”. Ultimately, the problem here is that “Latinx” does not fit within Spanish, and never will. X as a letter at the ends of words in Spanish is unpronounceable, not conjugatable, and frankly confusing. These alternate options both respect those on the non-binary spectrum and respect the dignity of the Spanish language.

We understand that some people may still support the term “Latinx”. Ultimately, we will never attempt to force anyone to personally define themselves in any way. If after reading this article anyone still feels that calling themselves “Latinx” instead of any other term brings them more happiness, we will respect that choice. However, we are strongly opposed to and cannot support this particular terminology becoming the new norm or creeping any further into a language it does not belong in. Some may be put off by gender in Spanish. But we are offended by the attempted degradation of our language at the hands of a foreign influence. “Latinx” undoubtedly stems from good intentions but is ultimately also clearly representative of a poorly thought out and self-defeating execution as well as a lack of respect for the sovereignty of Spanish.

Stephen Strasburg Shines In Mlb Debut A Stop At Nationals Park

authentic wholesale jerseysAs of today Ruiz possesses the third highest batting average in the ...

Learn more


  1. The authors of this article seem to be unfamiliar with what “cultural imperialism” means. I advise them in the future not to rely on using this concept to justify their claims to linguistic superiority and purity.

    • Latinx is another bad term. While the term avoids the gender-specific meanings of Latino & Latina, the ‘Latin’ root originated in the idea that their countries’ languages developed from Latin — thus erasing the advanced indigenous cultures that preceded the invasion & conquest by Spain.

    • How imperialist of you not to offer a definition and simply insist that they are wrong! This is what imperialists do: first they disregard the ways of others, then they insist that by virtue of their superior intellect they are to be trusted in advocating a solution that they believe no one else could have possibly considered. Dejame con la tradición de mis antepasados y la riqueza de la herencia que me ofrecen.

  2. 1) In regards to gender/case in Spanish language, I would argue there is a difference between referring to inanimate objects, concepts or places using la/el and the “appropriate” word ending, and using the same form when referring to people. The difference is that the use of gendered nouns and adjectives to refer to human beings also carries certain assumptions and expectations based on the perceived gender of the person/people they’re referring to; a gender neutral ending, like the -x- (and it is not the only one), gives us space to acknowledge multiple genders in the written form of the language.

    2) An example sentence like: “Lxs niñxs fueron a lx escuelx a ver sus amigxs,” for me, suggests the authors are making an argument in bad faith and haven’t taken a serious look at the usage of gender neutral words in Spanish as they’ve emerged through the various media and have made their way into academia. Who is writing “lx escuelx” except as joke or hyperbole? Who is taking seriously the argument that gendered language in this case is the same as a language with different grammatical cases/genders? It’s an equivocation the authors would do well to correct in order to move beyond their discomfort, but not one anyone else should take very seriously.

    3) In regards to the previous quoted example, the idea that it is unpronounceable without reference to an outside language is an unconvincing one. The Spanish language already has examples of many words with letters and phonemes not usually used in the language, that actually, are or were used frequently (an example of one such sound: El water, El wi-fi). The ambiguity and discussions about how to pronounce the -x- have produced several options: some people pronounce it as -ao- (non-nasal, not the Portuguese ão), as -u-, as -tsk- or -ks-, among many more options.

    If the fact that this isn’t standardized is causing anyone severe anxiety, I would again ask the authors to reflect on the word Latinx’s origins, as a neologism coined and used primarily in written language that is making its way through to the spoken form; it’s going to take some time for us to find a consensus.

    More broadly, the discussion presented by the authors reveals an anachronistic understanding of what language is and how it changes and, more troublingly, they display an outright patronizing idea of who its speakers are, both within the geographic area of Latin America and in the Diaspora. It’s a disingenuous and unconvincing argument based on supposed grammatical and phonological principles which, for me, are not well argued or supported.

    They are right in saying that this is an intervention in the language, they are right in saying it may not be immediately understood: but, mi gente are smart, mi gente are compassionate, and I’m sure we can handle some fuzz and some discomfort as we try to make the language we speak more accommodating, more representative, and more /functional/ for all —Latinxs—.

  3. Ufff, OK, this article is – in my honest opinion – rife with bullshit.

    Here’s the disclaimer: Soy chileno. I was born there and came to Canada as a kid. I learnt to speak English here, but was fortunately forced to speak Spanish at home. Back to the article.

    From the very beginning of the article the issue is confounded: “This is a blatant form of linguistic imperialism — the forcing of U.S. ideals upon a language in a way that does not grammatically or orally correspond with it.”

