I remember reading about some similar thing with French and the French president’s wife responding that the language was beautiful the way it was and they don’t need outsiders telling them how to gender (or not) their words.
[–] mr_00ff00 3 days ago
[–] idontwantthis 3 days ago
[–] NoMoreNicksLeft 3 days ago
[–] HWR_14 2 days ago
[–] NoMoreNicksLeft 2 days ago
Your measurements of homelessness are dumb and not representative of the condition most people think of when they are thinking of homelessness.
[–] dust-jacket 2 days ago
Someone who you generously take in now has a roof over their head but they have literally zero protections - you can argue with them tomorrow and be within your rights to throw them out.
Someone with nowhere at all to stay might die of the cold tonight.
Homelessness charities absolutely want to know which case you are in. They require different interventions with different priorities.
[–] idontwantthis 2 days ago
[–] NoMoreNicksLeft 2 days ago
You miss my point so thoroughly, it can only be genius. I know that it's not true. My son's not homeless. The other guy implied it, because he can't come up with a logical test of who and who isn't homeless.
[–] abustamam 3 days ago
[–] specialist 2 days ago
It's just so easy to mock terms and phrases of art, to spin up the general public.
People like Chris Rufo, who mine legal, bureaucratic, technical, etc. phrases, are trolls.
[–] matt-attack 2 days ago
It’s essentially the same word too:
“Un” == “less” “Home” == “house”
It’s just another example of the Euphemism Treadmill.
[–] zombocomvibes 3 days ago
LatinX is awful. An AIM screen name from 1998.
[–] usern20260720 2 days ago
[–] sicktriple 3 days ago
[–] Izkata 2 days ago
[–] Someone 3 days ago
[–] elondaits 2 days ago
That x is generally pronounced as an “e” in Spanish (i.e. “latine”, not “latin eks” or “latinks” and most certainly not “latinj”, as the j sound of x is only before a vowel, e.g. xavier = javier).
But why write an x and not an e? Because there are consonants that change their sound with an “e”. So, say, the word “chicos” (boys) and “chicas” (girls) would be written as “chiques” in neutral because the c sounds like an s and not like a k with an e in front… but “chiques” doesn’t look like “chicos”… visually it’s not recognizable… while “chicxs” is much easier to parse.
This is how it works. I don’t care to enter a discussion of whether this is nice or not, good or bad. I’ll just leave with the anecdote that I once participated in a project that involved a big survey written in the traditional “neutral” form, which consists of writing “chicos/as” to covers both binary genders. That form quickly becomes very hard to read… “Los chicos/as están sentados/as con sus nuevos/as compañeros/as”. Use of the x has a lot of pushback from some people, but all in all, it’s easier to adapt to.
[–] ta7000 2 days ago
[–] lazyasciiart 2 days ago
[–] aschwtzr 1 day ago
[–] elondaits 1 day ago
Judging something and understanding something are different processes. The RAE creates guidelines, but people often speak and write without following them, and that's still worthy of examination.
[–] afiori 3 days ago
[–] jonathanlydall 2 days ago
It is interesting how different locations find different things offensive. Only when I was living in Europe for a while (doing Blizzard Customer Service) did I became aware of how big a deal the usage of N word was, as over here the K-word (look up "South Africa k-word" if you don't know it) is the word of choice for the, unevolved, die hard racists.
Was similarly unaware, (but not really surprised in hindsight) how World War II references were much better left avoided and Nazi references an enormous no-no. Over here references to Nazism are very rare and while South Africans did fight and die for the Allies in Europe, the impact of WW2 over here was no where near what it was like for most of the rest of the world.
[–] SanjayMehta 2 days ago
[–] jonathanlydall 2 days ago
We don’t have much of an Arabic community here.
[–] lazyasciiart 2 days ago
[–] ta7000 2 days ago
[–] lazide 2 days ago
Classifying a Latina as a Latino or vice-versa will get you in a pretty serious fight in a lot of places.
[–] wolvoleo 3 days ago
And no it's not just privileged white people. My Spanish teacher was a Colombiana and she always pointed out the innate patriarchal traits of the Spanish language while rolling her eyes.
[–] ozozozd 3 days ago
It often leaks information the speaker didn’t intend to share. e.g., “I met a friend. She was late.”
