curles

since this “latinx or latine” discussion is getting attention again, i’d like to point out that it’s important to know how disabled people feel about it, and why you should consider using “e” instead of “x” for making gendered words neutral.

basically, a blind brazilian and anti-ableism blogger first spoke about this issue in january 2015, claiming that words such as “latinx” and “bonitx” are actually anything but inclusive, since visually impaired people can’t understand what you’re saying, because their reading-out-loud softwares can’t pronounce these words. she then suggests that using “e” as a neutral term can be way more inclusive both to nonbinary and visually impaired people (ex.: latine, bonite). she also states that you can be neutral without using “ela” or “ele” by using instead “a pessoa/that person” or simply using the person’s name.

she stills talks about this issue on her page to this day, as well as many of other anti-ableism activists on facebook, and they ask us to spread the word by sharing their posts - so as a non-disabled person, that’s what i’m doing. i hope this helps!

other articles about this topic: [x], [x]

latinextra

I just want to add, before anyone asks, that for spanish/portuguese speakers the “x” is really hard to use because %99 of the time it doesn’t come out natural at all. We literally don’t know how to say it, like the softwares. If we use it, it usually interrumps our speech all the time because we have to think how we say it. The “x”/the sound that it makes is not usual in our languages. The “e” not only helps disabled people but also it helps us because its easier and more natural in our tongues.

dasakuryo

On top of the aforementioned reasons to shift from latinx to latine for gender neutrality, doing so will not be difficult in oral speech even for native English speakers (instead of saying /ˈlætɪnɛks/ = Lah-teen-ex you say /ˈlætɪnɛ/ = Lah-teen-eh).

If we’re thriving for inclusive language, we should thrive for an inclusive language that effectively includes everyone. The use of Latine (and -e suffixes for gender neutrality in Portuguese and Spanish), unlike that of Latinx (and -x suffixes for gender neutrality in Portuguese and Spanish), does not have ableist consequences, and does not exclude visually impaired people.

Like @curles said, spread the word!

cinnasins

personally I think people should just use ‘o’ cause it’s already gender neutral! I don’t really understand why people are trying to create a gender neutral term for ‘Latino’ when it already is, it’s just kinda redundant and most Spanish speaking people will already get what you’re saying with the proper one without making up a new word! People can use whatever I guess but you won’t catch me doing that/please don’t refer to me as latine. Not all Latinos/Hispanics in the LGBT+ community like/agree being called this! Please keep that in mind!

Edit: This is a problem actually! Spanish is a gendered language and it is incredibly difficult to replace every single gendered word with an e, it’s a different language than English where we don’t use adjectives in masculine/neutral/feminine forms depending on who we’re talking to/about (for example if you want to say someone is tall and they’re female you would say ‘alta’ with the word of origin being alto which is gender neutral already) we use gendered words in Spanish CONSTANTLY and in almost every sentence. A lot of disabled/impaired/native speakers or just people who speak it fluently would have an extremely difficult time replacing every ALREADY NEUTRAL word with an e, I’ve attempted it and I keep stumbling over my words and have to rephrase or repeat the sentence or completely draw a blank. It’s not the same as using they/them pronouns for someone, as you use that occasionally. This is rewriting the entire language due to its unique factors unlike English, which is not gendered. Don’t force people to use the e when speaking or make them feel bad for it guys! It’s very hard to use, we already have gender neutral wording.

dasakuryo

Let me preface this by saying it is not my intention to be rude nor harsh with the following response, and I apologise beforehand if anything in this answer comes across as that, bear in mind I am simply addressing the points you’ve brought forth.

The -o ending is “already gender neutral” because it has been established as such, which interestingly enough matches the gendered masculine ending. Masculine = gender neutral is what’s known as género no marcado (unmarked gender) in Spanish.

