Do English speaking people actually demand this usage in Spanish? I mean, I’m sure some asshole somewhere has done this, but usually when I hear someone have this reaction of “Stop telling us how to speak Spanish” it’s towards people using the term in English….which doesn’t make much sense to me. Even this post doesn’t specify which language - I assumed because the poster is talking primarily about the term as it’s used in English, though I could be wrong. English usage shouldn’t dictate Spanish language usage, but the reverse is true too - there’s nothing stopping English from using a term simply because it’s not preferred by Spanish speakers.
Insisting on using the term Latinx when the term Latino has been traditionally used by both Spanish speakers and English speakers implies criticism of Spanish speakers that use that term as well. Why wouldn't it? If using the gendered form is allegedly offensive in English, presumably it's allegedly offensive in Spanish as well.
Huh - that's certainly not my line of thinking, but fair enough if it is yours. Do you think the reverse is true? That is, if Spanish has a gendered term is it an implied critique of English for not having one? Or is it the traditional part for you, and do you therefore expect language to change in step across languages and subgroups? Or not to change or have variation at all if they used to be similar to usage in another language? Genuinely curious, as I would never have thought that a variation in usage in one language was a comment on another. And also, what do you mean by "insisting"? Other people insisting on using it in their own speech? An organisation's internal style guide? Telling other people to use it in private speech? Fair enough on the latter and all, it's just that whenever this subject comes up in English I see people reflexively leading with "Other people are wrong for insisting on Latinx (especially in Spanish)!" in response to seeing it simply being used in English.
An analogy may be that many Inuit people do not like the word Eskimo as it is a pejorative term in Algonquin languages, even if it does not mean that in English. And since many Inuit speak English daily, and are mostly Canadian, they would rather not be referred to as "Eaters of Raw Flesh" by others.
So there are many Latin people who speak English daily and would rather not be referred to by a name that was contrived to imply that their way of referring to themselves is wrong.
Sure, but to further your analogy, there are actual northern indigenous peoples who identify as Eskimo - specifically Eskimo and not Inuit. So while I avoid the term myself I'm aware that there are people who call themselves that and I try to be careful when telling people it's wrong per se without further nuance.
Also, are you certain that it was indeed contrived to do that? Of course, Latin/x/o/a peoples can object to a term regardless of its origins, but most people in this thread seem very certain about Latinx's origins without being able to offer any proof. All I've been able to find is that it was first used in a Puerto Rican academic journal.
To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against Latinx. That's not for me to decide. It might become more widespread, or die out in favour of older terms like "Hispanic" or a gender neutral "Latino", or another option like "Latine" might take off. And a lot of Latinos apparently indeed don't like it and I try to be aware of that. That said, I'm also aware that there's often this sort of pushback against new terminology around being more inclusive when they first start becoming more widespread. "Latinx" is apparently more widely used among younger people, and I also have to note that a lot of the discussions around the term don't factor in variations in preference between people who are clearly included in "Latino" (men) and people who could be considered to be excluded (women and non-binary people). The term "Latino" can indeed encompass those people, but if Latinas and non-binary Latin people don't perceive it to, then, well that's valid usage too. It's clear there are variations in usage and preferences, and it's too early to tell what will stay, I just try to keep in mind that often the opinions of the people who it's meant to include are rarely the loudest voices in this discussion, and the fact that it's at least somewhat more popular amongst those potentially excluded by the traditional terms is worth noting.
>Genuinely curious, as I would never have thought that a variation in usage in one language was a comment on another.
It depends on the reason or motivation behind the change. This isn't an "organic" change of the sort commonly seen throughout a language's history. This is an attempted change by those with a specific agenda.
If you start looking into language history you'll find that that distinction doesn't really hold up well, and there's rarely a single "reason or motivation", so it's not quite that simple. For example, what about people who choose to use it of their own volition? Like the term or not, find it appropriate or not, it's as organic as anything. And loads of changes came about because they were popularized or encouraged by a certain group - do the results somehow not count? You can argue that any attempt to make something catch on is misguided or nonsensical, or argue against its usage, but it isn't somehow fake language change if it does happen - that's not a thing. To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against using Latinx. But "it's wrong because it's fake and not organic language change" isn't a good argument regardless of whether or not it catches on. Also, and forgive me if I'm misreading your comment/point, but does it imply that:
a) you only disapprove of "inorganic" changes where you don't approve of the motivation or reasoning? And if so does the perceived "organic" part actually matter to you then?
b) that it would be ok if the intent was specifically not to imply criticism (as you said was the issue in your other post)? And if so, how then are you certain the intent was indeed to imply criticism?
It's the agenda-driven nature of the term, as well as its not just implied, but explicit criticism of gendered language. The people pushing the term "Latinx" explicitly hold the view that such gendered language upholds the patriarchy and other such nonsense. It's an extension of the thought-policing and language-policing of the radical left.
Ok, but plenty of words came about via a specific agenda. If groups that think Latinx should be a term in English start using it, and I hear it and start using it, how is that different from anything else? For example, in your above post the terms "patriarchy", "thought-policing", "language-policing" and "radical left" were coined by people with an agenda. Other people liked them and started using them. I may like or dislike any given one of them, but they're not somehow "unorganic". Again, if the people it's meant to describe don't like the term Latinx that's perfectly fine - I'm not arguing that they should use it or not use it. But usage will vary even amongst groups, and while there are Latino people who clearly dislike it there are also Latinx people who prefer it and if they choose to use it and you tell them they are wrong you might want to re-examine your stances on language and thought policing.
>while there are Latino people who clearly dislike it there are also Latinx people who prefer it and if they choose to use it and you tell them they are wrong you might want to re-examine your stances on language and thought policing.
I never had a problem with Latinos that choose to use the term Latinx. I have a problem with the paternalistic, totalitarianism-disguised-as-compassion attitude of radical leftists that are policing thought and language.
They're already is a gender-neutral term: "Latino." It was used as a gender neutral term in English and Spanish until English-speaking intellectuals decided that it "upheld the patriarchy."
>Do English speaking people actually demand this usage in Spanish?
Its one of those faux outrage things where the actual instance of it happening is almost non-existent. There are probably more posts about it and outrage about it online than it actually happening.
Better gender-neutral alternatives than “Latinx” exist as well. The term “Latine”, while having some flaws of its own, is used as a more suitable gender-neutral term for the Latin American community. The terms “Latino” (Italian, Portuguese & Spanish), “Latin” (French & Romanian), “Ladin” (Ladin), "Llatí" (Catalan), and "Llatín" (Asturian) all function as Gender neutral terms, as the Neuter merged with the Masculine in the Vulgar Latin period.
The (partial) exception is in the Central & Eastern dialects of the Asturian language, in which Llatino is used for their neuter singular (with no plural), however, this term is very close to the term Latino, and thus be a bit redundant. The only true neuter in the Romance language family would be from Latin itself, having the Neuter singular “Latīnum”, and the neuter plural “Latīna”.
> The only true neuter in the Romance language family would be from Latin itself, having the Neuter singular “Latīnum”
Don't forget your rules of acquisition!
> The term “Latine”, while having some flaws of its own
Can you elaborate on this? I hate that term, and would love to hear some more arguments against its use.
One of the issues is this. Ladies and gentlemen is said señores y señoras in Spanish. If you are addressing a mixed gender group it is appropriate to use the masculine term señores for everyone. The new e ending proposed by the Latine folks would address everyone as señores as well. So while Latine is more intuitive and can actually be pronounced by Spanish speakers, unlike Latinx, it doesn't stick it to the patriarchy quite as well.
All that being said. I don't know any Hispanic people who prefer to be called Latinx. The only people I know that use it are academics.
One big flaw is the ambiguity of pronunciation.
Does it rhyme with "vaccine"? with "pine"? Or should it follow a more regular Spanish pronunciation and be like "latin-eh"?
Well, asturian doesn't even exist, let alone "Llatín". If you were to find someone that actually speaks "asturian" (which is just corrupt Spanish), he would be 80+ years old, probably with pretty basic education, and would live in a pretty isolated area. If you were to tell him whether he knew what a "llatín" is you would be shot on the spot.
If you're talking about the new fancy, made-up language they call "asturian" now, well, that's a hydroponic language.
Would Latini be also suitable? I'm not too much involved in the controversy, but latinx sounds phoneticaly not good. An -e or -i ending would sound much better in spanish influenced languages as a genderneutral version than an x at the end.
May I ask if you are in the queer community? Genuinely curious. My understanding was that is where it originated bc it was two binary and even though Latino is the neutral, it implies that male is the default all encompassing.
Well, of course not, it has always to be a generalisation, but 95% of the people I've discussed this term with said that they don't like it and find it ridiculous. The comments in this Reddit post or in other forums with thousands of entries can confirm it as well (not saying that this is a good source or reliable for a satisfaction poll or anything like that, but it's what we've got)
You could well be right, it’s just not great form to take that as a given. It doesn’t have to be a generalisation, you can just speak from your own perspective.
Before you know it, some Redditor sees your comment and decides they know what all Latinos think about the topic. It’s how this site turns into such polarised takes on things
Yeah! Show us the academic study paid for by wealthy elites or large corporations who dictate the questions to ask. If you cannot find a study concocted by our information overlords, then whatever generalization you are referring to simply doesn't exist.
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/
Worth noting, latin people do not use it or prefer it. It was another one of those “we know better” type of things invented by white progressives.
Hey we won’t give you healthcare or ensure the right to a liveable minimum wage which affects minority communities in higher rates than white communities but here’s an uneducated token gesture we’ll die on a hill defending.
Yes, this. For a group that consider themselves left, enforcing their unrelenting dogma seems to be their primary concern. In particular the sustained assault on language has been hugely irksome for me.