    First of all, it’s not. As far as I’m aware it wasn’t fucking white anglos who coined the term. It was latinxs. They might be latinxs born in or nationalized to the United States. I’m hoping the authors are not denying them their latinidad because of that, but for some reason, there’s the suggestion that español estadounidense is not really Spanish or less valid somehow? I mean last time I checked, the States was a “Spanish-speaking country”. So if people are using it here…

    Somebody needs to tell Alanis Moriss… I mean, the author that the actually ironic part is that the people using terms like “latinx” are the ones most often dealing with linguistic imperialism, by trying to maintain their culture and language in Anglo country, often having to choose between their queerness and their latinidad by one community or another. (Yes, yes, I’m bitter. I know.) But if terms like “latinx” help latin queers and allies rally together in solidarity and do that, who are you to say it’s not “Latino” enough?

    And guess what, el simple hecho que estemos hablando español por aquí es imperialismo lingüístico. Last time I checked, the plethora of indigenous people here before Colón weren’t speaking Spanish. “The vast majority of people in Latin America from personal experience, would likely be confused and even offended by this attempt to dictate for them how their language is to be structured and how they ought to manage their social constructs.” You know who I’m sure were confused and offended? The people who were originally here in the first place and who were forced to learned Spanish. No entiendo por que estás defendiendo un idioma colonial sobre otro.

    Also, referring to queerness and gender non-conformity as “U.S. ideals” is a little bit baffling? It’s not even the first time I hear this bullshit. I agree, we need to make these words our own to reflect the ways in which we perform queerness, but that doesn’t sound like what this article’s saying at all.

    Also if the author had began a conversation and engaged with people using the term, I’m sure they could have found out that how to pronounce gender-neutral words in Spanish is part of the creative linguistic process these people are involved in. One great suggestion that I’ve come across without even researching the thing, is pronouncing @’s and x’s as a Spanish “u”. (As someone who’s into linguistics this seems genius as “u” is kind of a middle ground between “a” and “o”.)

    All that being said, I wanted to highlight one brilliant point that the author brought up. And it’s this: “Gender in Spanish and gender in English are two different things.” Linguists and philosophers have argued in the past that a language creates its own reality. That each tongue has its own corresponding universe. You can contest the idea back and forth a lot – I don’t wanna get too into it – but this concept is particularly useful when it comes to social constructs like gender. In this case the words, gender, sex, male, female, man, woman, etc. all mean very different things from any Spanish translation you can muster up. This is because the signified for each of these terms is part of a moving, fluid net of relative meanings and cultural contexts all melding into one another.

    The most important part of that last explanation is the bit about the movement and fluidity of meanings. This is something anyone who studies languages enough notices. Languages change. Not like, occasionally. I suppose, yeah, it might be more noticeable when people invade your country and force you to talk a certain way, but language is always changing. In the macrocosm of its geolect or sociolect, or in the microcosm of the individual, language is always changing. It’s a living organism, and it carries a lot of power. So when people become conscious of the power it holds over them and the power they hold over it and try to wield it for the sake of fighting cissexim o el patriarcado, then guess what, I’m on those people’s side. And when you argue, “We can’t change it ’cause it’s hard,” you sound like every anglo asshole refusing to use they/them pronouns.

  4. I found this article infuriating and completely off point.

    1. ‘Latinxs’ is not new, it was being used when I was living in Argentina in 2009 and it was not new to the people using it then. I knew people who spoke it fluently and I would hear it in public discourse (socialist discourse but public nonetheless). These were not academics and they were not upperclass (ni chetxs). I have only experienced it in a Latin American context, and there was no sense of them being ‘forced’ to use it.

    2. In my experience with it, the ‘x’ is only meant to be used with literally gendered things like ‘lxs chicxs’ not with things like ‘lx escuelx’. I wouldn’t advocate for ‘lx escuelx’ because I don’t think that is the point of the ‘x’. As far as I know, no one is advocating to remove gender from Spanish grammar, but to acknowledge that not everyone with literal human gender falls into an -a or -o ending.

