Latinx Vs. Latino
Why we should probably stick with the latter
As someone who likes to study languages from time to time, I’ve long known about the gender rules of Spanish. The gender of the person or noun being referenced determines which gender suffix is used. Even inanimate objects have a gender assigned to them. “O” signifies the masculine gender and “A” denotes the feminine.
With plurals, this works in an interesting way. If you’re talking about, say, a group of friends who are all male, the word is “amigos.” Likewise if those friends are all female, the word is “amigas.” But if the friends are of mixed gender, you use the masculine “amigos.” This rule applies even if you have one man and nine women in that group.
It’s easy to understand why many people in America find this rule objectionable. Why should the nine women be cancelled out by the one man? Should language not reflect that men and women are equally relevant?
If it had been my choice how Spanish plurals worked, I would’ve made them that way. Obviously it wasn’t, since I was born many centuries after Spanish diverged from the original Vulgar Latin spoken by the Romans. Even if someday I became fluent in it, my opinion would probably not carry as much weight as that of a native speaker.
I’m reminded of how, in English, we like to use “guys” to refer to men and women together, like when we say “You guys…” or “Hey, guys!” Girls will sometimes even use it to address their female friends. There are, of course, people who don’t like to use “guys” this way and don’t like it when others do.
But for most people who do use it like that, it doesn’t reflect a belief that women matter less than men. It’s just a cultural thing.
That’s the problem I have with the usage of “Latinx” by non-Spanish speakers as an all-inclusive term for Latinos and their culture — it conveys the idea that saying “Latino” is sexist and exclusive whether it’s intended that way or not. The brand of social justice activism practiced by many in this country puts suspicion over nuance. Accordingly, the insistence on using “Latinx” implies the usage of “Latino” as being wrongful when it’s just the normal default that Spanish speakers use.
Interestingly, the word “Latino” as used in American English originated in the U.S. during the 40’s. It’s a shortened form of the Spanish “latinoamericano.” It presented an alternative to “Hispanic,” which some American Latinos frowned upon because of its emphasis on Spain, a former colonizing power. “Latinx” came about much later, with the first recorded use of it going back to 2004. In recent years, some have also pushed for “Latine” (la-teen-eh) as an alternative. I agree with those who argue that “Latine” is much more natural-sounding than “Latinx.”
While the attempted revamping of Spanish gender rules in our country may be well-intended, right now it seems unnecessary. In a study published in August 2020, only 3% of Latinos in the U.S. said that they personally use “Latinx.” Its usage was rare across the board by age, gender and political party, although Latina women 18 to 29 years of age were a significant outlier with 14% using it. Half of Latino Americans are at least comfortable with other people using it, but many have argued strongly against it.
“Latinx” attempts to be more representative not only of women, but also those who do not identify themselves along the traditional gender binary. But again, that’s not what the vast majority of Spanish speakers use. This doesn’t inherently reflect how people not identifying as men are thought of among Latinos, who overall are quite accepting of transgender people. Actually, when asked their preference between Latino, Latinx, Hispanic or something else, the majority of U.S. adults of such origin said that they prefer Hispanic, which is non-gendered.
For these reasons, it’s probably better for us to give the benefit of the doubt to Spanish gender rules. Until the Spanish-speaking world at large decides to change them, we should just follow them the way they are now and use “Latino” instead of “Latinx.”