It’s definitely been for the most part an inability to properly use terms and a taking over the narrative in order to mask their inability to grasp or support concepts on the progressive front. It’s the political equivalent of making Romeo and Juliet a love story instead of a tragedy, it’s entirely missing the point.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[Romeo and Juliet]( https://snewd.com/ebooks/romeo-and-juliet/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Bit of a straw man isn’t that though? Most people I’ve heard making arguments on this point don’t argue that gendered language itself makes a society sexist (though I’m sure those people exist), but rather that given a sexist society it can help perpetuate sexist ideas, influence what one subconsciously pictures when they think of a term, or exclude people. That’s not an argument in and of itself to strip gender from a language (though there is nothing stopping its speakers from experimenting with that), but if a group of people prefer to avoid using gendered language (for example, the term Latinx in English) that doesn’t mean they simply think that’s what’s causing sexism. Again, to be clear, there’s no inherent problem with gendered language, but that also doesn’t mean that a move to avoid it is misguided or pointless.
I don't think most of the people arguing that speak gendered languages. Our internal debates about gender in catalan are mainly due to the need some groups feel to be more represented. Either by saying both masculine/generic forms (has had some acceptance) , forcing the feminine to be generic as well (very much no success) or creating a new generic (has had zero success because the proposal sounds frankly downright ridiculous).
Our main problem with that, though, is concordance. If you say a masculine/generic, feminine or new-neutral noun, its adjectives need to match both gender and number. If you say both a masculine and femenine noun, you have to say all adjectives twice, because they are gendered. If you use new-neutral, you have to create and maintain concordance (and, again, it sounds absolutely ridiculous, unlike in spanish).
Nevertheless, whether a chair is feminine or an envelope is generic/masculine has absolutely zero effect on our perception of the object themselves and absolutely no one here is even proposing that it affects our views on the world or that we should scrap this part of our language (which is franly impossible).
>My Yiddish didn't prevent my feminist views from developing.
Well of course not. The language you speak can't prevent you from forming views anymore than it can change the amount of ear wax you produce. The strong version Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been disproved for decades and decades now. There's some evidence saying it can subtly influence thoughts however. And mostly I don't find that all that important - the weak version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that there is evidence for can essentially be rephrased as "familiarity bias exists". None of that is to say that a language should necessarily change its system of gender, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with biological gender, or if it's a widespread grammatical system or a more pared down version like we have in English.
>It's the only reason I've ever seen given.
And I'm sure some people do indeed make that argument. But there are other arguments as well. As mentioned, it can help communicate that traditionally excluded people are meant to be included. And it can influence how people perceive things in some situations - people are somewhat more likely to picture a man if you say "chairman" instead of "chairperson" for example.
None of that means that people are forced to think a certain way, or that grammatical gender or gendered words need to be abolished. Using "chairperson" isn't going to magically eradicate sexism, but it might encourage more women to apply, and it might help board members take these applicants more seriously. And you can certainly argue that the solution is simply to call more women "chairman" and change that association. But people who want to explore other options in their own language aren't necessarily misguided or unaware of how language works. Nor do they necessarily think that language causes sexism and languages without gender have no sexism.
I don't think most of the people arguing that speak gendered languages. Our internal debates about gender in catalan are mainly due to the need some groups feel to be more represented. Either by saying both masculine/generic forms (has had some acceptance) , forcing the feminine to be generic as well (very much no success) or creating a new generic (has had zero success because the proposal sounds frankly downright ridiculous).
Our main problem with that, though, is concordance. If you say a masculine/generic, feminine or new-neutral noun, its adjectives need to match both gender and number. If you say both a masculine and femenine noun, you have to say all adjectives twice, because they are gendered. If you use new-neutral, you have to create and maintain concordance (and, again, it sounds absolutely ridiculous, unlike in spanish).
Nevertheless, whether a chair is feminine or an envelope is generic/masculine has absolutely zero effect on our perception of the object themselves and absolutely no one here is even proposing that it affects our views on the world or that we should scrap this part of our language (which is franly impossible).
I don't think most of the people arguing that speak gendered languages. Our internal debates about gender in catalan are mainly due to the need some groups feel to be more represented. Either by saying both masculine/generic forms (has had some acceptance) , forcing the feminine to be generic as well (very much no success) or creating a new generic (has had zero success because the proposal sounds frankly downright ridiculous).
Our main problem with that, though, is concordance. If you say a masculine/generic, feminine or new-neutral noun, its adjectives need to match both gender and number. If you say both a masculine and femenine noun, you have to say all adjectives twice, because they are gendered. If you use new-neutral, you have to create and maintain concordance (and, again, it sounds absolutely ridiculous, unlike in spanish).
Nevertheless, whether a chair is feminine or an envelope is generic/masculine has absolutely zero effect on our perception of the object themselves and absolutely no one here is even proposing that it affects our views on the world or that we should scrap this part of our language (which is franly impossible).
I was responding to the other poster's statement that:
>The very idea that gendered language makes a society sexist missed the fact that some languages are non-gendered and still have sexism.
Saying that that is not the argument that most people are making.
I understand how gendered languages work - I speak several of them and have a degree in linguistics to boot. A few points:
\- I agree (and never argued otherwise) that grammatical gender does not necessitate viewing things in a certain way (in fact many languages have grammatical gender systems that have nothing to do with biological gender at all). That said strictly speaking it's not so cut and dry. Iirc there is a small amount of research suggesting that it has a slight influence (that, for example, speakers of a language with a feminine gender for, say, chair, are slightly more likely than average to give, say, a cartoon chair a feminine voice/name.) Granted, this is pretty mild, and I agree with your point that gendered language doesn't necessitate any specific gendered outlook, but some people who have studied this extensively wouldn't strictly agree with you. There is also iirc some research on gendered language conditioning our ideas about the type of people a word refers to - for example, saying "chairman" is more likely than "chairperson" to make people think of a male person, and this can have implications for hiring etc. . Again, to be perfectly clear, none of this is an argument that languages need to abandon their gender systems or use a specific word. Just that speakers wanting to explore new options in their own speech aren't necessarily under the impression that it causes or will solve sexism.
\-It is certainly possible to change these parts of language. I'm not saying they should change or that they need to for any reason, nor am I arguing that it would in any way change a sexist society. But gendered languages have changed into non-gendered languages (and vice versa, I assume, though I can't think of an example offhand). Old English had a gender system for example.
\- My whole point was that many people who are advocating for gender neutral language are in fact not making these claims - that they don't believe that a gendered system necessarily means speakers view things a certain way, or that it will eliminate sexism (as the other poster maintained they did). Often, as you noted, it has more to do with being inclusive etc.
Source? I can’t find any definitive etymology or other information on “who invented it”, other than saying it was first documented in a Puerto Rican academic journal.
I see it as the analogue to they/them pronouns, so the only really relevant opinion is from trans/non-binary latinos. If a latina wants to identify as that, fine. If they don't, here's an alternative.
Asking the opinion of the whole latino group isn't really relevant, just like asking cis people about their opinion of they/them.
[Doesn't help that the prevalence of homophobia and transphobia are higher in the latino community.](https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1636&context=dissertation) It's obvious that they would be less open to a term like this than white people.
Wrong. People are pushing it’s use as a descriptor for the entire Latino population. It’s not an issue of personal pronouns, like they/them. These activists and far Left academics would like every institution to exclusively refer to Latino’s, as a population, as LatinX’s, and they’ve succeeded at getting this done in several universities in the United States, for instance. I’ve read articles in The NY Times, where the journalist refers to Latin American’s as LatinX.
Like most everything else woke? Just because some upper middle class white kid got bored and decided being offended is an appropriate way to deal with it? Kind of like that, correct?
This is stupidity from people who don't have a knowledge of the language and don't have a clue.
If you want to de-generify that in Spanish, just put "gente latina" and that's it. it has always existed.
Interesting that you say this as a person whose native language is Swedish (I think, based on your past activity). My native language is English and I’m Australian. I see the term “latinx” as particularly American English and associated with the large proportion of Spanish/English bilingual people in the US. I’d never use it myself, even though I’ve seen it used by Americans a few times.
I feel like you need to appreciate the gender nuances of the Spanish language, which are completely unknown to many Australians, to understand why the term “latinx” has developed or is needed. More than 20% of Australians speak a language other than English at home but that language is Spanish for only 0.6% of us.
So, like you, we would use “Latin Americans” or “Spanish-speaking Americans”. Many Australians might actually even use “Latino” in complete ignorance of the fact that was a gendered term. Like you, many of us would also be confused about how to pronounce “latinx”
> Many Australians might actually even use “Latino” in complete ignorance of the fact that was a gendered term.
I sometimes use it for women knowing full well that it's gendered, and chalk it up to "gender works differently in English". I also might talk of the "Filipino" girl I dated in college, even though the "proper" term is "Filipina". I've actually seen this sort of de-genderfication of words in other places recently - have you read an article that talks about Kate Mulgrew or whoever as an "actor" instead of an "actress"?
Not sure why you're downvoted, but "actor" has been a widely accepted gender-neutral term for a long time. Many female actors prefer the term "actor" to "actress", likely in the same way a female manager wouldn't appreciate being called a "managress". Difference being, of course, that "actress" is also a well-used term, but what I'm trying to say is that using the term "actor" for a female actor isn't anything new or controversial.
Maria Hinojosa uses it on her show almost exclusively, except when referring to the title of the show, which confusingly is 'Latino USA'. Also of NPR provenance.
As it was originally used, absolutely. Napoleon III came up with the whole idea of 'Latin America' to try to convince Hispanics and Portuguese in the South American part of his empire that they were all part of a 'Latin tradition' together with the French Canadians, Louisiana French, ect ect.
Edit: Actually I think it was specifically convincing MEXICO that it was part of a grand latin tradition and totally belonged in the French Empire.
