3 ms·

I really don't see this as something worth making a fuss about. Languages change all the time based on how people use them in the real world. Concepts and ideas

I really don't see this as something worth making a fuss about. Languages change all the time based on how people use them in the real world. Concepts and ideas that did not exist 100 years ago do exist today, and the language evolves to express those. Given Spanish is spoken as a first language by hundreds of millions of people in tens of countries around the world, I don't think it should be seen as a problem that some of those Spanish-speaking people are finding new ways to express an experience that perhaps other Spanish-speaking people don't find relevant to them. There are 40 million native Spanish speakers in the United States, and millions more who speak it as a second language. At least some proportion of those consider themselves non-binary, and would like to have a term that explicitly recognizes that identity. (Note that your suggestion of "Latinos y Latinas" does not explicitly include non-binary identities.) I don't think it really matters if "Latinx" is a word that was developed in the United States by people who live there. It might be a bit crass to refer to people across the entirety of Latin America using that term, but I don't see anybody doing that. As far as appropriation goes: just like Spanish, the English language is evolving too. Sometimes we adopt foreign terms into English, and often we bastardize them, and that's not considered especially remarkable. We took "diva" from Italian and use it for both female and male "divi". I don't think that's cultural appropriation. To be clear, I am not an American, so I am sympathetic to your view that American politics and culture tends to push itself into other countries. Here on HN that happens a lot. But I don't think this particular term is something worth worrying about. The way I see it there are many worse things Americans could be doing than creating a new word that people there have a use for.

mastazi 5y ago
> I really don't see this as something worth making a fuss about. I see it as a problem when it's used to identify a minority that overwhelmingly rejects this term as it's been noted elsewhere in this thread. That's something that is usually true of racial slurs. Of course, I'm not saying that Latinx is a racial slur, but that it shares this characteristic with racial slurs. > Languages change all the time based on how people use them in the real world. Of course, but that doesn't justify forcing terms onto minorities. > Note that your suggestion of "Latinos y Latinas" does not explicitly include non-binary identities. I think it does, because in Spanish, Italian and similar languages the masculine grammatical gender is also used for plurals where the grammatical gender is indeterminate (it's used as a substitute of the neutral gender, due to the fact that we don't have the neutral gender in our grammar)[1]. That is why I fail to see how someone who is a native speaker of those languages, and is familiar with the grammar, would find that definition non-inclusive. Unless they were projecting a way of thinking that is typical of the English language (where grammatical gender = gender identity) onto that other language. > As far as appropriation goes: just like Spanish, the English language is evolving too. Sometimes we adopt foreign terms into English, and often we bastardize them, and that's not considered especially remarkable. We took "diva" from Italian and use it for both female and male "divi". I don't think that's cultural appropriation. Yes of course you are right. But people don't use "diva" exclusively to refer to people of Italian descent - so it's not the same as "Latinx", which is being used to define a minority - which overwhelmingly rejects that term apparently. Speaking of Italian words assimilated into the English language - my personal pet peeve is English speaking people saying "Bravo!" at the end of an exhibition, even if the performer is not a woman ("bravo" is masculine). > I am sympathetic to your view that American politics and culture tends to push itself into other countries. Here on HN that happens a lot. Yes, sometimes in HN discussions it's considered as a given that they are talking about the USA and I often interject and ask "in what country?" I'm like the "internationalist police" of this forum ahah :-D [1] An example would be: "Tutti gli italiani, uomini e donne, dovrebbero vaccinarsi" - "All Italians, men and women, should get the vaccine" - "Italiani" is grammatically masculine but it's being used as a neutral here. To an external observer this might seem masculinist, or you might see it the other way around (the masculine grammatical gender ends up being de-emphasised because it's often used for non-masculine nouns).
- alisonatwork 5y ago
  I am not sure where the evidence is that people "overwhelmingly reject" the term, or that anyone classifies it as a racial slur. The Pew study that is commonly cited[0] makes it clear that 76% of Latino or Hispanic identifying people have not even heard of the term. Only 3% use it, increasing to 7% amongst younger people (18-29) and 14% among young women. The study also notes that most people of that background prefer to be called Hispanic, which makes sense because Hispanic is an older term in the first place, and it is also the term used in US government documents like the census. Of the 23% who have heard of the term, only 12% "disagree or dislike" it, with a far greater number understanding that it is useful as a gender-neutral or LGBTQ-inclusive term. This really is not the kind of big deal that some people are making it out to be. This has all happened before, of course. For example, in the 70s some American women started to refer to themselves as "womyn". The term grew popular amongst some groups, and it's listed in the dictionary, but it never really caught on. Around the same time some American activists decided to take an actual slur - queer - and reclaim that as a term to describe everyone under the LGBTQ+ umbrella. Plenty of Ls and Gs and Bs and Ts were not happy about that, but eventually the term stuck, and now most people in that group would probably accept the fact that "queer" is a valid umbrella term, even if amongst themselves they still use a more specific or more old-fashioned terminology. I see "Latinx" as just another one of these linguistic trends. Maybe it will catch on, maybe it won't. For now, it's pretty well-established in HR departments of big American tech companies, so if you work in tech and you're talking about HR... Then it makes sense to use the term. In other contexts, well that's up to you. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/ https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in...
  - mastazi 5y ago
    Yes I agree with you I guess we will see whether it will catch on or not. It just seems to me like a term made by an elite and then forced upon everyone else, rather than a term that grew in usage organically, from the bottom up. But maybe I'm wrong.