    3. They argue that it is impossible to pronounce and that you would have to have contact with English to know how to pronounce ‘lxs chicxs’? I don’t understand what this has to do with the pronunciation of English? “It excludes all of Latin America, who simply cannot pronounce it in the U.S. way.” What is the US way of pronouncing ‘x’? Xylophone? [ecks]? Are people saying ‘latin-ecks’? I don’t think they are? In Argentina it was pronounced like an ‘e’ which has nothing to do with English, and how on earth does this exclude Latin Americans when it is actively used in Latin America? The authors of this simply didn’t do their research on the use of the word globally. OKAY

    4. ARE YOU REALLY SCARED THAT A BUNCH OF QUEERS ARE GOING TO TAKE OVER SPANISH AND CHANGE THE LANGUAGE FOREVER? No. I’m sorry but unfortunately that probably isn’t going to happen and most people are going to live on expecting people to fit in a binary. People using ‘latinx’ is…. Not threatening. When you hear it spoken it is not confusing and when you see it written it is not confusing. If someone around you isn’t familiar, and you are too embarrassed to explain to them that it is because there are people in the world who don’t identity as male or female, then I don’t think the problem is with ‘latinx’.

  5. Voy a hablar en español/castellano.

    Definitivamente este articulo o fue escrito por personas cuya primera lengua no es el español/castellano, o que llevan tanto tiempo fuera de paises de habla hispana que no recuerdan los debates.

    Para empezar, tanto el uso de la x como el uso de la @ no son de uso en Norte-America, si no que del Estado Español mismo. De hecho, se llevan usando desde los 1980s. En Puerto Rico, desde principios de los 1990s. Es decir, por mas de dos decadas.

    Nosotres, lxs feministes retamos ese machismo linguistico, no por influencia ejena, si no por que reconocemos que el lenguaje no es solo una forma de expresar el pensamiento, si no una forma de formar el pensamiento tambien.

    Esa dialectica es lo que esta en juego: la falsa alegacion de que esta busqueda de un español/castellano con neutralidad de genero es algo que proviene desde afuera o por influencia exterior es un chauvinismo de lesa seriedad. Mas aun, es una defensa del machismo usando de bandera la xenofobia linguistica, algo ridiculo en una lengua que es un latin vulgarizado con el celta y el visigotico y el mozarabe, y con fuerte influencia del frances. Es decir, una lengua que de pura no tiene nada.

    En realidad los autores necesitan una clase sobre como se desarrollan las lenguas, incluyendo el español/castellano – nunca ocurren en un vacio de tiempo o espacio. La lucha feminista no existe fuera del lenguaje, por mas que estos machitos insistan que es asi. Dejen el lloriqueo chauvinista.

    A mi en lo personal no me gusta mucho la “x”, pero me gusta mucho menos el machismo medieval y cavernicola de los autores de esta pieza. Por supuesto que so hombres – so lo a un machito se le ocurre las sandeces ignorantes aqui transmitidas.

    (estoy en un teclado que me hace dificil acentuar – aunque la ñ esta facil – asi que me disculpan)

  6. thank you so much. i just saw a youtuber use this fake term latinx in a video and it was so jarring. imagine trying to forcibly change every two-gender language: Celtic, Romance, most Indo-Aryan, lots of Afro-Asiatic, etc.

    • imagine living in a world where not only do cis people refuse to accept you, but laugh in your face and write shitty articles like this when you try to create a term to include yourself in your own language.

  7. I’m Chilean, living in Chile, and quite honestly laugh in the face of the people who typed this up, and anyone who considered it appropriate enough to be posted. This entire article is ignorant garbage, you very clearly do not have a proper grasp of the Spanish language (see César’s second point).

    FYI, we’ve been using X to replace a/o in certain words for more than a decade, and mostly in written form (such as chatspeak), Hell you can even find it in graffiti. But most people prefer to use @ instead of X, hence why your Googling didn’t turn up much info (also, Google isn’t reliable for Spanish related information, at all, since it goes mainly by popularity and anglo sites have always had much more traffic) – you would’ve had an easier time just asking people from Latin America and Spain about the use of X in certain words to include all genders – not to mention saved yourself from typing up this mockery.

    TL;DR: no, our language is not being attacked by gringos, get off your high horse.