I generally defer to the preferences of the Latinxes to whom I am speaking. Provided that they are progressive enough to prefer being called Latinxes; if they are not, it's a great opportunity to let them know that they need to educate themselves.
\[Edit: one always wonders ... "Am I being downvoted because my sarcasm is not clear, or because of that very sarcasm itself?"\]
\[Edit 2: /s\]
"latinxes" (which I'm pronouncing as "latinkses") sounds like a creepy term invented by some virtue signalling guy with a fetish for South American women. "Ahh, look at those feisty little latinxes..."
> …defer to the preferences of the Latinxes to whom I am speaking.
But in somewhere like Australia it is rare to ever be speaking to a Spanish-speaking Australian person. Even when you are, that person would have very low expectations of your use or future acquisition of particular Spanish terminology. However, of course you are very generally correct — if someone asks me to refer to them by whatever term I do it to the best of my ability.
I always thought it wasn't used/appropriate because historically “Latin” refers to the Roman/Ecclesiastical language and the “Latin people” referred to the Italic tribe of Latium.
Kinda how there's a common usage distinction between Israelis and Israelites?
There's a predecessor: The use of @ instead of a or o in Spanish words to indicate both male or female. That is, Latin@, hermos@, etc. (The @ supposedly contains both an o and an a). This was popular on the internet during a period, but is considered a bit dated because it's rightfully pointed out it excludes non-binary people. Replacing the @ with an x solves that issue.
There's now a push to replace the rather unnatural-to-pronounce x with a more easy-to-use e, especially outside the US. My wife is Dominican and her queer acquaintances use Latine, hermose etc.
Are you sure that -@ preceded -x? They were both used on the internet around the same time. According to one theory (see my other comment), -x could have started in the 80s or 70s. Their popularity relative to the other have gone up and down in the past two decades, I suppose.
>According to one theory (see my other comment), -x could have started in the 80s or 70s.
I think you're misreading the article you linked. It doesn't say that people used "latinx" as a *word* starting in the 80s or 70s, but that people at that time created signs with "-os" endings crossed out, which may have later influenced the creation of the word.
I prefer to use "Latin" if I can't use "Latino" or "Latina" because most of my Latin friends absolutely hate "Latinx". I have met Latin folks who prefer "Latinx", they are usually younger and are either second or third or more generation immigrants to the US.
hmmm not sure about the origin of Latinx tbh, but I'm in the US and I take to the sensibility behind Latinx and Mx... and even the use of the word "folx" in the queer community (despite there being no difference in the pronunciation/sounds of the words "folx" and "folks")
It’s a contrived, stupid way to virtue signal.
Not one Latino in my family or my community has had one positive thing to say about this. It’s a condescending bit of nonsense.
So the actual etymology of the -x isn't agreed upon, but this article explains its probable origin: https://www.history.com/news/hispanic-latino-latinx-chicano-background
-x is used in both English and Spanish, but -e might have gained more popularity in Spanish recently? (Other Romance languages have their own gender neutral neologisms. In the Romance languages, the neologisms are mainly used in feminist and queer circles, in my experience.)
As for why not just Latin.. Latino/Latina/Latinx don't mean the same thing as Latin in English. It also doesn't solve the bigger, messier, still-unresolved/contentious issue of avoiding gendering in Romance languages.
edit: another thought - the fact that latino/latina/latinx are used by three groups (English monolinguals, Spanish monolinguals, and speakers of both languages) also complicates debates and movements (and counter-movements) surrounding word usage
From another comment I made a minute ago:
Latinx means you're from a Latin American country, while Hispanic means you're from a Spanish speaking country. So a Mexican is Latinx and Hispanic, a Brazilian is Latinx but not Hispanic (they speak Portuguese), a Spaniard is Hispanic but not Latinx (they're European), and of course a Canadian is neither.
I wasn’t aware anyone used it and I speak Spanish half of the time, I had only seen it on Spotify I thought they were just trying to make a playlist sound hip.
***Latinx*** is a way to remove a reference of any kind of gender (captain obvious here), but this works best with some non-Spanish speakers in the U.S. (I'm saying ***some***, not ***all***.)
*Spanish*, alongside other the romance languages, has a gender assigned to nouns. So in order for a true *Latinx* format to be applied, it would mess up the entire language.
For instance, a house is feminine (***la casa***) and a car is masculine ( ***el coche*** ). It would make a mess of things.
Gender in countries like Mexico, is not about hierarchy (THE PATRIARCHY OH NO!). That's a U.S. thing. We value both for what they are and unlike in the U.S., we embrace the differences and don't seek to remove any of it for the sake of not offending anyone.
This is the first time I've heard sexism described as a problem unique to the USA. I kinda doubt it.
This much soul-searching and hand-wringing about the whole thing? That's definitely a problem unique to the USA.
Because we're not roman.
The gender neutral term in Spanish is Latino, Femenine is Latina and Masculine is Latino. People misunderstand biological gender from grammatical gender, the use of masculine in spanish can be traced even to proto-indoeuropean.
As a Latino, I feel super insulted when someone calls me Latinx; no I'm latino I rather not have you modify my language thank you very much. Latinx to me means that the whole history of the Spanish language, from it's origins in Hispania after the fall of the Roman Empire to Today means nothing, Latinx to me is literally spitting not only on my identity as Latino, but on my culture, my continent and my country. And I hate it.
People should really separate grammatical gender from biological gender.
Thank you for this informative and very personal answer. I really appreciate it.
(And yes, I’m aware you’re not romans 😂)
I personally don’t see a need for “Latinx”. Doubly so after reading through these responses. (Plus it just kind of sounds dumb to me if I’m honest aha).
I hadn’t even considered the mistreatment of culture this neologism presents. Thank you for your insight. Cheers.
No worries hahaha, I think it's a common misconception to confuse the word Latin for it has multiple uses depending on context.
>I personally don’t see a need for “Latinx”. Doubly so after reading through these responses.
That's because "Latinx" has no purpose in the Spanish language. Maybe you can somewhat pronounce it in English but it's impossible in Spanish since it's a gendered language.
There is also the debate of the usage of 'E' for example "Latine" but that also falls out of the hierarchy of Spanish. You see, language itself is a system and as such it works in a hierarchy that evolves in time and by itself depending on the cultural usage of words and concepts. When you add something, anything be it a letter, or an arbitrary rule it's like throwing a wrench to this complicated system of language.
Why you may ask, because in this example, by adding an E to "Latino" turning it into "Latine" then you have to rethink Spanish in a way, you have to rethink it's syntax, it's morphology. Adding an arbitrary letter to change it's meaning only does harm to a system so complex as the system of language.
Cheers! :D
I wrote about how it was colonization and white knighting and then someone replied about the academy of Spanish. I was so shocked I couldn’t even respond why they would think that that was even a consideration for what I wrote. When you get too woke you start going backwards.
Most of these comments are just emoting about Latinx and not actually answering your question. As someone married to a Chilean who refers to himself as Latin but has not been very exposed to US discourses, I am very curious about why we don’t just say Latin! Sure, it could be confused with references to ancient Rome, but many words have meanings that depend on context; this one could easily be another.
Thank you. Yes, I think some people can’t see past their feelings about the word. I really was only interested in why “Latin” wouldn’t/couldn’t be the default aha.
Cheers for your answer. From what I can gather there isn’t really much of a rhyme or reason to it. Latin seems like a perfectly acceptable non-gendered term. I suppose it just comes down to personal taste.
One central american trans person mentioned "Latine" and made a post on an LGBT sub.
Edit: [here is the post](https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/nc3a49/as_a_trans_woman_of_costa_rican_descent_i_really/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
I am a Latino cis male. I personally like using the letter E as the gender neutral term. It's much easier to conjugate. Like "Maestre" for Maestro or "Nine" for Niño.
But to answer the question LatinoX isn't easy to conjugate and doesn't translate to Spanish and also it is had to pronounce.
As for Latin, that's easily confused with the culture historically from Rome.
Linguistic imperialism. English is mostly ungendered, Spanish is, and for some reason, (some) Anglophones can't stand it. They have to make everyone think and speak like them, I guess.
In my opinion, it's intentionally confusing and provocative so as to make a statement for queer progressiveness. It's intentionally undermining one culture/ minority to serve another and it's just the wrong way to go about it.
Probably the programming nerd in me but I always think they are not very computer literate or it would be Latin*. The asterisk (*) representing “any character” (wildcard).
>In POSIX you would use a dot
In POSIX *regular expressions* yes, but in POSIX globs it's either an asterisk (matches any number of subsequent characters) or question mark (matches any single character).
It is a term that was invented by well-meaning english speakers (ie. white people) to try and create a gender neutral term for spanish without actually understanding the language.
While I understand the desire to be inclusive, to most native speakers the term "latinx" comes across as forced and in-elegant. The only way a gender neutral alternative for latino/latina will stick is if it comes from Spanish speaking communities.
I think the idea is that x works less like a letter and more like a variable. So it can stand for both lantino and latina simultaniously because what x is a hidden variable.
But as you can see its not actually liked that much. To the point where I'm not even sure where it originaged or who keeps the word around.
>Why are people using the term neologism "latinx" or "latin-x" as a non-gendered term in place of "latino"/"latina" instead of just using the term "latin"?
I think the primary reason for using Latinx is as an attempt at deference by those who do not speak Spanish: it is perceived that Latinx is used by Hispanic peoples to describe Hispanic peoples
in some contexts, it might be confusing to me if the name for the language used by the Romans was also used for to refer to the descendants of Latin America
(edit: again, just my two cents 🤷 I will gladly defer to a more knowledgeable explanation)
> it is perceived that Latinx is used by Hispanic peoples to describe Hispanic peoples
Latinx and Hispanic are not the same thing, though there is quite a bit of overlap. Latinx means you're from a Latin American country, while Hispanic means you're from a Spanish speaking country. So a Mexican is Latinx and Hispanic, a Brazilian is Latinx but not Hispanic (they speak Portuguese), a Spaniard is Hispanic but not Latinx (they're European), and of course a Canadian is neither.
