LatinX - Another Gender Neutral Butchering of Language

[Sketcher]

I live in essentially a Latino working-class community. I've asked some Latinos how they pronounce "Latinx."

The younger ones--generation Z--have heard of it and pronounce it "Latin-Ex," but they don't incorporate it into their own spoken Spanish.

The older ones think it's just ignorant and arrogant for Anglos to try to fix a "problem" with their language that they don't believe they have.

Well, there goes my speculation about "Latin-equis".

 

[muichimotsu]

By whom though?
There's a lot of Spanglish terms out there which aren't proper Spanish. Since it's not in the official Spanish dictionary (and Spanish is a regulated language, unlike English - it's regulated by the Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española), I have no reason to consider it to be proper Spanish.

Not sure anyone's claiming it's "proper" Spanish, that's a needless gatekeeping quibble

 

[Strathos]

If this is the kind of thing that right-wingers these days are freaking out about, they must not have very many important issues to focus on.

 

[hedrick]

I just did a Google search for Latinx in cnn and nytimes, the sources I normally read. Nytimes has articles about use of the term, and uses it when referring to people who use it of themselves, but it seems rare in normal use. CNN uses it a little more, but the first search responses are for articles saying that the people it refers to don’t like it. It looks to me like an experiment that is going to fail. But apparently it is used more commonly by young people, so it might change.

 

[ViaCrucis]

By whom though?
There's a lot of Spanglish terms out there which aren't proper Spanish. Since it's not in the official Spanish dictionary (and Spanish is a regulated language, unlike English - it's regulated by the Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española), I have no reason to consider it to be proper Spanish.

It's a term used by some Hispanic people for use as a gender-neutral term. I also don't think that having a group that regulates a language is going to stop the natural changes in language--language is always changing and evolving. Language is determined by the speakers of that language.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[durangodawood]

Big deal. It will stick and become normal and no one will think about it....... or it wont.

The assumption that male identifiers should be the norm is pretty silly and is little bit of a taliban mentality leftover from early times.

 

[Sketcher]

It's a term used by some Hispanic people for use as a gender-neutral term. I also don't think that having a group that regulates a language is going to stop the natural changes in language--language is always changing and evolving. Language is determined by the speakers of that language.

-CryptoLutheran

I've only ever heard it used by whites.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I've only ever heard it used by whites.

I've never heard anyone use it personally.

But if people want to refer to themselves by whatever terminology they want to use, then I just don't see what the problem is.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hedrick]

I've never heard anyone use it personally.

But if people want to refer to themselves by whatever terminology they want to use, then I just don't see what the problem is.

-CryptoLutheran

Pew Forum did a survey. Usage by actual Latinos isn't common, but among age 18 - 29, 7% use it. So it's not absolutely unknown. Latinx Used by Just 3% of U.S. Hispanics. About One-in-Four Have Heard of It.
It still doesn't sound like it's going to catch on.

 

[Sketcher]

I've never heard anyone use it personally.

But if people want to refer to themselves by whatever terminology they want to use, then I just don't see what the problem is.

-CryptoLutheran

Where I'm coming from, with Spanish as a language, it's different. Nouns are gendered, and when there's a mix of male and female nouns, the default is to use the male plural to describe them. That's just the way the language is, not something I personally like or dislike about it. Hence, "Latinos" is correct when describing the Latin-American population collectively.

Fun fact, "Hispanic Latino" often isn't correct either.

 

[hedrick]

Where I'm coming from, with Spanish as a language, it's different. Nouns are gendered, and when there's a mix of male and female nouns, the default is to use the male plural to describe them. That's just the way the language is, not something I personally like or dislike about it. Hence, "Latinos" is correct when describing the Latin-American population collectively.

I thought the traditional English term was Hispanic. but the Pew document says Latino and Latina are now more common. Since English doesn't normally have gender, I guess Latinx could be regarded as an English version. A lot of people use specific countries.

 

[Sketcher]

I thought the traditional English term was Hispanic. but the Pew document says Latino and Latina are now more common. Since English doesn't normally have gender, I guess Latinx could be regarded as an English version. A lot of people use specific countries.

