The Word "Latinx" Is Unnecessary, Linguistically Improper, and Condescending

United States citizens who are of Hispanic or Latino origin have grown to be the second largest ethnic group in the United States. Trying to find a label for this demographic has proven difficult over the years. There is still a debate between whether this demographic group should be referred to as Hispanics or Latinos. In spite of being used interchangeably in everyday conversation, they are not the same thing. Latino refers to the geographical area in North and South America that is to the south of the United States. Hispanic refers to countries where the majority language is Spanish. For example, Spaniards are Hispanic, but not Latino. Brazilians are Latino, but not Hispanic. Argentinians and Mexicans are both Hispanic and Latino.

In case that is not confusing enough, throw in the term "Latinx" to the mix. The term "Latinx" was first used in 2004 in activist circles. It was not until 2014 until it took off and became popular among progressives and in social media, as well as those in higher education (Salinas, 2017). "Latinx" is a gender-neutral neologism that is a substitute for "Latino" or "Latina." The premise is to create an alternative for those of Latin American origin or descent (especially LGBTQ individuals) who would like a gender-neutral or nonbinary way to describe themselves in Spanish. "Latinx" might sound like a well-intended attempt at diversity and linguistic inclusion. However, as a polyglot who loves Spanish enough to have pursued Spanish as one of his three majors in college, I take issue with the term "Latinx."

First, let me lay out the objections I have on grammatical grounds. Unlike English, Spanish is a gendered language. In gendered languages, there are two main types of gendering: natural gender and grammatical gender. A natural gender is when a noun, pronoun, or a noun phrase has a gender attributed to it based on relevant attributes to the referent (e.g., amigo is "male friend," amiga is "female friend"). The second type of gendering, grammatical gender, is a way of classifying nouns that is not dependent on biological sex or sociocultural expressions of sex or gender. Grammatical gender does not indicate whether a given noun is substantively masculine or feminine. As but one example, the word for "masculinity" in Spanish (la masculinidad), in French (la masculinité), in Russian (мужественность), and in German (die Männlichkeit) are all classified as feminine nouns.

Much of the gendering in gendered language is grammatical gender, but there is still natural gender in a language such as Spanish. It comes with such a rule that if you had a large group of women, but one man decides to join the group, "Ellas" suddenly becomes "Ellos." I never understood the rule that a female-majority or gender-neutral plural would be the same word for the masculine plural, but I digress.

There are those who oppose Latino/Latina descriptors because they are gendered, which attributed to the creation of "Latinx". Here is the issue with that. In Spanish, words ending in "-o" are generally masculine and words ending in "-a" are generally feminine. Obviously, there are exceptions to the norm, but binary gender is the norm of how gendered nouns work in Spanish. The suffix "-x" does not exist in the Spanish language. Earlier this year, the Real Academia Española (Royal Spanish Academy), which is the official committee of linguists that preserves the integrity of the Spanish language, ruled on the matter of the suffix "-x". To translate its response (see below), "the use of the letter "x" as a supposed designation for gender inclusion is foreign to Spanish morphology, not to mention unnecessary. The grammatical masculine (the suffix "-o") already serves this function." To apply that ruling here, the word "Latinos" in Spanish can either be masculine or gender-neutral.

When you look at the grievances of those who use "Latinx," the problem is not with just one word, but gendered language, specifically the gender binary that exists in so many languages. The fact that the RAE had to rule on the suffix "-x" tells you it is about more than just one word. Taking this grievance seriously, the suffix "-x" would not only apply to the word "Latino" when speaking Spanish. Even if your argument is that "the suffix would only apply to naturally gendered nouns because inanimate objects don't have feelings," it still remains a problem to use the suffix "-x" in the Spanish language, not only with nouns, but also because adjectives are gendered in Spanish. Here's an example:

Esxs chicxs mexicanxs fueron al cine a ver sus amigxs guatemaltecxs.

(Those Mexican individuals went to the movie theater to see their Guatemalan friends.)

As we see, not only does "Latinx" not grammatically correspond with Spanish, it also does not orally correspond with the Spanish language. The inserted "x"'s make it impossible to pronounce that sentence in Spanish, not to mention it is very confusing for Spanish speakers. And as a side note about aesthetics, it takes a beautiful language and turns such words as "Latino" into an ungainly linguistic bastardization.

This is not simply an academic debate about Spanish phonology. Applying this morphological rule consistently would have major implications for the Spanish language and Spanish speakers. As this well-presented argument against "Latinx" from Swarthmore College points out, the irony of Latinx is that its proponents advocate for its usage in the name of inclusivity, yet manage to exclude millions of Spanish speakers. Even with some fluency in English, pronouncing that "-x" is difficult for Spanish speakers. It excludes older Spanish speakers who would have difficulty adopting such a major change. And finally, how does it empower gender nonbinary individuals? It doesn't provide a gender-neutral alternative for those it was meant to help because "Latinx" is inoperable in the Spanish language.