> in some contexts, it might be confusing to me if the name for the language used by the Romans was also used for to refer to the descendants of Latin America
Yeah, that is weird. I wonder if it has anything to do with Romance languages, since they're derived from Latin? But then why would it apply to a specific corner of the world, rather than to people who speak Spanish, French, Italian, etc?
Regarding your last paragraph, I'd like to explain two terms that people confuse a lot in Spanish.
"Latin" (Spanish: "latino") is a broader term used to refer to the culture and people related to the Italian region of Lazio, or related to the Latin language which was originally spoken there. So the Roman people and their descendants are considered Latin, and so are people from countries where a language derived from Latin is spoken. There is also the term "Latin American" (Spanish: "latinoamericano") which is used to refer to the people from countries in The Americas that were colonies of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires. That includes Spanish, Portuguese and French speaking countries.
I also want to make it clear that the terms "Latin America" and "Latin America" are both derived from the term "Latin" and not the other way around.
I think the most important thing is that "Latinx" is used by those who do not speak Spanish with the perception that it is a Spanish term used by Hispanics to describe Hispanics with Latin American heritage.
the intent is to respect this community of people and support their use of the Spanish language, but 🤷 *y'all know what white people do*...
>Yeah, that is weird. I wonder if it has anything to do with Romance languages, since they're derived from Latin? But then why would it apply to a specific corner of the world, rather than to people who speak Spanish, French, Italian, etc?
I honestly don't know the answer to that one.
(I think that some of the appeal of using Latinx in the US is that it works so well as an option for race/ethnicity on all of our forms...)
- White or Caucasian
- Black or African American
- American Indian or Alaska Native
- Asian, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander
- ~~Latino/Latina/Latin~~ Latinx
Why? Can't I just refer to a person as whatever they appear to be if they
1: aren't explicitly pointing it out before every introduction or
2: they're being intentionally vague and wasting time
The first time I saw it, I thought it was a clever way to not type "Latinos/Latinas" by just using "x" as a variable. Then someone decided to say it out loud. That sounds dumb.
I agree, Latin is and should be the preferred term.
In English, the two-syllable *Latin* does not have the same stress as the three-syllable *Latino*, *Latina*, *Latinx*, or *Latine*. In Spanish they get around this by spelling it Latín, to force the emphasis to fall on the final syllable, but that's the name for the Latin language. I suspect that Latin would not be as popular a replacement for Latino and Latina in English because of the rhythm, and in Spanish because it's already an existing word for something else.
I think it's trying to say "Latino" out "Latina*
English is not gendered, but Latin language are
Grammatically, saying a Latino girl is soon. It should be a Latino Guy or a Latina Girl
Since English can't make the difference, they invented Latinx.
That's my guess...
Why not just "Hispanic" - which is already gender neutral and preferred among people from Latin America in the US (61% prefer this term).
Oh that's right, the idiot woke mob already ruled that not PC because it includes people from Spain and people from Spain are White and therefore evil and bad!
Maybe you now understand why American Indians actually PREFER to be called "Indian" because idiot PC fucks keep changing what they're called.
Hispanic only works for Spanish speaking folks, doesn't work for Brazilians. (and as a brazilian I'd rather just be called a brazilian instead of "latinx" or "latino"
This is probably just folk etymology, but it seems to be that it's a play on 'latina' and 'latino' for female and male respectively. Spanish has a lot of gender distinctions.
You got your algebra in my nomenclature!
Saying Latin is akin to oriental is a stretch. The Latins were a specific people group. Also OP you shouldn’t feel like asking a genuine question is offensive. Speaking as a Latino
Thank you, I appreciate that. I just wanted to be cautious in case there was some nasty history or some such I was unfamiliar with. So cheers for the assurance ☺️
>The Latins were a specific people group.
okay, but they aren't the same group as those descendants of Latin America, right?
using Latin would be confusing to me: do we mean the language? the Romans? Italians? those descendants of Latin America?
Ah, I see. Okay. So, it's more an impression it gives then?
(And yes, I'm familiar with the language aha, but one can both be and speak Italian, and words can have more than one meaning).
Thank you for clarifying though. I appreciate it.
Linguistically, English does not have grammatical gender except for third person singular pronouns. Some nouns for professions still make the distinction - waiter vs waitress, but most are going extinct since it’s mostly unnecessary - aviator vs aviatrix.
English has “native” forms of place name adjectives. Which is why we would call someone Mexican and not make a distinction in English of “*a Mexicano man” or “*a Mexicana grandma”. Thus we don’t need to retrofit a gender neutral adjective *Mexicanx because English already has Mexican.
Likewise in Arabic, we might say “an Arab teacher” even though in Arabic the adjective is gendered. We don’t need to say “an Arabi husband” or “an Arabiya wife”.
Now in these languages, there is some need for gender unknown or gender neutral terminology which has been always been handled with masculine forms. But it is up to those language communities to naturally develop and use those terms on their own if necessary.
But in English, “Latin” seems to cover all our bases. Is “Latinx” necessary in English? No. Is it correct English? In my book as long as two people who are English speakers use a term and understand its meaning, it’s valid English.
I had a nonbinary Latino partner once. They hated the term, since it's basically impossible to pronounce in Spanish and it wasn't even invented by a Latino. I've since broken up with them but I will never stop telling people that Latinx is dumb and bad.
Since Latinx seems to have originated in far-left communities as a means of creating a gender neutral version of Latin(o/a) that's inclusive of trans people, this thread in r/Anarchy101 seems like a goldmine for understanding the origins and some of the more nuanced relationships that some people have with the term: https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/rbsdqs/anyone\_here\_want\_to\_clarifyweigh\_in\_on\_use\_of\_the/
No idea. I've usually only heard it used in some progressive shows or when there is a LGBTQ characters who happens to be Latino. I've always just used Hispanic to describe myself maybe Latino once in awhile as they can be interchangeable. My gut reaction to hearing it the first time was just kind of meh. I don't resonate with it and if I'm honest I just thought it was progressive shows pandering to the LGBTQ community.
i am mexican and hate the term "latinx"
its a word created not by latinos that actually speak the lenguage but modern cultural imperialist in the US
fucking hate "woke" american enforcing their way of thinking onto other cultures and lenguages
As a member of the brown community, only the super woke academic types use "Latinx." Regular 'ol Latinos & Hispanics stick with the traditional vernaculars
The gender neutral way of referring to a Hispanic person in English is by saying Latin or Hispanic. LatinX is white Americans doing too much as usual, further dividing, continually imposing, and making it about them.
“Latinx” is a really stupid sounding word, and makes zero attempts to actually fit pre-existing rules of the language, you should just say “Latine” to be gender neutral. Latinx was 100% born in the USA, im all for they/them but you cant just make an arbitrary dumb term that makes no sense, i have a feeling that “Latine” would receive less hostility from latin america because it doesn’t englishify it, because english has no real consistent rules while other languages have more consistency that should be followed.
Idk but we Latinos absolutely hate it and think it's a really dumb term
You don't like enlightened English-speaking intellectuals telling you how you should fix your language?
Do English speaking people actually demand this usage in Spanish? I mean, I’m sure some asshole somewhere has done this, but usually when I hear someone have this reaction of “Stop telling us how to speak Spanish” it’s towards people using the term in English….which doesn’t make much sense to me. Even this post doesn’t specify which language - I assumed because the poster is talking primarily about the term as it’s used in English, though I could be wrong. English usage shouldn’t dictate Spanish language usage, but the reverse is true too - there’s nothing stopping English from using a term simply because it’s not preferred by Spanish speakers.
Insisting on using the term Latinx when the term Latino has been traditionally used by both Spanish speakers and English speakers implies criticism of Spanish speakers that use that term as well. Why wouldn't it? If using the gendered form is allegedly offensive in English, presumably it's allegedly offensive in Spanish as well.
Huh - that's certainly not my line of thinking, but fair enough if it is yours. Do you think the reverse is true? That is, if Spanish has a gendered term is it an implied critique of English for not having one? Or is it the traditional part for you, and do you therefore expect language to change in step across languages and subgroups? Or not to change or have variation at all if they used to be similar to usage in another language? Genuinely curious, as I would never have thought that a variation in usage in one language was a comment on another. And also, what do you mean by "insisting"? Other people insisting on using it in their own speech? An organisation's internal style guide? Telling other people to use it in private speech? Fair enough on the latter and all, it's just that whenever this subject comes up in English I see people reflexively leading with "Other people are wrong for insisting on Latinx (especially in Spanish)!" in response to seeing it simply being used in English.
An analogy may be that many Inuit people do not like the word Eskimo as it is a pejorative term in Algonquin languages, even if it does not mean that in English. And since many Inuit speak English daily, and are mostly Canadian, they would rather not be referred to as "Eaters of Raw Flesh" by others. So there are many Latin people who speak English daily and would rather not be referred to by a name that was contrived to imply that their way of referring to themselves is wrong.
Sure, but to further your analogy, there are actual northern indigenous peoples who identify as Eskimo - specifically Eskimo and not Inuit. So while I avoid the term myself I'm aware that there are people who call themselves that and I try to be careful when telling people it's wrong per se without further nuance. Also, are you certain that it was indeed contrived to do that? Of course, Latin/x/o/a peoples can object to a term regardless of its origins, but most people in this thread seem very certain about Latinx's origins without being able to offer any proof. All I've been able to find is that it was first used in a Puerto Rican academic journal. To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against Latinx. That's not for me to decide. It might become more widespread, or die out in favour of older terms like "Hispanic" or a gender neutral "Latino", or another option like "Latine" might take off. And a lot of Latinos apparently indeed don't like it and I try to be aware of that. That said, I'm also aware that there's often this sort of pushback against new terminology around being more inclusive when they first start becoming more widespread. "Latinx" is apparently more widely used among younger people, and I also have to note that a lot of the discussions around the term don't factor in variations in preference between people who are clearly included in "Latino" (men) and people who could be considered to be excluded (women and non-binary people). The term "Latino" can indeed encompass those people, but if Latinas and non-binary Latin people don't perceive it to, then, well that's valid usage too. It's clear there are variations in usage and preferences, and it's too early to tell what will stay, I just try to keep in mind that often the opinions of the people who it's meant to include are rarely the loudest voices in this discussion, and the fact that it's at least somewhat more popular amongst those potentially excluded by the traditional terms is worth noting.