Hispanic isn't correct if the lineage isn't from Spain. It is correct if the lineage is from Spain.
Latino is correct if they are from Latin America.
And which to use can get contentious among the Spanish-speakers in the US, getting it wrong can be kind of like assuming all Asians are from a specific Asian country.
But it's usually one or the other, both at once often comes across as using the wrong one and the right one together.

 

[newwaytobehuman]

If this is the kind of thing that right-wingers these days are freaking out about, they must not have very many important issues to focus on.

I don't support either side politically but I think most of us are too busy with surviving and thriving in life to worry much about whether we use the right gender label or not

I think the gender obsessed brigade are those who come from a position of privilege so they have the head space to think of such things

 

[anna ~ grace]

Hispanic isn't correct if the lineage isn't from Spain. It is correct if the lineage is from Spain.
Latino is correct if they are from Latin America.
And which to use can get contentious among the Spanish-speakers in the US, getting it wrong can be kind of like assuming all Asians are from a specific Asian country.
But it's usually one or the other, both at once often comes across as using the wrong one and the right one together.

When I was a little kid, everyone was designated by country of origin. Cuban, Dominican, Puerto Rican, etc.

Us little kids who were not Latino also called everyone who spoke (or could speak) Spanish “Spanish”, as a designation. We knew no one came directly from Spain, but it was a linguistic descriptive.

 

[RDKirk]

I've never heard anyone use it personally.

But if people want to refer to themselves by whatever terminology they want to use, then I just don't see what the problem is.

-CryptoLutheran

The point made to me by the Mexican-Americans in my area is that "Latinx" is not the terminology they want to use, but is being foisted upon them by Anglos.

 

[RDKirk]

It's a term used by some Hispanic people for use as a gender-neutral term. I also don't think that having a group that regulates a language is going to stop the natural changes in language--language is always changing and evolving. Language is determined by the speakers of that language.

-CryptoLutheran

Languages do change and evolve...from the more complex to the less complex.

That's why I'm not particularly aggravated by the current neutral gender pronoun fad. I call it a fad because languages do not evolve to the more complex. The complication of additional pronouns that vary according to the individual you're speaking to is not going to stick in the long run across the board of English speakers. Of all people in the world learning and using English, many have a hard enough time getting pronouns correct. Indians learning English are not going to adopt it. Mexicans learning English are not going to adopt it. Chinese learning English are not going to adopt it. Africans learning English are not going to adopt it.

Some changes will happen. The use of the neuter plural third-person pronouns (they, their, them) as a neutral singular/plural pronoun is going to happen because it's an example of the language becoming less complex. It has actually already been happening for decades.

 

[durangodawood]

Languages do change and evolve...from the more complex to the less complex.

That's why I'm not particularly aggravated by the current neutral gender pronoun fad. I call it a fad because languages do not evolve to the more complex. The complication of additional pronouns that vary according to the individual you're speaking to is not going to stick in the long run across the board of English speakers. Of all people in the world learning and using English, many have a hard enough time getting pronouns correct. Indians learning English are not going to adopt it. Mexicans learning English are not going to adopt it. Chinese learning English are not going to adopt it. Africans learning English are not going to adopt it.

Some changes will happen. The use of the neuter plural third-person pronouns (they, their, them) as a neutral singular/plural pronoun is going to happen because it's an example of the language becoming less complex. It has actually already been happening for decades.

So language started at its most complex?

 

[Albion]

If this is the kind of thing that right-wingers these days are freaking out about, they must not have very many important issues to focus on.

It's only one tiny example of a bigger problem.

 

[RDKirk]

So language started at its most complex?

No, but they appear to peak in complexity at some time before the advent of mass media. Mass media--such as printing and definitely electronic mass media--appear to force simplification. First, they stop increasing complexity because they expand uniformity across the population, then they begin to force simplification.

 

[durangodawood]

No, but they appear to peak in complexity at some time before the advent of mass media. Mass media--such as printing and definitely electronic mass media--appear to force simplification. First, they stop increasing complexity because they expand uniformity across the population, then they begin to force simplification.

How do they force simplification?