mastazi 5y ago

> I really don't see this as something worth making a fuss about. I see it as a problem when it's used to identify a minority that overwhelmingly rejects this term as it's been noted elsewhere in this thread. That's something that is usually true of racial slurs. Of course, I'm not saying that Latinx is a racial slur, but that it shares this characteristic with racial slurs. > Languages change all the time based on how people use them in the real world. Of course, but that doesn't justify forcing terms onto minorities. > Note that your suggestion of "Latinos y Latinas" does not explicitly include non-binary identities. I think it does, because in Spanish, Italian and similar languages the masculine grammatical gender is also used for plurals where the grammatical gender is indeterminate (it's used as a substitute of the neutral gender, due to the fact that we don't have the neutral gender in our grammar)[1]. That is why I fail to see how someone who is a native speaker of those languages, and is familiar with the grammar, would find that definition non-inclusive. Unless they were projecting a way of thinking that is typical of the English language (where grammatical gender = gender identity) onto that other language. > As far as appropriation goes: just like Spanish, the English language is evolving too. Sometimes we adopt foreign terms into English, and often we bastardize them, and that's not considered especially remarkable. We took "diva" from Italian and use it for both female and male "divi". I don't think that's cultural appropriation. Yes of course you are right. But people don't use "diva" exclusively to refer to people of Italian descent - so it's not the same as "Latinx", which is being used to define a minority - which overwhelmingly rejects that term apparently. Speaking of Italian words assimilated into the English language - my personal pet peeve is English speaking people saying "Bravo!" at the end of an exhibition, even if the performer is not a woman ("bravo" is masculine). > I am sympathetic to your view that American politics and culture tends to push itself into other countries. Here on HN that happens a lot. Yes, sometimes in HN discussions it's considered as a given that they are talking about the USA and I often interject and ask "in what country?" I'm like the "internationalist police" of this forum ahah :-D [1] An example would be: "Tutti gli italiani, uomini e donne, dovrebbero vaccinarsi" - "All Italians, men and women, should get the vaccine" - "Italiani" is grammatically masculine but it's being used as a neutral here. To an external observer this might seem masculinist, or you might see it the other way around (the masculine grammatical gender ends up being de-emphasised because it's often used for non-masculine nouns).

alisonatwork 5y ago
I am not sure where the evidence is that people "overwhelmingly reject" the term, or that anyone classifies it as a racial slur. The Pew study that is commonly cited[0] makes it clear that 76% of Latino or Hispanic identifying people have not even heard of the term. Only 3% use it, increasing to 7% amongst younger people (18-29) and 14% among young women. The study also notes that most people of that background prefer to be called Hispanic, which makes sense because Hispanic is an older term in the first place, and it is also the term used in US government documents like the census. Of the 23% who have heard of the term, only 12% "disagree or dislike" it, with a far greater number understanding that it is useful as a gender-neutral or LGBTQ-inclusive term. This really is not the kind of big deal that some people are making it out to be. This has all happened before, of course. For example, in the 70s some American women started to refer to themselves as "womyn". The term grew popular amongst some groups, and it's listed in the dictionary, but it never really caught on. Around the same time some American activists decided to take an actual slur - queer - and reclaim that as a term to describe everyone under the LGBTQ+ umbrella. Plenty of Ls and Gs and Bs and Ts were not happy about that, but eventually the term stuck, and now most people in that group would probably accept the fact that "queer" is a valid umbrella term, even if amongst themselves they still use a more specific or more old-fashioned terminology. I see "Latinx" as just another one of these linguistic trends. Maybe it will catch on, maybe it won't. For now, it's pretty well-established in HR departments of big American tech companies, so if you work in tech and you're talking about HR... Then it makes sense to use the term. In other contexts, well that's up to you. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/ https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in...
- mastazi 5y ago
  Yes I agree with you I guess we will see whether it will catch on or not. It just seems to me like a term made by an elite and then forced upon everyone else, rather than a term that grew in usage organically, from the bottom up. But maybe I'm wrong.