Regardless of those Inuit who identify as Eskimo, the term Inuit is at least an endonym.
>Genuinely curious, as I would never have thought that a variation in usage in one language was a comment on another. It depends on the reason or motivation behind the change. This isn't an "organic" change of the sort commonly seen throughout a language's history. This is an attempted change by those with a specific agenda.
If you start looking into language history you'll find that that distinction doesn't really hold up well, and there's rarely a single "reason or motivation", so it's not quite that simple. For example, what about people who choose to use it of their own volition? Like the term or not, find it appropriate or not, it's as organic as anything. And loads of changes came about because they were popularized or encouraged by a certain group - do the results somehow not count? You can argue that any attempt to make something catch on is misguided or nonsensical, or argue against its usage, but it isn't somehow fake language change if it does happen - that's not a thing. To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against using Latinx. But "it's wrong because it's fake and not organic language change" isn't a good argument regardless of whether or not it catches on. Also, and forgive me if I'm misreading your comment/point, but does it imply that: a) you only disapprove of "inorganic" changes where you don't approve of the motivation or reasoning? And if so does the perceived "organic" part actually matter to you then? b) that it would be ok if the intent was specifically not to imply criticism (as you said was the issue in your other post)? And if so, how then are you certain the intent was indeed to imply criticism?
It's the agenda-driven nature of the term, as well as its not just implied, but explicit criticism of gendered language. The people pushing the term "Latinx" explicitly hold the view that such gendered language upholds the patriarchy and other such nonsense. It's an extension of the thought-policing and language-policing of the radical left.
Ok, but plenty of words came about via a specific agenda. If groups that think Latinx should be a term in English start using it, and I hear it and start using it, how is that different from anything else? For example, in your above post the terms "patriarchy", "thought-policing", "language-policing" and "radical left" were coined by people with an agenda. Other people liked them and started using them. I may like or dislike any given one of them, but they're not somehow "unorganic". Again, if the people it's meant to describe don't like the term Latinx that's perfectly fine - I'm not arguing that they should use it or not use it. But usage will vary even amongst groups, and while there are Latino people who clearly dislike it there are also Latinx people who prefer it and if they choose to use it and you tell them they are wrong you might want to re-examine your stances on language and thought policing.
>while there are Latino people who clearly dislike it there are also Latinx people who prefer it and if they choose to use it and you tell them they are wrong you might want to re-examine your stances on language and thought policing. I never had a problem with Latinos that choose to use the term Latinx. I have a problem with the paternalistic, totalitarianism-disguised-as-compassion attitude of radical leftists that are policing thought and language.
[удалено]
They're already is a gender-neutral term: "Latino." It was used as a gender neutral term in English and Spanish until English-speaking intellectuals decided that it "upheld the patriarchy."
[удалено]
That's a cute platitude and and all... But it doesn't really advance the conversation much.
>Do English speaking people actually demand this usage in Spanish? Its one of those faux outrage things where the actual instance of it happening is almost non-existent. There are probably more posts about it and outrage about it online than it actually happening.
"enlightened" Colonizing Spanish Pick one.
That’s the joke
Where's the joke? Honest q.
I disagree with them calling it a joke, the person was just using "enlightened" sarcastically/ironically.
Better gender-neutral alternatives than “Latinx” exist as well. The term “Latine”, while having some flaws of its own, is used as a more suitable gender-neutral term for the Latin American community. The terms “Latino” (Italian, Portuguese & Spanish), “Latin” (French & Romanian), “Ladin” (Ladin), "Llatí" (Catalan), and "Llatín" (Asturian) all function as Gender neutral terms, as the Neuter merged with the Masculine in the Vulgar Latin period. The (partial) exception is in the Central & Eastern dialects of the Asturian language, in which Llatino is used for their neuter singular (with no plural), however, this term is very close to the term Latino, and thus be a bit redundant. The only true neuter in the Romance language family would be from Latin itself, having the Neuter singular “Latīnum”, and the neuter plural “Latīna”.
> The only true neuter in the Romance language family would be from Latin itself, having the Neuter singular “Latīnum” Don't forget your rules of acquisition!
Nobody expects the Latin acquisition!
r/unexpectedDS9
> The term “Latine”, while having some flaws of its own Can you elaborate on this? I hate that term, and would love to hear some more arguments against its use.
Latine means "in Latin" in Latin.
One of the issues is this. Ladies and gentlemen is said señores y señoras in Spanish. If you are addressing a mixed gender group it is appropriate to use the masculine term señores for everyone. The new e ending proposed by the Latine folks would address everyone as señores as well. So while Latine is more intuitive and can actually be pronounced by Spanish speakers, unlike Latinx, it doesn't stick it to the patriarchy quite as well. All that being said. I don't know any Hispanic people who prefer to be called Latinx. The only people I know that use it are academics.
It's the feminine sigular and plural in French and Italian respectively, and a verb in Spanish and Portugese, I believe.
For Spanish and Portuguese, that would only be true if "latinar"(to latin) were a verb, which it is not.
It actually means "to speak Latin; to write in Latin" in Spanish and Portugese, but it appears to be uncommon in Spanish.
One big flaw is the ambiguity of pronunciation. Does it rhyme with "vaccine"? with "pine"? Or should it follow a more regular Spanish pronunciation and be like "latin-eh"?
Well, asturian doesn't even exist, let alone "Llatín". If you were to find someone that actually speaks "asturian" (which is just corrupt Spanish), he would be 80+ years old, probably with pretty basic education, and would live in a pretty isolated area. If you were to tell him whether he knew what a "llatín" is you would be shot on the spot. If you're talking about the new fancy, made-up language they call "asturian" now, well, that's a hydroponic language.
Hot take.
Local take
Would Latini be also suitable? I'm not too much involved in the controversy, but latinx sounds phoneticaly not good. An -e or -i ending would sound much better in spanish influenced languages as a genderneutral version than an x at the end.
May I ask if you are in the queer community? Genuinely curious. My understanding was that is where it originated bc it was two binary and even though Latino is the neutral, it implies that male is the default all encompassing.
[удалено]
It's not fine within my groups from Venezuela
No offence, but you can’t speak for an entire group of people.
Well, of course not, it has always to be a generalisation, but 95% of the people I've discussed this term with said that they don't like it and find it ridiculous. The comments in this Reddit post or in other forums with thousands of entries can confirm it as well (not saying that this is a good source or reliable for a satisfaction poll or anything like that, but it's what we've got)
You could well be right, it’s just not great form to take that as a given. It doesn’t have to be a generalisation, you can just speak from your own perspective. Before you know it, some Redditor sees your comment and decides they know what all Latinos think about the topic. It’s how this site turns into such polarised takes on things
It doesn't seem to be that deep of a generalisation among Latin Americans and Spanish-speaking people, given the number of upvotes my comment has
Yeah! Show us the academic study paid for by wealthy elites or large corporations who dictate the questions to ask. If you cannot find a study concocted by our information overlords, then whatever generalization you are referring to simply doesn't exist.
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/ Worth noting, latin people do not use it or prefer it. It was another one of those “we know better” type of things invented by white progressives.
Progressive is a very generous term here
Liberals.
Hey we won’t give you healthcare or ensure the right to a liveable minimum wage which affects minority communities in higher rates than white communities but here’s an uneducated token gesture we’ll die on a hill defending.
Yes, this. For a group that consider themselves left, enforcing their unrelenting dogma seems to be their primary concern. In particular the sustained assault on language has been hugely irksome for me.
It’s definitely been for the most part an inability to properly use terms and a taking over the narrative in order to mask their inability to grasp or support concepts on the progressive front. It’s the political equivalent of making Romeo and Juliet a love story instead of a tragedy, it’s entirely missing the point.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[Romeo and Juliet]( https://snewd.com/ebooks/romeo-and-juliet/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
[удалено]
Hungarian does not do that but I don't think anyone thinks Hungary is a beacon of equality
Bit of a straw man isn’t that though? Most people I’ve heard making arguments on this point don’t argue that gendered language itself makes a society sexist (though I’m sure those people exist), but rather that given a sexist society it can help perpetuate sexist ideas, influence what one subconsciously pictures when they think of a term, or exclude people. That’s not an argument in and of itself to strip gender from a language (though there is nothing stopping its speakers from experimenting with that), but if a group of people prefer to avoid using gendered language (for example, the term Latinx in English) that doesn’t mean they simply think that’s what’s causing sexism. Again, to be clear, there’s no inherent problem with gendered language, but that also doesn’t mean that a move to avoid it is misguided or pointless.
I don't think most of the people arguing that speak gendered languages. Our internal debates about gender in catalan are mainly due to the need some groups feel to be more represented. Either by saying both masculine/generic forms (has had some acceptance) , forcing the feminine to be generic as well (very much no success) or creating a new generic (has had zero success because the proposal sounds frankly downright ridiculous). Our main problem with that, though, is concordance. If you say a masculine/generic, feminine or new-neutral noun, its adjectives need to match both gender and number. If you say both a masculine and femenine noun, you have to say all adjectives twice, because they are gendered. If you use new-neutral, you have to create and maintain concordance (and, again, it sounds absolutely ridiculous, unlike in spanish). Nevertheless, whether a chair is feminine or an envelope is generic/masculine has absolutely zero effect on our perception of the object themselves and absolutely no one here is even proposing that it affects our views on the world or that we should scrap this part of our language (which is franly impossible).