Did the speaker mean or care to share to gender of this friend? Is it relevant? I don’t think so.
And I find it especially interesting when people argue for gender-neutral plurals, but then happily use gendered noun. It sort of feels like “everyone must stay in their lane” type of expectation.
Even the patriarchy argument is weird. The patriarchy - along with religion - wanted this gender line and specification in every context. Wanna stick it to patriarchy? Nix the gender from all languages!
[–] dpark 3 days ago
Did they? English used to be gendered but lost it ~1000 years ago.
Languages evolve in odd ways and don’t think the patriarchy or religion have much to do with it.
[–] bregma 3 days ago
If English were to truly evolve to be non-gendered, there would be no "he/him/them" or "she/her/them", only "it/that/those".
[–] ramcle 3 days ago
"Spotkałem kolegę" - "I [male] met a [male] friend."
"Spotkałam kolegę" - "I [female] met a [male] friend."
"Spotkałem koleżankę" - "I [male] met a [female] friend."
"Spotkałam koleżankę" - "I [female] met a [female] friend."
Notice the different ending (em/am) depending on whether a male or female is speaking.
[–] wolvoleo 2 days ago
Yes, many languages have no gender or have a generic option besides genders.
I always find this very annoying in Roman languages, where every object has an arbitrary gender, and to make matters worse it's not always the same. A word that is female in Spanish could be male in Italian or Portuguese. It trips me up a lot and it's annoying because the gender is just some arbitrary thing there, it has no meaning because objects have no gender. If we're talking about people I can understand but things?
But languages are not very logical. They are something that melted together over centuries out of habit.
[–] suddenlybananas 2 days ago
[–] lazide 2 days ago
It’s no surprise that the strongest (mainstream) gendered languages are also known as the ‘Romance languages’.
Is it logically simpler in some ways to not have it? Of course. Let’s not even talk about how complex gendered verb conjugations are in Spanish or Portuguese, for example.
But it does allow a lot of beautiful flourishes that add a lot of color.
[–] piperswe 2 days ago
[–] tacitusarc 2 days ago
[–] lazide 2 days ago
[–] lazyasciiart 2 days ago
[–] lazide 19 hours ago
[–] dpark 3 days ago
Nonetheless I appreciate a perspective from someone who has an affiliation with the culture term refers to.
[–] wolvoleo 2 days ago
But my friends and in the LGBT+ communities chat groups I only see people using the x and @.
[–] dpark 2 days ago
I find it interesting that the Hispanic LGBTQ+ community would use LatinX. How is this even pronounced in Spanish? Latin-equis? Or is it the English Latin-ex?
[–] wolvoleo 2 days ago
Like I said nobody pronounces either option because it's unpronounceable. That's why the 'e' is a better option IMO.
[–] elondaits 2 days ago
[–] dpark 2 days ago
[–] elondaits 1 day ago
[–] mr_00ff00 3 days ago
I’ve also seen people argue that we should learn to not see vocabulary gender as gender at all, just start associating some words as “la” and some as “el” with no boy/girl idea behind it.
[–] dpark 3 days ago
Grammatical gender is not intrinsically sexist and doesn’t really make a lot of sense if you try to analyze it to tease out what patriarchs were thinking when they added these forms, because largely they never thought about it at all. The forms evolved over hundreds of years.
[–] vladvasiliu 3 days ago
I can't say I follow these things too closely, and I do find them silly, but I think that, at least for languages that have "genders", this mostly comes from words describing professions that "seem gendered". I don't think many people care if a bag is feminine or masculine.
For example, in French, a doctor is "masculine", but a secretary is feminine. The point was that young girls would see these words and figure, "I can't be a doctor because I'm not a man. Guess I'll just be a nurse (which is feminine, but also has a masculine form)".
Now, I think there may be some kind of truth to the fact that many such professions were traditionally held by people of the "same gender". And, now that these traditions don't hold as much anymore, especially for "prestigious" professions, people want to make a point that there's a difference, especially in things like politics and medicine.
Of course, I don't remember much noise being made about how to call a woman who picks up garbage (though there are quite a few) or does construction work (haven't seen that many).
[–] spankibalt 3 days ago
Nachweise erbeten (citations, please). :)
[–] dpark 2 days ago
My phrasing was ambiguous and my German is rusty, hence the archaic translation.