  8. I was born in Peru, but I was mostly raised in the US, and I’m also non-gender conforming. When I personally found out about “Latinx,” I actually didn’t like it. I thought it definitely was a very “outsider” way to fix the problem. I don’t believe that it was linguistic imperialism, or anything like that, considering it was Latinxs that created it, and not some pasty anglos. However, I still believed that it did undermine the culture of the language itself, considering x isn’t ever used at the end of a word in Spanish at all. Though this articles excuse of “it’s just too hard to change to use Latinx” is the most privileged thing I’ve ever heard. As I learned more about the origins of Latinx, I didn’t oppose it as much as I originally had. I do believe that some type of movement towards a more gender-inclusive Castillano needs to be made. Personally, my friends and I use “Latine.” Though not nearly as popularised or known as Latinx, I think it’s great for many reasons.
    1) -e is already a suffix in Castillano that is used for gender-neutral terms, (por ejemplo, “estudiante”)
    2) it flows off my tongue more easily (I always tripped up on Latinx and it always made me feel embarrassed but that’s personal),
    3) it is more likely to be accepted by Latin countries. The article did point out how Latinx is more commonly used in the US and not actually latin countries. While there are many reasons for that, having a word such as “Latine” that sounds more natural in Spanish would make it easier to integrate.
    I still use Latinx to refer to anyone who wishes to identify as because it’s respectful and I don’t think it’s harmful in any way, but I prefer to refer to myself and the general public as “Latine.” I’m definitely open to discussions about Latinx/Latine. I do believe that discussion is necessary for the Latine community to come to one universal term.
    This article was written from such a point of privilege and obviously refused to even consider Latinx as a viable alternative. Their big reveal, that you should just stay with Latino is so ignorant. Normalizing the masculine -o to the general public only serves to further the patriarchy by saying the typical human being is male, as well as implies that the ones that are important to specify or talk about are the men. It gives more power to men. Then, refusing to acknowledge a suffix not tied to any gender at all is blatantly ignoring the struggles of non-binary people like me. Assuming that masculinity and femininity fits everyone is cissexist. And on top of that, what if you want to refer to a specific person? If they aren’t either Latino or Latina, and there’s no other alternative, how would you refer to me? Would you erase my gender in an attempt to preserve your language? No. We need a gender-neutral term and I’m sure that someone who it doesn’t really affect wouldn’t think much of it but as a Latine/Latinx I definitely support any movement to include me in my own native language.

  9. This is actually my main reasons why I no longer want to support “intersectional”/tumblr-esque social justice. They only want to help themselves and want to silence and exclude people who don’t agree with them. A Latino man, who wrote this article doesn’t agree with the word “Latinx”. Neither do I and I’m Latina, not a white cishet man trying to disguise as one. A bunch of these tumblr minded SJ activists probably didn’t read this article and attacked this guy just because he disagreed with this term. Spanish is a gendered language, so are all of the Latin based languages, such as French and Portuguese.

    The only time I’ve heard the terms “Latinx” or “Latin@” are from US based social media sites such as tumblr, Facebook, or twitter. Now I’ve seen a bunch of liberal news websites adopting the term and casually using it to please the PC crowd. I’ve highly doubt that the term “Latinx” existed before before 2013. Show me a non US based source or I’ll immediately discredited you as a moronic, trendy tumblr user. It sounds harsh, but I don’t need to be saved by liberal, privileged, pastel haired gring- oh sorry, “gringxs” telling me that my “idioma” is wrong.

  10. Wow. I came here expecting to agree with this article. And I did, to a certain extent, until I started reading the comments. I now realize that my point of view was extremely limited and privileged, despite the fact that I am a genderqueer venezuelan, which means I am directly affected by this.

    A big fat thank you to commenters such as A, Carlos, Annalee, Max, and Reggie, for opening my eyes as to what denying “Latinxs” really is causing. I do agree with the authors when they say that it’s very strange to pronounce and it’s gonna take a while to get used to, because that’s basically saying “I’m not gonna include you ’cause it’s too hard and I’m too lazy’, and it’s not fair at all. We can still replace the X with an E or U (my favourite) in spoken language.

    TL;DR: privileged peeps, it’s time to open your eyes and make an effort to be fucking inclusive for once and for all.

  11. I’m not a fan of Latinx for a couple of reasons. I agree with the author that it’s an anglicismo that seems forced and makes no grammatical sense in Spanish. Secondly, it just looks terrible when written. There’s no elegance to it and just causes confusion on how to pronounce it.

    Personally, I would use the term “Latiné” with the accent. It makes sense within the construct of Spanish and just looks much more aesthetically pleasing. If we’re gonna add gender neutral terms in the language the word should be as elegant and beautiful as the language itself.

  12. Absolutely spot on. This is a term used by Latino-Americans who don’t fully understand or appreciate their parents’ or grandparents’ native tongue. My mother and father would not be able to pronounce latinx or lxs chicxs. Good intentions but it butchers how beautiful our language is- the way the words can just roll off our tongues. The solution is not to change our language but change policies that impact these communities.