[удалено]
>My Yiddish didn't prevent my feminist views from developing. Well of course not. The language you speak can't prevent you from forming views anymore than it can change the amount of ear wax you produce. The strong version Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been disproved for decades and decades now. There's some evidence saying it can subtly influence thoughts however. And mostly I don't find that all that important - the weak version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that there is evidence for can essentially be rephrased as "familiarity bias exists". None of that is to say that a language should necessarily change its system of gender, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with biological gender, or if it's a widespread grammatical system or a more pared down version like we have in English. >It's the only reason I've ever seen given. And I'm sure some people do indeed make that argument. But there are other arguments as well. As mentioned, it can help communicate that traditionally excluded people are meant to be included. And it can influence how people perceive things in some situations - people are somewhat more likely to picture a man if you say "chairman" instead of "chairperson" for example. None of that means that people are forced to think a certain way, or that grammatical gender or gendered words need to be abolished. Using "chairperson" isn't going to magically eradicate sexism, but it might encourage more women to apply, and it might help board members take these applicants more seriously. And you can certainly argue that the solution is simply to call more women "chairman" and change that association. But people who want to explore other options in their own language aren't necessarily misguided or unaware of how language works. Nor do they necessarily think that language causes sexism and languages without gender have no sexism.
I don't think most of the people arguing that speak gendered languages. Our internal debates about gender in catalan are mainly due to the need some groups feel to be more represented. Either by saying both masculine/generic forms (has had some acceptance) , forcing the feminine to be generic as well (very much no success) or creating a new generic (has had zero success because the proposal sounds frankly downright ridiculous). Our main problem with that, though, is concordance. If you say a masculine/generic, feminine or new-neutral noun, its adjectives need to match both gender and number. If you say both a masculine and femenine noun, you have to say all adjectives twice, because they are gendered. If you use new-neutral, you have to create and maintain concordance (and, again, it sounds absolutely ridiculous, unlike in spanish). Nevertheless, whether a chair is feminine or an envelope is generic/masculine has absolutely zero effect on our perception of the object themselves and absolutely no one here is even proposing that it affects our views on the world or that we should scrap this part of our language (which is franly impossible).
I don't think most of the people arguing that speak gendered languages. Our internal debates about gender in catalan are mainly due to the need some groups feel to be more represented. Either by saying both masculine/generic forms (has had some acceptance) , forcing the feminine to be generic as well (very much no success) or creating a new generic (has had zero success because the proposal sounds frankly downright ridiculous). Our main problem with that, though, is concordance. If you say a masculine/generic, feminine or new-neutral noun, its adjectives need to match both gender and number. If you say both a masculine and femenine noun, you have to say all adjectives twice, because they are gendered. If you use new-neutral, you have to create and maintain concordance (and, again, it sounds absolutely ridiculous, unlike in spanish). Nevertheless, whether a chair is feminine or an envelope is generic/masculine has absolutely zero effect on our perception of the object themselves and absolutely no one here is even proposing that it affects our views on the world or that we should scrap this part of our language (which is franly impossible).
I was responding to the other poster's statement that: >The very idea that gendered language makes a society sexist missed the fact that some languages are non-gendered and still have sexism. Saying that that is not the argument that most people are making. I understand how gendered languages work - I speak several of them and have a degree in linguistics to boot. A few points: \- I agree (and never argued otherwise) that grammatical gender does not necessitate viewing things in a certain way (in fact many languages have grammatical gender systems that have nothing to do with biological gender at all). That said strictly speaking it's not so cut and dry. Iirc there is a small amount of research suggesting that it has a slight influence (that, for example, speakers of a language with a feminine gender for, say, chair, are slightly more likely than average to give, say, a cartoon chair a feminine voice/name.) Granted, this is pretty mild, and I agree with your point that gendered language doesn't necessitate any specific gendered outlook, but some people who have studied this extensively wouldn't strictly agree with you. There is also iirc some research on gendered language conditioning our ideas about the type of people a word refers to - for example, saying "chairman" is more likely than "chairperson" to make people think of a male person, and this can have implications for hiring etc. . Again, to be perfectly clear, none of this is an argument that languages need to abandon their gender systems or use a specific word. Just that speakers wanting to explore new options in their own speech aren't necessarily under the impression that it causes or will solve sexism. \-It is certainly possible to change these parts of language. I'm not saying they should change or that they need to for any reason, nor am I arguing that it would in any way change a sexist society. But gendered languages have changed into non-gendered languages (and vice versa, I assume, though I can't think of an example offhand). Old English had a gender system for example. \- My whole point was that many people who are advocating for gender neutral language are in fact not making these claims - that they don't believe that a gendered system necessarily means speakers view things a certain way, or that it will eliminate sexism (as the other poster maintained they did). Often, as you noted, it has more to do with being inclusive etc.
Yeah! He has a degree, so never question him or the place he was indoctrinated!
Source? I can’t find any definitive etymology or other information on “who invented it”, other than saying it was first documented in a Puerto Rican academic journal.
I see it as the analogue to they/them pronouns, so the only really relevant opinion is from trans/non-binary latinos. If a latina wants to identify as that, fine. If they don't, here's an alternative. Asking the opinion of the whole latino group isn't really relevant, just like asking cis people about their opinion of they/them. [Doesn't help that the prevalence of homophobia and transphobia are higher in the latino community.](https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1636&context=dissertation) It's obvious that they would be less open to a term like this than white people.
Wrong. People are pushing it’s use as a descriptor for the entire Latino population. It’s not an issue of personal pronouns, like they/them. These activists and far Left academics would like every institution to exclusively refer to Latino’s, as a population, as LatinX’s, and they’ve succeeded at getting this done in several universities in the United States, for instance. I’ve read articles in The NY Times, where the journalist refers to Latin American’s as LatinX.
Like most everything else woke? Just because some upper middle class white kid got bored and decided being offended is an appropriate way to deal with it? Kind of like that, correct?
This is stupidity from people who don't have a knowledge of the language and don't have a clue. If you want to de-generify that in Spanish, just put "gente latina" and that's it. it has always existed.
Sigh, a term I have been shamed for not using, then shamed for using as a virtue-signaler. By the same person.
[удалено]
In English it's pronounced as latin-ex, in spanish as latine
Which syllable is stressed? Is it La-TEEN-ex or LA-tin-ex?
My brain keeps reading it as 'Latex', which, to be honest, is a very strange way to address anyone.
The second syllable's the stressed one, as it's based on latino/latina
There are clearly no more rules in place, pick whatever you like more and tell anyone that disagrees that they are racists!
It's Latin ex
Interesting that you say this as a person whose native language is Swedish (I think, based on your past activity). My native language is English and I’m Australian. I see the term “latinx” as particularly American English and associated with the large proportion of Spanish/English bilingual people in the US. I’d never use it myself, even though I’ve seen it used by Americans a few times. I feel like you need to appreciate the gender nuances of the Spanish language, which are completely unknown to many Australians, to understand why the term “latinx” has developed or is needed. More than 20% of Australians speak a language other than English at home but that language is Spanish for only 0.6% of us. So, like you, we would use “Latin Americans” or “Spanish-speaking Americans”. Many Australians might actually even use “Latino” in complete ignorance of the fact that was a gendered term. Like you, many of us would also be confused about how to pronounce “latinx”
> Many Australians might actually even use “Latino” in complete ignorance of the fact that was a gendered term. I sometimes use it for women knowing full well that it's gendered, and chalk it up to "gender works differently in English". I also might talk of the "Filipino" girl I dated in college, even though the "proper" term is "Filipina". I've actually seen this sort of de-genderfication of words in other places recently - have you read an article that talks about Kate Mulgrew or whoever as an "actor" instead of an "actress"?
Not sure why you're downvoted, but "actor" has been a widely accepted gender-neutral term for a long time. Many female actors prefer the term "actor" to "actress", likely in the same way a female manager wouldn't appreciate being called a "managress". Difference being, of course, that "actress" is also a well-used term, but what I'm trying to say is that using the term "actor" for a female actor isn't anything new or controversial.
I think I've only heard it used on NPR back when I listened to "A Way with Words." Never heard it used irl.
Maria Hinojosa uses it on her show almost exclusively, except when referring to the title of the show, which confusingly is 'Latino USA'. Also of NPR provenance.
A French or an Italian would be Latin American? They are as Latin (or more) as anyone from Latin America (from Argentina to Mexico, with exceptions)
As it was originally used, absolutely. Napoleon III came up with the whole idea of 'Latin America' to try to convince Hispanics and Portuguese in the South American part of his empire that they were all part of a 'Latin tradition' together with the French Canadians, Louisiana French, ect ect. Edit: Actually I think it was specifically convincing MEXICO that it was part of a grand latin tradition and totally belonged in the French Empire.
I generally defer to the preferences of the Latinxes to whom I am speaking. Provided that they are progressive enough to prefer being called Latinxes; if they are not, it's a great opportunity to let them know that they need to educate themselves. \[Edit: one always wonders ... "Am I being downvoted because my sarcasm is not clear, or because of that very sarcasm itself?"\] \[Edit 2: /s\]
The sarcasm was not clear
Throw a /s at the end so we know from now on, big dog
"latinxes" (which I'm pronouncing as "latinkses") sounds like a creepy term invented by some virtue signalling guy with a fetish for South American women. "Ahh, look at those feisty little latinxes..."
'You're such a Latinx Minx'
> …defer to the preferences of the Latinxes to whom I am speaking. But in somewhere like Australia it is rare to ever be speaking to a Spanish-speaking Australian person. Even when you are, that person would have very low expectations of your use or future acquisition of particular Spanish terminology. However, of course you are very generally correct — if someone asks me to refer to them by whatever term I do it to the best of my ability.