[–] heinrich5991 3 days ago
[–] spankibalt 2 days ago
[–] lazyasciiart 2 days ago
[–] mike_hearn 2 days ago
[–] dpark 2 days ago
[–] swiftcoder 3 days ago
If you look up the list of exceptions to the whole "-a = feminine, -o = masculine" in Spanish, it's incredibly long (and covers many of the most common words). Similarly there are a whole bunch where the gender is correct, but the article is swapped because it sounds better. The gender of specific words is also arbitrary, and doesn't agree between the various Romance languages.
This whole thing is just the leftover pieces of Latin's 3x linguistic genders hanging around in our languages, and ceased to be related to actual gender centuries ago.
[–] wolvoleo 2 days ago
Yes, like "el agua" but agua is a female word. Soo confusing when you are learning it.
[–] nbajka 3 days ago
[–] wolvoleo 2 days ago
And they are also catching up on feminism. Until recently here in Spain a woman would have to prove there had been violence when claiming rape. There was a big headline-making case where some rapists went free (well until supreme court appeal): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Manada_rape_case It led to the "only yes is yes" law which was already prevalent in other countries.
[–] nbajka 2 days ago
Also, convicting people without proof, that’s not something to be proud of. (This also proves they live in a matriarchy)
[–] dpark 2 days ago
They literally videotaped it and shared the video in a group chat.
There was no question of whether the assault happened, only whether it met the bar for the more severe crime.
[–] nbajka 2 days ago
[–] partyficial 2 days ago
that's just biology and it's the case the world over, not only spanish countries.
[–] darksim905 3 days ago
Was the eye roll part of the sarcasm or...? Colombian and other related Spanish speaking cultures do the same things, so what's her point, to feel like she's sticking it to the invisible spanish dude?
[–] wolvoleo 2 days ago
I'm Dutch myself and I hate many things in Dutch culture. Especially those stemming from the calvinist influences. It's one of the reasons I don't live there anymore.
[–] darksim905 2 days ago
calvinist influences
Admittedly I don't really know about dutch/some other regions -- could you expand on that?[–] PaulDavisThe1st 3 days ago
I'd recommend getting out a bit more or reading a bit more:
> According to Google Trends, it was first seen online in 2004,[7][21][22] and first appeared in academic literature around 2013 "in a Puerto Rican psychological periodical to challenge the gender binaries encoded in the Spanish language."[20][23] Contrarily, it has been claimed that usage of the term "started in online chat rooms and listservs in the 1990s" and that its first appearance in academic literature was in the Fall 2004 volume of the journal Feministas Unidas.[24][25] In the rest of the United States, it was first used in activist and LGBT circles as a way to expand on earlier attempts at gender-inclusive forms of the grammatically masculine Latino, such as Latino/a and Latin@.[21] A similar use of 'x' in the term Mx. may have been an influence or model for the development of Latinx.[10]
[–] grepex 3 days ago
> Despite the increase in awareness, use of the term to describe oneself has not greatly increased over time.[4] As of 2018, use of the term Latinx was limited nearly exclusively to the United States.[29] Manuel Vargas writes that people from Latin America ordinarily would not think of themselves using the term unless they reside in the United States.[29]
Maybe it didn't technically originate in privileged English speakers but it certainly seems to have arisen in popularity among them.
As someone who lives in a 99% hispanic region in the US, I've never heard anyone use this term to identify themselves. We're right on the border and that sort of thing seems to mainly happen in larger cities north of here.
[–] dpark 3 days ago
To the extent that the term has become widespread, it seems to have piggybacked on other diversity and inclusion efforts. People who identify as Latino/Latina seem overwhelmingly to dislike the term.
> Among Hispanic and Latino Americans, knowledge of the term is not widespread, and reception to the term as a potential classifier for the entire Hispanic/Latino population has been overwhelmingly negative. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey found that roughly half of U.S. Hispanics were not aware of the term Latinx; of those aware of it, 75% said it should not be used to describe the Hispanic or Latino population, preferring instead the terms "Latino" and "Hispanic" by large margins.
Ironically, the also relatively uncommon “Latine” is in decline but still more popular than Latinx for all of recorded Google trends history. Except in the US. Of course.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=latinx,L...
I feel like the affluent just love to invent new words to show the “others” that aren’t using it how backwards they are, and how the affluent are truly enlightened.