  13. This is such an “all lives matter” argument” lol

    “a misguided desire to forcibly change the language we and millions of people around the world speak, to the detriment of all.” – A majority of the people I know that use the term aren’t imposing or enforcing it on anyone. Our language is evolving to be more conscience of Trans/Gender Non-Conforming individuals, but this is not the first or last time this has happened in the course of history. The Spanish language in itself is a byproduct of colonialism, so why do we suddenly feel that imperialist rhetoric of ‘inclusivity’ is imposing on our culture? Lmfao. Give me a break.

  14. We should take the authors’ arguments very seriously. Some readers here may be too young to remember when Reagan funded the Contras to spread the use of “latinx” throughout Central America, resulting in devastating civil war throughout the region. Or how the U.S.-backed coup in Chile toppled the Allende government and installed gender inclusivity in the Spanish language of the region, resulting in a brutal dictatorship lasting decades. We must heed the authors’ warning lest well-meaning Latin queers usher in a new era of imperialism and suffering throughout Latin America.

  15. I am so happy this article was written. As a Hispanic-American and as a High School Spanish teacher, I find the term “Latinx” completely unnecessary, jarring, and excessive. Spanish is a beautiful language and I am not going to apologize for it being a gendered language. If someone is truly upset by the Spanish word, they can use “Latin American”, not some ridiculous and difficult made up word.

  16. tbh this is transphobic garbage. white americans did NOT invent nonbinary identities. we have existed for thousands of years, and the gender binary is one of many results of colonialism. it honestly sounds like you know absolutely nothing about trans people, let alone nonbinary people. do your research next time before you make such a huge, transphobic leap.

  17. Funny thing is that some countries on that image does not have spanish as official language (like Brazil, which happens to be the biggest one in Latin America.. Wish you guys could at least star to realize that Hispanic =/= Latino. It’s funny that, for a group that all out to defend minorities, you guys have a very hispanic centric views of things ( it makes sense, since they are the majority). What about the portuguese, french, …etc speakers?

  18. Couldn’t agree more with the original author. Dejaria nuestro bello español mas confundido, solo para poner feliz a los academicos de los EEUU. In reality, the latin@ is much more in use in non-scholarly forms and in latin America, and even then it’s rare.

  19. As a U.S. citizen living in Spain for the past 12 years, I can assure the authors and readers that while I cannot attest to its origin, the use of the letter X in place of the A or O in nouns and adjectives denoting gender is quite common in certain circumstances, and I have never heard of it being associated with U.S.-based linguistic imperialism.

    Its use is mainly confined to placards, posters, headlines, and other simple, highly visible texts. The context is most often political, usually in feminist or LGBTQIA circles, or others displaying their support of these groups.

    The reasoning is that the irony of grammatical gender rules is not lost on those concerned with and who are fighting for equality on these issues. While fighting against traditional gender-based hierarchies, it is difficult to overlook that in the very language they use to express themselves, the masculine form always takes precedence over the feminine. If I (a male) am in a room full of women and someone enters to address us, we’re “vosotros.” Who decided that? And it’s happened to me multiple times.

    However, I have never heard anyone try to pronounce this. Often you might hear someone say “chicos y chicas” or reverse in order to give women preference, or just to stop giving the preference to the same people. Some years ago the use of the @ sign was more common, and you would see “tod@s” instead of “todxs.” I believe this was replaced – although you shouldn’t take my word for it – for aethetic reasons as well as for being a non cis-inclusive alternative. I usually dedicate a formal letter like this: “Muy señores/as míos/as.” I suppose being formal would be my excuse for putting the masculine form first, but now’s as good a time as ever to start changing it up.

    Another point is, while the use of “latinxs” is not nearly as common here, I certainly have never seen “latinx” or any other singular use. “Estoy cansadx,” for example, just looks more like the shorthand adolescents use in their text messages. The E is sometimes used, not only for gender reasons but also to make it more detectable for devices used by persons with vision difficulties.

    This, however, is often messy and confusing. Language, as our primary form of communication, is seeped in complex and disloyal nuances, and overprogrammed with own own culture and history. It is probably more difficult to change its inconsistencies with our moral viewpoints than to change the laws and social norms that protecting those very same injustices. In the meantime, no time nor effort is wasted when we help each other understand what these injustices are, and how we can rectify them.

    While we’re on the topic of helping each other understand things, there’s also the point of the U.S.-centric perspective of the article, and the short-sightedness of a country that “looks at its own bellybutton.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Latest from Op-Eds

Go to Top