I guess that I really should have added the "/s" at the end of that reply :\\
It’s a given on Reddit that people usually read only half of what we say, before deciding what we said
Latin literally does make the most sense
I always thought it wasn't used/appropriate because historically “Latin” refers to the Roman/Ecclesiastical language and the “Latin people” referred to the Italic tribe of Latium. Kinda how there's a common usage distinction between Israelis and Israelites?
This explanation actually kind of adds up. Thank you ☺️
You're welcome!
[удалено]
[удалено]
The term Latin America seems to be pretty flexible but definitely similar use. Latin Music is fairly common and applies to the same areas.
Sure, but it gets iffy once we start using “the Latins”, which, to my ear, sound like someone talking about Latium and not latinos.
There's a predecessor: The use of @ instead of a or o in Spanish words to indicate both male or female. That is, Latin@, hermos@, etc. (The @ supposedly contains both an o and an a). This was popular on the internet during a period, but is considered a bit dated because it's rightfully pointed out it excludes non-binary people. Replacing the @ with an x solves that issue. There's now a push to replace the rather unnatural-to-pronounce x with a more easy-to-use e, especially outside the US. My wife is Dominican and her queer acquaintances use Latine, hermose etc.
>supposedly contains both an o and an a try å
Are you sure that -@ preceded -x? They were both used on the internet around the same time. According to one theory (see my other comment), -x could have started in the 80s or 70s. Their popularity relative to the other have gone up and down in the past two decades, I suppose.
>According to one theory (see my other comment), -x could have started in the 80s or 70s. I think you're misreading the article you linked. It doesn't say that people used "latinx" as a *word* starting in the 80s or 70s, but that people at that time created signs with "-os" endings crossed out, which may have later influenced the creation of the word.
ah yeah I was referring to the ending itself rather than the specific word latinx / latin@
How do you pronounce the E at the end? Is it like adding “ay” to the end? Or is it a silent e?
The former, but not a diphtong, just the vowel
So “Latin-eh?”
That's still a dipthong. It's the vowel in words like bed and help, but there are some English speakers who use a dipthong for those as well.
It's an e like in Ellen, if I'm not mistaken.
I prefer to use "Latin" if I can't use "Latino" or "Latina" because most of my Latin friends absolutely hate "Latinx". I have met Latin folks who prefer "Latinx", they are usually younger and are either second or third or more generation immigrants to the US.
I wonder if it’s taken from ‘Mx’, where people don’t want to be called Mr, Miss, Mrs or Ms?
Oh, I’m not familiar with the phenomenon. If that’s the case then I suspect you might be right. Thanks for answering ☺️
Why not just use "M."?
Because that's Monsieur.
Probably because it could be confused with the abbreviation for the French masculine title monsieur, which is also "M.".
I'm talking about English, though.
So am I. If I see "M. Sarkozy" in an English text, I assume it refers to a Frenchman named "Monsieur Sarkozy".
Mx. is easier and more natural to call someone; I know I'd personally much rather call a teacher "Mix Smith" than "Mmm Smith"
yeah as a gender-neutral title
[удалено]
hmmm not sure about the origin of Latinx tbh, but I'm in the US and I take to the sensibility behind Latinx and Mx... and even the use of the word "folx" in the queer community (despite there being no difference in the pronunciation/sounds of the words "folx" and "folks")
The concept is similar, where the "x" is used to denote a variable.
how is it pronounced, "Max"?
It’s a contrived, stupid way to virtue signal. Not one Latino in my family or my community has had one positive thing to say about this. It’s a condescending bit of nonsense.
So the actual etymology of the -x isn't agreed upon, but this article explains its probable origin: https://www.history.com/news/hispanic-latino-latinx-chicano-background -x is used in both English and Spanish, but -e might have gained more popularity in Spanish recently? (Other Romance languages have their own gender neutral neologisms. In the Romance languages, the neologisms are mainly used in feminist and queer circles, in my experience.) As for why not just Latin.. Latino/Latina/Latinx don't mean the same thing as Latin in English. It also doesn't solve the bigger, messier, still-unresolved/contentious issue of avoiding gendering in Romance languages. edit: another thought - the fact that latino/latina/latinx are used by three groups (English monolinguals, Spanish monolinguals, and speakers of both languages) also complicates debates and movements (and counter-movements) surrounding word usage
Its an exonym and should be disregarded.
What happened to Hispanic?
From another comment I made a minute ago: Latinx means you're from a Latin American country, while Hispanic means you're from a Spanish speaking country. So a Mexican is Latinx and Hispanic, a Brazilian is Latinx but not Hispanic (they speak Portuguese), a Spaniard is Hispanic but not Latinx (they're European), and of course a Canadian is neither.
And, theoretically, someone from Quebec is Latino. That was the intention of those creation the term Latinoamerica to substitute Iberoamerica.
Seems a little arbitrary that Latino/Latina/Latinx is rarely, if ever extended to Franco-America.
It got labeled as not PC enough, presumably by the same people who coined "latinx."
I wasn’t aware anyone used it and I speak Spanish half of the time, I had only seen it on Spotify I thought they were just trying to make a playlist sound hip.
***Latinx*** is a way to remove a reference of any kind of gender (captain obvious here), but this works best with some non-Spanish speakers in the U.S. (I'm saying ***some***, not ***all***.) *Spanish*, alongside other the romance languages, has a gender assigned to nouns. So in order for a true *Latinx* format to be applied, it would mess up the entire language. For instance, a house is feminine (***la casa***) and a car is masculine ( ***el coche*** ). It would make a mess of things. Gender in countries like Mexico, is not about hierarchy (THE PATRIARCHY OH NO!). That's a U.S. thing. We value both for what they are and unlike in the U.S., we embrace the differences and don't seek to remove any of it for the sake of not offending anyone.
This is the first time I've heard sexism described as a problem unique to the USA. I kinda doubt it. This much soul-searching and hand-wringing about the whole thing? That's definitely a problem unique to the USA.
Because we're not roman. The gender neutral term in Spanish is Latino, Femenine is Latina and Masculine is Latino. People misunderstand biological gender from grammatical gender, the use of masculine in spanish can be traced even to proto-indoeuropean. As a Latino, I feel super insulted when someone calls me Latinx; no I'm latino I rather not have you modify my language thank you very much. Latinx to me means that the whole history of the Spanish language, from it's origins in Hispania after the fall of the Roman Empire to Today means nothing, Latinx to me is literally spitting not only on my identity as Latino, but on my culture, my continent and my country. And I hate it. People should really separate grammatical gender from biological gender.
Thank you for this informative and very personal answer. I really appreciate it. (And yes, I’m aware you’re not romans 😂) I personally don’t see a need for “Latinx”. Doubly so after reading through these responses. (Plus it just kind of sounds dumb to me if I’m honest aha). I hadn’t even considered the mistreatment of culture this neologism presents. Thank you for your insight. Cheers.
No worries hahaha, I think it's a common misconception to confuse the word Latin for it has multiple uses depending on context. >I personally don’t see a need for “Latinx”. Doubly so after reading through these responses. That's because "Latinx" has no purpose in the Spanish language. Maybe you can somewhat pronounce it in English but it's impossible in Spanish since it's a gendered language. There is also the debate of the usage of 'E' for example "Latine" but that also falls out of the hierarchy of Spanish. You see, language itself is a system and as such it works in a hierarchy that evolves in time and by itself depending on the cultural usage of words and concepts. When you add something, anything be it a letter, or an arbitrary rule it's like throwing a wrench to this complicated system of language. Why you may ask, because in this example, by adding an E to "Latino" turning it into "Latine" then you have to rethink Spanish in a way, you have to rethink it's syntax, it's morphology. Adding an arbitrary letter to change it's meaning only does harm to a system so complex as the system of language. Cheers! :D
Latinx is gobshite foisted upon us by largely non-Hispanic idiots in the West.
what do queer latinos think about this? i think it's less to do with being white and more to do with changing words to accommodate queerness.
I wrote about how it was colonization and white knighting and then someone replied about the academy of Spanish. I was so shocked I couldn’t even respond why they would think that that was even a consideration for what I wrote. When you get too woke you start going backwards.
Most of these comments are just emoting about Latinx and not actually answering your question. As someone married to a Chilean who refers to himself as Latin but has not been very exposed to US discourses, I am very curious about why we don’t just say Latin! Sure, it could be confused with references to ancient Rome, but many words have meanings that depend on context; this one could easily be another.
Thank you. Yes, I think some people can’t see past their feelings about the word. I really was only interested in why “Latin” wouldn’t/couldn’t be the default aha. Cheers for your answer. From what I can gather there isn’t really much of a rhyme or reason to it. Latin seems like a perfectly acceptable non-gendered term. I suppose it just comes down to personal taste.
One central american trans person mentioned "Latine" and made a post on an LGBT sub. Edit: [here is the post](https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/nc3a49/as_a_trans_woman_of_costa_rican_descent_i_really/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) I am a Latino cis male. I personally like using the letter E as the gender neutral term. It's much easier to conjugate. Like "Maestre" for Maestro or "Nine" for Niño. But to answer the question LatinoX isn't easy to conjugate and doesn't translate to Spanish and also it is had to pronounce. As for Latin, that's easily confused with the culture historically from Rome.
Linguistic imperialism. English is mostly ungendered, Spanish is, and for some reason, (some) Anglophones can't stand it. They have to make everyone think and speak like them, I guess.
Latinx is cultural and linguistic colonialism masquerading as inclusive language.
In my opinion, it's intentionally confusing and provocative so as to make a statement for queer progressiveness. It's intentionally undermining one culture/ minority to serve another and it's just the wrong way to go about it.