I can see someone argue "Well, it wasn't meant to be used in Spanish. It was meant to be used in the English language." This is insulting because you are trying to accommodate a minority demographic in the United States that is predominantly Spanish-speaking, as well as provide a form of expression for Spanish-speakers who are gender nonbinary. For argument's sake, let's say it is a valid argument. You still run into an issue, mainly that the English language already has gender-neutral terms for Latino/a and Hispano/a: Latin and Hispanic.

The fact that another term was created when an adequate, gender-neutral term existed speaks to motive, as does the usage of "Latinx." I question motive here because the "Latinx" crowd specifically chose a suffix that does not make sense to use in Spanish. If these activists bothered to learn about Spanish or engage with the demographic that they are supposedly helping, perhaps they would have chosen "Latine" instead of "Latinx" in order to find something that could work within the confines of the Spanish language. At least it would head off some of the issues that come with "Latinx."

Additionally, you can tell the inception of "Latinx" came with little to no forethought. As Merriam-Webster brings up, there is not a consensus on how to pronounce it. All these reasons add up to why "Latinx" comes off as a capricious and politically correct ploy to tell a group of people how they should manage their language and social constructs. Even proponents think "Latinx" is elitist! Such a linguistic shift comes off as culturally and linguistically tone-deaf, which is ironic considering how so many on the Far Left complain about cultural and social ignorance.

Using the suffix "-x" in this fashion imposes an Anglophone norm on the Spanish language in a way that does not grammatically or orally correspond with the Spanish language, which is all the more pronounced when considering that the primary usage of the letter "x" in Spanish is in words borrowed from foreign languages. Such a step is the beginning of linguistic imperialism. What else would you call it when a group of people from the outside looks at a language, deems it too backwards, and attempts to use their linguistic and grammatical structure to force a change on the other group's language? From this mindset, it doesn't matter that millions of Spanish speakers are offended by the fact that foreigners are telling Hispanics how to speak Spanish. It hearkens back to the inherent issues many "Latinx" proponents see with the Spanish language.

Did the Latinx proponents bother to ask the Hispanic/Latin community, the very people that would use "Latinx" as a descriptor, about Latinx? A progressive Latino polling organization and market research firm, ThinkNow Research, did ask the Hispanic/Latin community earlier this year about how they self-identify with their ethnicity (see below). Through its polling, ThinkNow Research found that only 2 percent of Latinos prefer the term Latinx. Hispanic and Latin millennials polled at a slightly higher 3 percent. Another way to frame this finding is "the vast majority of Latins and Hispanics prefer another term to describe their ethnicity." The main pollster, Mario Carrasco, was surprised at the results upon realizing that Latinx has limited appeal. Maybe politicians and marketers should think twice before imposing the term "Latinx" on a community that deems the "Latinx" designator as unpopular.

It makes sense that not many Latinos are not using the term "Latinx", and it's not simply from a grammatical standpoint. Latinos have to worry about discrimination, immigration and labor exploitation, lower literacy rates, access to health care, and a myriad of other issues. With all of these issues facing Latin Americans in the United States, why would they care about using "Latinx?"

To summarize the issues with "Latinx":

1. "Latinx" does not grammatically or orally correspond with the Spanish language. 
2. Because of this inoperability, it does not practically do any favors for the demographic it was meant to help: non-binary and gender-neutral Latin and Hispanic individuals.
3. Consistently applying the "-x" suffix to Spanish would ironically exclude more people than it includes, which is contrary to the intent of the creation of "Latinx." 
4. Spanish already has a gender-neutral term: Latino. So does the English Language: Latin. "Latinx" is, at best, superfluous. Honestly, calling it superfluous is giving it too much credit. 
5. After existing for 15 years, the term "Latinx" is still not popular amongst Latins and Hispanics in the United States.
6. "Latinx" was conceived in such a disorganized fashion and such a disregard for the Spanish language that it feels like it comes from an outside force, rather than the organic process in which language almost always evolves. 
7. "Latinx" is a distraction from the real issues that Hispanic and Latin individuals in the United States face. 
8. The "Latinx" debate is not ultimately about inclusivity or how language evolves. It comes down to whether gendered language, particularly in gender binary form, should exist.

If Spanish ever becomes gender-neutral or at least allows for a gender-neutral option, it will most probably evolve that way organically and naturally. People have the freedom of speech to use what words they want, especially when describing themselves. If someone wants to describe themselves as "Latinx," more power to them! But let's not kid ourselves about the paternalism behind the predominant usage of the term "Latinx." All the argument for "Latinx" perpetuates is the stereotype that elitists on the Far Left think they know what is best for everyone else, including how Spanish should be written and spoken.