Now, one doesn’t have to forget that languages are not merely a means of communication, languages are a social semiotic as well. As Halliday said, “[…] if we say that linguistic structure “reflects” social structure, we are really assigning to language a role that is too passive … Rather we should say that linguistic structure is the realization of social structure, actively symbolizing it in a process of mutual creativity. Because it stands as a metaphor for society, language has the property of not only transmitting the social order but also maintaining and potentially modifying it.”*

The establishment of the masculine gender as the gender neutral in Spanish dates back to a time in which women did not have power, or a voice for that matter, in society. This is where the “already gender neutral” masculine form comes from. The use of masculine gender as the gender neutral is ideologically identified with the predominance of men in society; through its use women are erased and marginalised in and through language.

The issue with taking the masculine as the unmarked gender goes beyond whether or not it’s been established as the neutral and is considered correct proper. Languages change throughout time to meet the needs of their speakers and to answer to the socio-historical and socio-cultural conditions of their speakers. Languages can and do change throughout time.

Related to what I’ve pointed out, let’s take a look at an example of what was consider proper a handful of decades ago.

Esa mujer es una médico.
Esa joven es una ingeniero.

Now, in those sentences I am talking about two different women, and yet I am using the masculine ending on the nouns that signal their professions. Naturally, you’d read that and say, “well, that is not correct, those nouns are marked for gender. You should have used médica and ingeniera, using the masculine is wrong, they are women!”. Well, you see, this is connected to what I mentioned about language being a social semiotic and perpetuating and/or reflecting the power dynamics within a society.

There was a time in which women were barrelled from higher education spaces, a time in which women could not become professionals and follow a career in the way their male counterparts could. When the social conditions changed and women were able to study at higher education and university levels, the language still referred to this new professional women with the masculine gendered noun, the feminine reference only present in the definite and definite articles that pre-ceded those nouns. Why? Because women were not supposed to be able to pursue this careers, all doctors and engineers were supposed to be male, there was no place for women.

Then, with time, the language changed, answering to the new social reality and reflected the shift that had taken place in society. Thus, we got the feminine ending to words that had previously only had a masculine gendered ending.

Language does change. The only languages that do not change are dead languages.

RAE, the same institution that covertly or overtly regards Latin American Spanish varieties in a detrimental light when compared to Spain’s, throughout history has been reluctant to accept any changes to the language that their own speakers bring forth, is the same that says that the -e and -x are wrong… and they are also the same institution that merely a few years ago defined women as the weaker sex;

What I mean by this is a) speakers do bring forth changes to their own languages, b) the fact that something is established or regarded as correct does not mean such establishment is devoid of issues, or that it does not foster and perpetuate issues within the societies in which that language is spoken. Putting a set of rules before the need and wishes of speakers, and the way they use their own language, is a feature of linguistic prescriptivism.

The aforementioned issues and changes do take place in Spanish-speaking Latin America, sectors of society (feminist and lgbt+ groups especially) have been fighting this fight and fostering a change for years upon years.

Laura Rosingana, headmaster of the Aletheia School explained to Infobae that “to make room in school for the use of -x and other ways that look for a more inclusive language and are against sexist language is to recognise and tackle the complexity of education, to commit ourselves to achieve a fairer,more democratic and inclusive society”. In fact, Gustavo Zorzoli, headmaster of the Colegio Nacional de Buenos Aires explained that “the use of -x and -e in writing allows for everyone to feel included, and this is slowly but surely getting reflected in interactions at school […] they may yet not be present in the academic school language (except when tackling themes related to gender identities) but they are present in trade-union communications and in social media.”

Moreover, when these changes in the language are brought forth, this does not mean the gender neutral -e will be forced on everyone, at no point the goal is to tell anyone to identify with a gender that is not theirs. Nobody is telling anyone to stop referring to themselves as latino or latina, or to stop using the masculine/feminine gender and masculine/feminine gendered words for themselves if they identify as such.

The change is on a collective, and specific individual, cases. The whole point of it is 1) achieving a neutral gender that is truly neutral, instead of equating masculine with neutral, and stop referring to a collective with the masculine; 2) allowing nb people, as well as those who don’t conform to the gender binary, to have a gender that does not violate their identities when they use their own language, so they are included in their own language and can feel comfortable using it.

Reference:

*Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. “An interpretation of the functional relationship between language and social structure”.

dasakuryo