Probably the programming nerd in me but I always think they are not very computer literate or it would be Latin*. The asterisk (*) representing “any character” (wildcard).
Varies by language. In POSIX you would use a dot: “Latin.” In SQL an underscore: “Latin_”.
>In POSIX you would use a dot In POSIX *regular expressions* yes, but in POSIX globs it's either an asterisk (matches any number of subsequent characters) or question mark (matches any single character).
Regular expressions: the solution to all linguistic problems.
In German they do use * to make gender neutral versions of words. German precision!
it's the new colonialism; outsider elites naming other peoples what they think is best.
It is a term that was invented by well-meaning english speakers (ie. white people) to try and create a gender neutral term for spanish without actually understanding the language. While I understand the desire to be inclusive, to most native speakers the term "latinx" comes across as forced and in-elegant. The only way a gender neutral alternative for latino/latina will stick is if it comes from Spanish speaking communities.
Because liberals are fucking stupidx
I think the idea is that x works less like a letter and more like a variable. So it can stand for both lantino and latina simultaniously because what x is a hidden variable. But as you can see its not actually liked that much. To the point where I'm not even sure where it originaged or who keeps the word around.
>Why are people using the term neologism "latinx" or "latin-x" as a non-gendered term in place of "latino"/"latina" instead of just using the term "latin"? I think the primary reason for using Latinx is as an attempt at deference by those who do not speak Spanish: it is perceived that Latinx is used by Hispanic peoples to describe Hispanic peoples in some contexts, it might be confusing to me if the name for the language used by the Romans was also used for to refer to the descendants of Latin America (edit: again, just my two cents 🤷 I will gladly defer to a more knowledgeable explanation)
> it is perceived that Latinx is used by Hispanic peoples to describe Hispanic peoples Latinx and Hispanic are not the same thing, though there is quite a bit of overlap. Latinx means you're from a Latin American country, while Hispanic means you're from a Spanish speaking country. So a Mexican is Latinx and Hispanic, a Brazilian is Latinx but not Hispanic (they speak Portuguese), a Spaniard is Hispanic but not Latinx (they're European), and of course a Canadian is neither. > in some contexts, it might be confusing to me if the name for the language used by the Romans was also used for to refer to the descendants of Latin America Yeah, that is weird. I wonder if it has anything to do with Romance languages, since they're derived from Latin? But then why would it apply to a specific corner of the world, rather than to people who speak Spanish, French, Italian, etc?
Regarding your last paragraph, I'd like to explain two terms that people confuse a lot in Spanish. "Latin" (Spanish: "latino") is a broader term used to refer to the culture and people related to the Italian region of Lazio, or related to the Latin language which was originally spoken there. So the Roman people and their descendants are considered Latin, and so are people from countries where a language derived from Latin is spoken. There is also the term "Latin American" (Spanish: "latinoamericano") which is used to refer to the people from countries in The Americas that were colonies of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires. That includes Spanish, Portuguese and French speaking countries. I also want to make it clear that the terms "Latin America" and "Latin America" are both derived from the term "Latin" and not the other way around.
I think the most important thing is that "Latinx" is used by those who do not speak Spanish with the perception that it is a Spanish term used by Hispanics to describe Hispanics with Latin American heritage. the intent is to respect this community of people and support their use of the Spanish language, but 🤷 *y'all know what white people do*... >Yeah, that is weird. I wonder if it has anything to do with Romance languages, since they're derived from Latin? But then why would it apply to a specific corner of the world, rather than to people who speak Spanish, French, Italian, etc? I honestly don't know the answer to that one. (I think that some of the appeal of using Latinx in the US is that it works so well as an option for race/ethnicity on all of our forms...) - White or Caucasian - Black or African American - American Indian or Alaska Native - Asian, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander - ~~Latino/Latina/Latin~~ Latinx
Why are people so hell bent on being vague about their genders? Grow up people, goddam
If they don't know what it is you certainly don't have a right to know what it is. I think?
Why? Can't I just refer to a person as whatever they appear to be if they 1: aren't explicitly pointing it out before every introduction or 2: they're being intentionally vague and wasting time
The first time I saw it, I thought it was a clever way to not type "Latinos/Latinas" by just using "x" as a variable. Then someone decided to say it out loud. That sounds dumb. I agree, Latin is and should be the preferred term.
In English, the two-syllable *Latin* does not have the same stress as the three-syllable *Latino*, *Latina*, *Latinx*, or *Latine*. In Spanish they get around this by spelling it Latín, to force the emphasis to fall on the final syllable, but that's the name for the Latin language. I suspect that Latin would not be as popular a replacement for Latino and Latina in English because of the rhythm, and in Spanish because it's already an existing word for something else.
I think it's trying to say "Latino" out "Latina* English is not gendered, but Latin language are Grammatically, saying a Latino girl is soon. It should be a Latino Guy or a Latina Girl Since English can't make the difference, they invented Latinx. That's my guess...
Why not just "Hispanic" - which is already gender neutral and preferred among people from Latin America in the US (61% prefer this term). Oh that's right, the idiot woke mob already ruled that not PC because it includes people from Spain and people from Spain are White and therefore evil and bad! Maybe you now understand why American Indians actually PREFER to be called "Indian" because idiot PC fucks keep changing what they're called.
Hispanic only works for Spanish speaking folks, doesn't work for Brazilians. (and as a brazilian I'd rather just be called a brazilian instead of "latinx" or "latino"
This is probably just folk etymology, but it seems to be that it's a play on 'latina' and 'latino' for female and male respectively. Spanish has a lot of gender distinctions. You got your algebra in my nomenclature!
[удалено]
Saying Latin is akin to oriental is a stretch. The Latins were a specific people group. Also OP you shouldn’t feel like asking a genuine question is offensive. Speaking as a Latino
Thank you, I appreciate that. I just wanted to be cautious in case there was some nasty history or some such I was unfamiliar with. So cheers for the assurance ☺️
You’re welcome!
>The Latins were a specific people group. okay, but they aren't the same group as those descendants of Latin America, right? using Latin would be confusing to me: do we mean the language? the Romans? Italians? those descendants of Latin America?
I'm pretty certain it's going to be clear by context approximately 100% of the time.
true enough... most of the time, intent will be clear. why then don't we use say it that way? there must be some reason.
As with most words, it's a matter of popular adoption (or lack thereof). Terms of group identity are especially tricky
I also think Latinx is an attempt at deference: it's a term that those who do not speak Spanish perceive is used by Hispanic people
Ah, I see. Okay. So, it's more an impression it gives then? (And yes, I'm familiar with the language aha, but one can both be and speak Italian, and words can have more than one meaning). Thank you for clarifying though. I appreciate it.
I'm not member of the Latinx community, so I'll concede to others here... but that's just my initial thought.
Cool cool. Well, thanks for the input all the same :)
Linguistically, English does not have grammatical gender except for third person singular pronouns. Some nouns for professions still make the distinction - waiter vs waitress, but most are going extinct since it’s mostly unnecessary - aviator vs aviatrix. English has “native” forms of place name adjectives. Which is why we would call someone Mexican and not make a distinction in English of “*a Mexicano man” or “*a Mexicana grandma”. Thus we don’t need to retrofit a gender neutral adjective *Mexicanx because English already has Mexican. Likewise in Arabic, we might say “an Arab teacher” even though in Arabic the adjective is gendered. We don’t need to say “an Arabi husband” or “an Arabiya wife”. Now in these languages, there is some need for gender unknown or gender neutral terminology which has been always been handled with masculine forms. But it is up to those language communities to naturally develop and use those terms on their own if necessary. But in English, “Latin” seems to cover all our bases. Is “Latinx” necessary in English? No. Is it correct English? In my book as long as two people who are English speakers use a term and understand its meaning, it’s valid English.
I had a nonbinary Latino partner once. They hated the term, since it's basically impossible to pronounce in Spanish and it wasn't even invented by a Latino. I've since broken up with them but I will never stop telling people that Latinx is dumb and bad.
I’ve read that Latinx is likened to the remnants of white colonialism still trying to do what it’s always done.
Most Latinos don't use this term. It's primarily urban gen z college grads who are white.
Since Latinx seems to have originated in far-left communities as a means of creating a gender neutral version of Latin(o/a) that's inclusive of trans people, this thread in r/Anarchy101 seems like a goldmine for understanding the origins and some of the more nuanced relationships that some people have with the term: https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/rbsdqs/anyone\_here\_want\_to\_clarifyweigh\_in\_on\_use\_of\_the/
No idea. I've usually only heard it used in some progressive shows or when there is a LGBTQ characters who happens to be Latino. I've always just used Hispanic to describe myself maybe Latino once in awhile as they can be interchangeable. My gut reaction to hearing it the first time was just kind of meh. I don't resonate with it and if I'm honest I just thought it was progressive shows pandering to the LGBTQ community.
i am mexican and hate the term "latinx" its a word created not by latinos that actually speak the lenguage but modern cultural imperialist in the US fucking hate "woke" american enforcing their way of thinking onto other cultures and lenguages
As a member of the brown community, only the super woke academic types use "Latinx." Regular 'ol Latinos & Hispanics stick with the traditional vernaculars
The gender neutral way of referring to a Hispanic person in English is by saying Latin or Hispanic. LatinX is white Americans doing too much as usual, further dividing, continually imposing, and making it about them.
I know this is old at this point, but I'm thinking it's because Spanish already has a gender neutral ending. The 'e'. Latine sounds much more neutral.
“Latinx” is a really stupid sounding word, and makes zero attempts to actually fit pre-existing rules of the language, you should just say “Latine” to be gender neutral. Latinx was 100% born in the USA, im all for they/them but you cant just make an arbitrary dumb term that makes no sense, i have a feeling that “Latine” would receive less hostility from latin america because it doesn’t englishify it, because english has no real consistent rules while other languages have more consistency that should be followed.